PDA

View Full Version : Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial



Pages : [1] 2

echidna
08-07-2003, 07:09 AM
I'd really like to know the thoughts of some americans on this issue,
i had believed that the USA prided itself on the superiority of it's legal system, there are enough television programs exported from the USA about american courts, lawyers and police. are they fictions about fictions
what do americans think about the treatment of the prisoners at guantanamo? why do you think that the USA can do this? why was the US citizen afforded special treatment compared to the other prisoners? why have no charges been laid? why is legal advise being with-held? why are these people prevented from speaking to their families?

Originally posted by http://sydney.indymedia.org/
Australian David Hicks has been imprisoned in the Guantanamo Gulag for nearly two years. David was accused by the US military of helping the Taliban during the Afghanistan war.

His father Terry Hicks recently went to the US to plead for David to be given some kind of civil trial like John Walker Lindh had. According to Terry, David was trying to escape Afghanistan at the time of his arrest, and he is not a member of the Taliban. Terry was recently on the Democracy Now TV show on FSTV in New York.

David has been denied the basic human right of a fair trial, and is being treated much like prisoners were in the old Soviet system, and prisoners in Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship. He has been interrogated regularly, and he is not allowed any phone calls from his family, or his attorney.

The Center For Constitutional Rights, and Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-110703-action-eng) have taken up his case (click on the AI url to email the US State Department). According to CCR President Michael Raftner, after 19 months Hicks still has no attorney, no access to his family and no charges against him,.... CCR believes that if the US government has evidence that Hicks participated in terrorist activities, they should charge him in a regularly constituted court with other foreign nationals.

It is clear to all of us involved in this case, that the prosecution of David Hicks is more of a political prosecution than a criminal one.

It remains to be seen what happens to David Hicks. What is known is that this Australian citizen could face the death penalty for simply being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Hopefully, David will be able to have his attorneys present his case, so that his side of this shameful violation of human rights will at least be known to the public prior to his sentencing, or possible execution.
further info about David Hicks @ http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

if these people have committed crimes why are they not charged and tried? without due process isn't this just state kidnapping?
i cannot see how they are not P.O.Ws, and as such the USA is flaunting the geneva convention
i am sure that the USA wouldn't tolerate US citizens being treated in a similar manner
it seems the rest of us are sub-human, for not being american, and as such we can be treated however americans want

so americans, do you want this? why? and why is it OK?

SodiumChloride
08-07-2003, 07:31 AM
It all boils down to the fact that they are war criminals, not domestic criminals. Also, the paradigm of a superpower is that we do every thing right, just, and good, but when something which people don't like happens, it counts doubly against us.

In Iraq after we won the war we were expected to get in, set up/repair a ton of infastructure, give the Iraqis a free government, and give the oil back to them all in a matter of weeks. The US, as the great superpower, was expected to do all of that within weeks. When that unrealistic expectation wasn't fulfilled in expedience, people started getting frustrated.

The point im trying to make is when something "bad", like the Guantanamo Bay fiasco, happens to a "good" nation, people point fingers and subconciously say "HA! They think they're so good and just and powerful!" Even a miracle needs a hand, and nobody's perfect.

DarkBlizzard
08-07-2003, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by echidna+7 August 2003 - 02:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 7 August 2003 - 02:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I&#39;d really like to know the thoughts of some americans on this issue,
i had believed that the USA prided itself on the superiority of it&#39;s legal system, there are enough television programs exported from the USA about american courts, lawyers and police. are they fictions about fictions
what do americans think about the treatment of the prisoners at guantanamo? why do you think that the USA can do this? why was the US citizen afforded special treatment compared to the other prisoners? why have no charges been laid? why is legal advise being with-held? why are these people prevented from speaking to their families?
<!--QuoteBegin-http://sydney.indymedia.org/
Australian David Hicks has been imprisoned in the Guantanamo Gulag for nearly two years. David was accused by the US military of helping the Taliban during the Afghanistan war.

His father Terry Hicks recently went to the US to plead for David to be given some kind of civil trial like John Walker Lindh had. According to Terry, David was trying to escape Afghanistan at the time of his arrest, and he is not a member of the Taliban. Terry was recently on the Democracy Now TV show on FSTV in New York.

David has been denied the basic human right of a fair trial, and is being treated much like prisoners were in the old Soviet system, and prisoners in Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship. He has been interrogated regularly, and he is not allowed any phone calls from his family, or his attorney.

The Center For Constitutional Rights, and Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-110703-action-eng) have taken up his case (click on the AI url to email the US State Department). According to CCR President Michael Raftner, after 19 months Hicks still has no attorney, no access to his family and no charges against him,.... CCR believes that if the US government has evidence that Hicks participated in terrorist activities, they should charge him in a regularly constituted court with other foreign nationals.

It is clear to all of us involved in this case, that the prosecution of David Hicks is more of a political prosecution than a criminal one.

It remains to be seen what happens to David Hicks. What is known is that this Australian citizen could face the death penalty for simply being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Hopefully, David will be able to have his attorneys present his case, so that his side of this shameful violation of human rights will at least be known to the public prior to his sentencing, or possible execution.
further info about David Hicks @ http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

if these people have committed crimes why are they not charged and tried? without due process isn&#39;t this just state kidnapping?
i cannot see how they are not P.O.Ws, and as such the USA is flaunting the geneva convention
i am sure that the USA wouldn&#39;t tolerate US citizens being treated in a similar manner
it seems the rest of us are sub-human, for not being american, and as such we can be treated however americans want

so americans, do you want this? why? and why is it OK? [/b][/quote]
dude i dont care how they treat them...they are terrorists.....they can all die....And....

If you not American then its not ur problem is bug off.

3rd gen noob
08-07-2003, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by SodiumChloride@7 August 2003 - 08:31
It all boils down to the fact that they are war criminals, not domestic criminals.
suspected war criminals, i think you mean

<_<

at the end of the day, the treatment is hugely unfair and against human rights

3rd gen noob
08-07-2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@7 August 2003 - 08:36
dude i dont care how they treat them...they are terrorists.....they can all die....And....

If you not American then its not ur problem is bug off.
very compassionate there... <_<

also, how the fuck can you say that international terrorism is only america&#39;s problem?
are you intentionally stupid?

echidna
08-07-2003, 08:05 AM
SodiumChloride & DarkBlizzard you&#39;re making the nazi&#39;s sound reasonable and humane - if you want to foster more anti-american attitudes, you&#39;re going the right way.

you claim that these people are terrorists yet there is no evidence of this
can you substantiate any of your accusations? [since your government won&#39;t i doubt that you can]

you seem comfortable that in cases of the US governments choosing the accused is guilty until proven Innocent

SodiumChloride
08-07-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by echidna@7 August 2003 - 01:05
SodiumChloride & DarkBlizzard you&#39;re making the nazi&#39;s sound reasonable and humane
Except for the fact that the nazis killed 6 million jews and the americans imprisoned a few hundred suspected terrorists - they just happen to be arabs because Afghanistan is where the war was fought

3rd gen noob
08-07-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by SodiumChloride@7 August 2003 - 09:37
Except for the fact that the nazis killed 6 million jews and the americans imprisoned a few hundred suspected terrorists - they just happen to be arabs because Afghanistan is where the war was fought
seriously, shut up

it&#39;s not the number of people who&#39;s rights are breached, it&#39;s the fact that it happens in the first place...

edit: i&#39;m not in any way saying that the american&#39;s are as bad as hitler was, i&#39;m only saying that the actions of each of them break human rights

Barbarossa
08-07-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+7 August 2003 - 07:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 7 August 2003 - 07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SodiumChloride@7 August 2003 - 08:31
It all boils down to the fact that they are war criminals, not domestic criminals.
suspected war criminals, i think you mean

<_<

at the end of the day, the treatment is hugely unfair and against human rights [/b][/quote]
Isn&#39;t the problem that the US doesn&#39;t class them as war criminals, because they were not fighting on behalf of a sovereign state, in which case they are classed as nothing, which is why they can get away with not following the Geneva Convention in their treatment?

Perhaps someone can clarify their status for me, &#39;cos I&#39;m confused.

Rat Faced
08-07-2003, 09:21 AM
Some people had a grudge against some people and said "That person works with the Taliban"...so they get arrested.


As they werent caught fighting anyone, they arent POWs.


The analogy that comes to mind is rather old...

That old womans a witch...

...Does she sink or float.

MagicNakor
08-07-2003, 09:34 AM
I don&#39;t believe they&#39;ve been charged with anything, so it&#39;s rather difficult to label them as "war criminals."

The sink/float test is a crude way of detecting a demon&#39;s tart. Everyone knows that they&#39;re marked with spots of different skin pigmentation or a mole. Read your Malleus Maleficarum, RF. ;)

:ninja:

3rd gen noob
08-07-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@7 August 2003 - 10:34
Everyone knows that they&#39;re marked with spots of different skin pigmentation or a mole. Read your Malleus Maleficarum, RF. ;)

:ninja:
i thought everyone knew they didn&#39;t exist...:P

gaz_k
08-07-2003, 10:11 AM
If it is land of the free.

how cum u lot cant drink lager n that till your 21
cant smoke in public
drop litter
have sex till 18 (i think, could be wrong)
use drugs


if you were free, then you could do these things, you can in toher countries


n why does madonna go on about her living the american dream when she lives in london?

just what is the american dream?

evilbagpuss
08-09-2003, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard
If you not American then its not ur problem is bug off.

education be US not system used The what is it to.

On a more serious note...

This is all about revenge for 9/11. The crowd wants blood and Emperor Bush is going to give them what they want. Whether the prisoners are innocent or not is irrelevant because the objective of this exercise has nothing to do with justice.

There are many SodiumChloride & DarkBlizzard types out there. They want their pound of flesh and there bloodlust must be satisfied. Its as simple as that.

echidna
08-11-2003, 08:32 AM
so is the situation that there is a very large and powerful posse reaping revenge, and it is too large and powerful for fair minded folk to safely criticise? i had thought that most of america was revolted by the phenomenon of the lynch-mob, yet it seems that the mob&#39;s baying for blood is the reasoning for this departure from &#39;due proccess&#39;?
as i set out above, the USA seems to be very proud of it&#39;s judicial proccess, yet it seems to hold similar pride in the studious lack of aplication of this process to the detained people at guantanamo

Originally posted by http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-110703-background_2-eng
More than 650 people from some 40 countries are being held without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay.

Most of the detainees have been held for more than a year in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They have not had access to any court, to legal counsel, or visits from relatives. They have been subject to repeated interrogations and confinement to small cells for up to 24 hours a day with minimal opportunity for exercise. Several have attempted suicide.

when the primary responses are that these people are guilty without any trial and that they deserve to die [so who cares how they&#39;ll be treated], i fear for what else could be sold to the USA&#39;s people, doesn&#39;t this worry anyone else?

j2k4
08-12-2003, 02:46 PM
We&#39;ve been through all this before.

Military detention, or rather, detention in a military facility, is different than stateside, civilian detention.

Different rules, legal access, etc., more room for expedience from the authority side-

As I said, this has been discussed ad nauseum; go to search, type in "Guantanamo", and commence reading-it&#39;s all there.

echidna
08-13-2003, 04:47 AM
The difference is obvious, why it is apropriate is not.
My understanding of military detention is that the detainees are generally POWs and subject to the geneva conventions on the rules of war.
It has been seen that the USA doesn&#39;t like to adhere to these rules while expecting others to abide by them, but what are the reasons that this double standard is justified?

searching for &#39;guantanamo&#39; provides a list of topics which doesn&#39;t constitute an exhaustive discussion of the issue &#39;ad nauseum&#39;, more a discussion of the issue in it&#39;s relation to other discussions with the exception of the amnesty international thread (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=38785&post=283508) which dealt with the issue broadly.

Anyway the situation continues that the USA has prisoners which it is keeping in a legal limbo without the proccesses afforded to either criminals (aleged and proven) and POWs.

Considering the &#39;moral high-ground&#39; which the USA maintains is it&#39;s position, this continued maintanence of a legal no mans land must be seen to seriously erode that position [placing the USA closer and closer to the positions of worse states like North Korea, Myanma, Zimbabwe, Israel, Angola, China to name a few]
Rat Faced poits this out very clearly in his last post in the amnesty thread (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=38785)

j2k4
08-13-2003, 05:43 AM
Let us backtrack then to the whining of Amnesty International, which organization bemoans the treatment of the detainees at Gitmo, while ignoring the outrages taking place "over the fence"?

Or has Cuba escaped notice or inclusion among such as the U.S., Israel, et.al., because they have ratified, which seems to be the aim, rather than actually addressing human rights violations?

Is it the case, as always, that lip service continues to trump actual deeds?

Or does that only work for Communist dictators?

PUHLEEEEEEEZE&#33;

Read the roster of membership for the U.N. Human-Rights Council, then tell me how fucked-up America and it&#39;s treatment of Gitmo detainees is.

lynx
08-14-2003, 09:10 AM
Do we hear AI supporting human rights violators? No.

Do we hear the other human rights violators saying &#39;look, we are the good guys&#39;? No, I don&#39;t think so, or at least if they do, no-one believes them. So why should we believe the US?

Rather than trying to divert attention from the wrongdoings of the US by pointing at equally deplorable acts of others, perhaps one of it&#39;s supporters could give us reasons why they think the US should descend to the level it criticises in these others. I would love to hear this reasoned argument in favour of human rights violations.

j2k4
08-14-2003, 01:30 PM
I am sure no circumstance, including suspician of terrorist activity, would prove sufficient to warrant or justify any special/exceptional/extraordinary treatment of the Gitmo detainees to the U.S.&#39;s critics.

I&#39;m a bit tired of being subject to the "sensibilities" of others on this subject, and other than due-process complaints (typical when comparing civilian/military detention), these people are not being starved or tortured, I don&#39;t think, but that is also a problem:

Nobody believes what the U.S. says about their treatment.

Everybody assumes we are Saddam incarnate, behind closed doors, for which misperception there is no solution.

lynx
08-14-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@14 August 2003 - 14:30
I am sure no circumstance, including suspician of terrorist activity, would prove sufficient to warrant or justify any special/exceptional/extraordinary treatment of the Gitmo detainees to the U.S.&#39;s critics.

I&#39;m a bit tired of being subject to the "sensibilities" of others on this subject, and other than due-process complaints (typical when comparing civilian/military detention), these people are not being starved or tortured, I don&#39;t think, but that is also a problem:

Nobody believes what the U.S. says about their treatment.

Everybody assumes we are Saddam incarnate, behind closed doors, for which misperception there is no solution.
Just another non-answer I&#39;m afraid.

j2k4
08-15-2003, 12:27 AM
Lynx-

I&#39;m a bit baffled as to what might constitute an answer-I&#39;ll check back later when I have more time.

j2k4
08-15-2003, 01:02 PM
I have re-examined the question of those being detained at Guantanamo.

The only firm and consistent claim I hear or see is of imprisonment without trial, but I don&#39;t believe the right to a speedy trial extends to military detainees; that is a civilian right.

Although there has been some hair-splitting about P.O.W./non-P.O.W./enemy combatant status, that is a relative non-issue, as all detainees are being treated humanely (per U.S. State Dept.):

-three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws
-water
-medical care
-clothing and shoes
-shelter
-showers
-soap and toilet articles
-foam sleeping pads and blankets
-towels and washcloths
-the opportunity to worship
-correspondence materials and the means to send mail
-the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening

To those who would require the media be allowed to verify the treatment of the detainees:

Media "visits" to military detention centers are not "par for the course"; they would not be allowed by any nation under these circumstances.

Detainees are slowly being released as time passes; those who remain are judged to be of further use to the investigatory process or are deemed to literally be too dangerous to release.

It is entirely possible, I suppose, that some of them may die of old age before they get out; such is the case in war.

One exceptional circumstance should be pointed out, here:

In a more "usual" situation (i.e., a declared war with another country) the release of the detainees (whatever their status) would coincide with the end of hostilities and the signing of a cease-fire or peace agreement.

The war on terror will not be over at any arbitrary point in time, as with the capture or death of Osama bin Laden; the nature of the Arab-based terror organizations (specifically Al Qaeda) is such that they don&#39;t "sign" non-aggression pacts, cease-fires, or anything else.

Who does a multi-faceted organization such as Al Qaeda empower to speak for them in "diplomatic" matters?

We see the worth of dealing/negotiating with terrorists in the latest incidents arising in Israel.

The war on terrorism will, I think, be over when the U.S. deems it so, absent extraordinary developments.

I must note that I personally don&#39;t have a problem with the situation in Guantanamo; I believe the continued detention of these people is justified for the above-stated reasons.

I&#39;m sure that will do wonders for the members&#39; opinion of me; so be it.

I&#39;m used to people disagreeing with me here.

lynx
08-15-2003, 04:13 PM
It was not my intention that it should necessarily be you, j2, who should answer my challenge to justify the US position, indeed I phrased my post very carefully in the hope that someone else would take it up, but alas this did not happen and we find ourselves in opposition once again.


Although there has been some hair-splitting about P.O.W./non-P.O.W./enemy combatant status, that is a relative non-issue
It is on this very point that the rest of your argument hangs, and is the precise bone of contention between the US and the rest of the world.

If these abducted persons (and without due process that is exactly what they are) were allowed POW status, any trials against them would have to be conducted in open court. But because of their imposed status it is quite possible that some of them may face a lifetime in captivity or even the death penalty without recourse to independant representation and without any reasons being given to anyone outside military circles.

Detainees are slowly being released as time passes; those who remain are judged to be of further use to the investigatory process or are deemed to literally be too dangerous to release.
As far as I am aware, the only ones who have been released so far are those who were physically incapable of committing the acts of which they were accused. And yet it must have been obvious at the time of their detention that they were wrongly accused, so the judgement of those who imprisoned them is called into question. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there will be a number of other wrongly accused persons, yet they are denied legal representation.

It is entirely possible, I suppose, that some of them may die of old age before they get out; such is the case in war
In a more "usual" situation (i.e., a declared war with another country) the release of the detainees (whatever their status) would coincide with the end of hostilities and the signing of a cease-fire or peace agreement.
Surely, the whole point of the war in Afghanistan is that it was against the Taliban who, rightly or wrongly, were the ruling faction up until that time. Is the US now to be the sole arbiter of which wars are proper wars and which the fight against terrorism? There were quite a number of other countries involved in the conflict there, how is it that none of them decided it was necessary to round up all these people?

You may well be right that some of the people detained at Guantanamo Bay should be held for a long time to come, but perhaps you should also ask yourself why they are being held outside US jurisdiction. Could it be that the military (and presidential) authorities are worried what your own courts would have to say about their actions?

And although the detention of some may prove to be valid, I for one can never subscribe to the dictum that the end justifies the means. Put yourself in the shoes of the families of those held, some of whom will be innocent, others who if given a reasonable trial and found guilty would by now have been released. Imagine if a number of US citizens were held in such a way, there would be arguments in the UN for sanctions against the country responsible, attempts to break them free, etc. How do we know this would happen? Because that&#39;s exactly what happened in Tehran, then under what the US described as a terrorist government.

We can only assume that since the US government is acting in the same manner, that the US is now being run by a terrorist government.

Rat Faced
08-15-2003, 07:40 PM
To add to the above and in j2k4&#39;s own words.

The war against the "Taliban" is over, so all those arrested for being part of/fighting for the Taliban should be released.

That leaves the Al Queda members.

On the basis of that, we&#39;d release about 75% of the captives.

We can argue about the other 25% another day.....

j2k4
08-16-2003, 03:39 AM
It seems that the "enemy combatants" detained for aiding the efforts of the Taliban (who worked hand in glove with Al Qaeda) have relevant knowledge of the terrorist Al Qaeda organization (which we still need) and would likely find themselves in the service of their Al Qaeda brethren in the event they were released (as the Taliban has been more-or-less vanquished) because to do so would suit their inclination, for that is what they do-the Taliban was a repressive, terrorist government.

These are not school teachers, accountants and filling-station attendents-they amuse and indulge themselves by oppressing others.

It seems the overwhelming sentiment here is to release them, much as a fisherman would practice a "catch and release" philosophy; to inject "sportsmanship" into his activities.

Do those who express this sentiment think these people look forward to self-rehabilitation so as to become productive citizens?

The U.S. declared WAR on terrorism; in a war one does not seek to replenish the enemy&#39;s manpower.

Biggles
08-16-2003, 01:01 PM
I think it is unlikely that any further relevant imformation will be extracted from the prisoners.

The majority of those held may well be dedicated Taliban members and seek to work against the Kabul government (if it can be called that - city council might be more apt) in some capacity - perhaps poltically rather than militarily. Ultimately the people of that country will decide themselves who is in charge - they may well turn once again to the Mullahs as they did before - it is their freedom to make that choice.

The drug barons that have re-established their fiefdoms since the fall of the Taliban have ensured that heroin is once more flowing into the West in huge quantities. The trouble is, there appears to be little alternative to these criminals in a backward tribal country that hates foreigners.

Those that were non-Afghan AQ members should be detained or agreement sought for their trial in their countries of origin. Those that were Afghan Taliban should be returned. The latter were never interested in anything that happened outside their own borders and were no danger to the West (unlike the criminals we have installed in their place).

Maintaining a concentration camp away from the US mainland does little for the US&#39;s image in a world where many are only border line supporters of Washington&#39;s aims and it may actually have a greater negative impact through serving as a recruiting sergeant in the ME.

However, I am sure GW doesn&#39;t want or need my opinion. :)

lynx
08-16-2003, 01:38 PM
So we are to be offered no insight into why they are being held outside US jurisdiction.

I&#39;m sure you know the reasons, j2k4, surely you merely have to ask the same source who told you that they "have relevant knowledge of the terrorist Al Qaeda organization".

I think you will find that the overwhelming sentiment is that any who are innocent should be released, and that the others should receive a fair and open trial, something which the US government seems unwilling to grant them.

MagicNakor
08-16-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 August 2003 - 04:39
...The U.S. declared WAR on terrorism; in a war one does not seek to replenish the enemy&#39;s manpower.
This is a ridiculous statement (and I&#39;m well aware you aren&#39;t the originating source, j2 ;)). Declaring war on an abstract principle seems asinine to me, even though I do think that they&#39;ve been getting a bit uppity of late.

How&#39;s the war on drugs coming, boys?

:ninja:

imnotanaddict
08-16-2003, 06:52 PM
If it is land of the free.

how cum u lot cant drink lager n that till your 21
cant smoke in public
drop litter
have sex till 18 (i think, could be wrong)
use drugs


if you were free, then you could do these things, you can in toher countries


n why does madonna go on about her living the american dream when she lives in london?

just what is the american dream

how cum u lot cant drink lager n that till your 21
This is (or was) a state law, up until several years ago in certain states the legal age to buy and drink alcohol beverages was 18.

cant smoke in public
As far as I know there are no laws (enforced anyway) in which anyone cannot
smoke outdoors. There are buildings which may be (smokeless) and certain areas
of others where smoking is prohibited. Restaurants with smoking areas and no
smoking areas. A free country in this sense is protecting the right of those who
wish not to breath in second hand smoke/or allergies or find it offensive.

drop litter
If we didnt have this Law we wouldnt be able to drive through the disposable
diaper strown streets. And what ever else garbage people could think of.

have sex till 18 (i think, could be wrong)
This Is also a state law and I beleive fluctuates somewhat. I know in certain states
with the signature of paarent you can wed. at 16.
Also this may be another one of those crazy laws but not enforced.

use drugs
You can auctually do drugs legally-but you need a prescription for it-
and not operate a moving vehicle.


If it is land of the free.
"The land of the free" is a term not to be taken litterally.
We as americans are free in the sense that we are not going to be persecuted
for our religous beliefs.
We are free in the sense that we are not bound to slavery.
We are free in the sense that we get to vote for our leaders.
But "land of the free" has state and federal laws that we are suppose to follow.
We can&#39;t murder, steal or sell drugs without breaking laws. Laws are made to
protect other peoples rights and freedoms.

just what is the american dream
The american dream is a myth. Some people may find the accomplish what they set out to do in life and to them thats fulfilling the american dream.

America is by no means perfect or even close. But its the lesser evil of many other
places.

Rat Faced
08-18-2003, 03:20 PM
Well said iamnotanaddict.

Which brings us back to "Define Anti-American"......... 50+ different cultures is a lot of "anti"......

lynx
08-18-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@18 August 2003 - 16:20
Well said iamnotanaddict.

Which brings us back to "Define Anti-American"......... 50+ different cultures is a lot of "anti"......
We&#39;d better get started then.

Who want&#39;s to go first ? ;)

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by lynx
Who want&#39;s to go first ?&nbsp;

I&#39;ll have a go :)

From my experience it usually involves telling the truth about the USA&#39;s past actions and/or going against US foreign policy. Just because these things are directly relevant to the topic at hand/whats happening in the world today is no excuse.

Criticising the ludicrous anti-French sentiment that appears to be so popular in the US and explaining why its completely hypocritical is also Anti-American.

Funnily enough Anti-Americanism doesnt seem to involve hatred or bigotry.

I think that just about covers it.

j2k4
08-19-2003, 04:14 PM
I&#39;ll have a go

From my experience it usually involves telling the truth about the USA&#39;s past actions and/or going against US foreign policy.

Whose truth? Yours or mine? They would, necessarily, be different. I think it would be more correct to state your opinion rather than attempt to claim unassailable truth.

U.S. foreign policy has been far from perfect. This does not preclude us from acting abroad; it should, though, advise us in current matters, and in the future.

Just because these things are directly relevant to the topic at hand/whats happening in the world today is no excuse.

They are relevant; in these ways:

1 As I noted above, they advise us as to future actions in the arena of foreign policy.

2 They serve as cannon-fodder for our critics.

EBP-what do you mean by, "....is no excuse"? Genuinely curious about that.

Criticising the ludicrous anti-French sentiment that appears to be so popular in the US and explaining why its completely hypocritical is also Anti-American.

You mean we can&#39;t engage in that which provides so much entertainment for others? How can we be anti-French if no one is being anti-American? We can play the game, too, can&#39;t we?

Or do you just mean we shouldn&#39;t bite the hand that "freed" us?

Honestly EBP, you ought to swear off the use of the word "hypocrisy" and all it&#39;s permutations; you over-use it.

Funnily enough Anti-Americanism doesnt seem to involve hatred or bigotry.

Is this some poorly executed attempt to launder or otherwise purify the intent of your post? Another of your patented proclamations from the presumptive moral "high ground"?

If your suppositions as re: the U.S. and it&#39;s foreign policy were actually "on the mark", you wouldn&#39;t need to do this, I don&#39;t think, but if you have yourself spotted the weakness in your post, please feel free to assuage yourself any way you see fit.

I think that just about covers it.

From where you are perched, I&#39;m sure it does.

Rat Faced
08-19-2003, 04:17 PM
So, Evilbagpuss&#39; definition fails to impress.

Next?

theprisoner
08-19-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by echidna@7 August 2003 - 08:05
SodiumChloride & DarkBlizzard you&#39;re making the nazi&#39;s sound reasonable and humane - if you want to foster more anti-american attitudes, you&#39;re going the right way.

you claim that these people are terrorists yet there is no evidence of this
can you substantiate any of your accusations? [since your government won&#39;t i doubt that you can]

you seem comfortable that in cases of the US governments choosing the accused is guilty until proven Innocent
yes, there terroists(POW) and should be treated as so. Lol, humane, they would slit your throat if they got a chance. "if you want to foster more anti-american attitudes, you&#39;re going the right way", who gives a shit what you europeans think, your all on welfare in your socialist hell hole anyway. And j2k4, the french had very little to do with revoultionary war, only a blockade at the end. And the french didnt do it for the love of us, it was to screw the british.

Rat Faced
08-19-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by theprisoner+19 August 2003 - 17:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (theprisoner &#064; 19 August 2003 - 17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-echidna@7 August 2003 - 08:05
SodiumChloride & DarkBlizzard you&#39;re making the nazi&#39;s sound reasonable and humane - if you want to foster more anti-american attitudes, you&#39;re going the right way.

you claim that these people are terrorists yet there is no evidence of this
can you substantiate any of your accusations? [since your government won&#39;t i doubt that you can]

you seem comfortable that in cases of the US governments choosing the accused is guilty until proven Innocent
yes, there terroists(POW) and should be treated as so. Lol, humane, they would slit your throat if they got a chance. "if you want to foster more anti-american attitudes, you&#39;re going the right way", who gives a shit what you europeans think, your all on welfare in your socialist hell hole anyway. And j2k4, the french had very little to do with revoultionary war, only a blockade at the end. And the french didnt do it for the love of us, it was to screw the british. [/b][/quote]
"Your all on welfare in Socialist Hellhole"

Unemployment UK = 5%
US = 6.2%

Average Hourly Wage UK = &#036;18.62 (£11.73)
US = &#036;15.44 (£9.74)

Minimum Wage : UK &#036;6.67 (£4.20)
US &#036;5.15 (£3.24)

Income Tax:

UK: 10% rising to 23% (basic)
USA: 10% rising to 25% (basic)

In addition we have Universal Free Healthcare etc.....


Erm, think i&#39;ll stay in my "Socialist Hellhole" thanks.


j2k4,

Yes, I know it takes a LOT more than this to compare.....but the poster seems to be the type to not understand complex stuff ;)

Please dont take this as "anti-american", it was "anti-anti-European" :P

Neil__
08-19-2003, 07:51 PM
Anti Americanism is whatever they say it is.
America decides for itself and we have no part in the decision.

If they say your anti American then you are.

If you think that makes no sence then welcome to the club.

Neil

Biggles
08-19-2003, 10:23 PM
I am not convinced it is possible to be anti any country per se, other than in momentry fits of pique. I can&#39;t think of any country that is represented by some homogenous one size fits all identifiable culture; not even Andorra - no, not even the English and that&#39;s something coming from a Scot.

Racism is a seperate issue and I am not even going to pretend I understand that. Perhaps lack of imagination and insecurity play a part - who really knows?

So what do people mean by anti -American? Do they mean they are anti-Native American? anti Hispanic? anti Afro Caribbean?

There is not one America. The views of Chomsky are no less American than Ashcroft&#39;s, the views of Martin Luther King no less American than Nixon&#39;s. Clinton is a welcome face at most world events (recently attending Mandela&#39;s birthday bash). We all like Scrubs (well I do).

The US produces some awful food (KFC to name but one) but it also produces some fine wines. (My country makes haggis but it also makes Whiskey)

For every Back street Boy there is an REM or Linkin Park ( :rolleyes: or whatever). At the end of the day it is just another diverse country.

Admittedly the US currently has the biggest economy and along with that comes some muscle on the world scene. There has always been an element of competitiveness shown towards the leading power of the day. In the 19th century it was Britain, in the 18th it was France. So it goes back through the Empires of the Ottomans, Rome and Persia. Similar problems occurred in India and China. It will be the same for whatever power takes up the mantle next (probably China in about 50 years, but it depends on numerous factors and developing technologies).

The problem is, too much credence is given to mutterings by a few "visionaries" who see a role for the US in the 21st century as something messianic. I doubt if most of the US population has read more than a few words regarding this and probably cares even less. At most, the current administration will be there for 5 years then all will change once again.

So perhaps we should be clearer in our terms. We do not dislike America (a land mass with a diverse body of people), some simply take issue with the views of a handful of individuals who form part of the current administration (many of the US population do the same).

To identify a people or country too strongly with its rulers is a mistake. Remember, the people in charge are politicians and consequently are not technically even human.

As an aside, I think the opine comment a mistake as it does rather hamstring any suggestion you may subsequently make on matters outwith your own borders, but I appreciate it is galling to have foreigners take issue on domestic matters. The world is shrinking - we all have access to CNN and Fox if we want so it creates the illusion that everything is just over the fence.

MagicNakor
08-19-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@19 August 2003 - 23:23
...To identify a people or country too strongly with its rulers is a mistake. Remember, the people in charge are politicians and consequently are not technically even human...

So what are they? Ro-bits?

:ninja:

Biggles
08-19-2003, 10:47 PM
:D

I had something more organic in mind.

evilbagpuss
08-20-2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Whose truth? Yours or mine? They would, necessarily, be different. I think it would be more correct to state your opinion rather than attempt to claim unassailable truth[/b]

I&#39;m talking about historical facts that are agreed upon by mainstream historians. You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as objective verifiable truth?


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>U.S. foreign policy has been far from perfect. This does not preclude us from acting abroad; it should, though, advise us in current matters, and in the future[/b]

I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment but I dont recall ever having said that the US should never act abroad.


Originally posted by j2k4
EBP-what do you mean by, "....is no excuse"? Genuinely curious about that.

I mean that if the USA has done something bad that has a direct bearing on the topic at hand it is anti-american to mention it. In my experience at least.


Originally posted by j2k4
You mean we can&#39;t engage in that which provides so much entertainment for others? How can we be anti-French if no one is being anti-American? We can play the game, too, can&#39;t we?

I never claimed that no one is anti-american, merely that the term is loosely applied to anyone who questions any aspect of US foreign policy.

Also if you believe something is wrong, in this case being anti-insertCountryHere, then when you do exactly the same thing it makes you look rather hypocritical. You can of course be anti-French if you wish (e.g your &#39;green&#39; comment in another thread) but that inevitably means that when you get on your high horse about anti-americanism, it does tend to make your moral highground look a little dubious.

"Well he abused my kid so I abused his kid. Whats the problem?"

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Honestly EBP, you ought to swear off the use of the word "hypocrisy" and all it&#39;s permutations; you over-use it.[/quote]

See above and apply a little common sense to the issue. "They do nasty things to us so we can do nasty things to them" is hardly the most convincing argument.

In a nutshell.. to avoid being hypocritical yourself you must either;

a. stop complaining about anti-americanism even when its a valid complaint.

or

b. stop the ludicrous anti-French rubbish

Im afraid you cant have it both ways. What on Earth is hypocritical about that?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Is this some poorly executed attempt to launder or otherwise purify the intent of your post? Another of your patented proclamations from the presumptive moral "high ground"?[/quote]

No. See the sections beginning "I mean that if the USA " and "I never claimed that" for an answer to this.

I think the moral of this section would be akin to the boy who cried wolf.

Also my post is not &#39;impure&#39; in any sense. It&#39;s merely a mixture of common sense and stating the obvious for those who seem to determined to avoid it.

I&#39;ll assume your implying my &#39;intent&#39; is Anti-American. As usual.

j2k4
08-20-2003, 04:18 AM
QUOTE (j2k4)
Whose truth? Yours or mine? They would, necessarily, be different. I think it would be more correct to state your opinion rather than attempt to claim unassailable truth



I&#39;m talking about historical facts that are agreed upon by mainstream historians. You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as objective verifiable truth?

You almost make my point, EBP.
The whole debate, such as it is, suffers from a lack of mainstream agreement as to cause/effect/intent; hell, no one can even agree on basic facts-Yes, we dropped a nuclear weapon on Nagasaki-our reasons for doing so are still being spun by "mainstream historians"

So-to answer your question:
"Objective verifiable truth" is limited, and very much in the eye of the beholder; you and I both think we&#39;re right, don&#39;t we? THAT is what I mean when I say this.




QUOTE (j2k4)
U.S. foreign policy has been far from perfect. This does not preclude us from acting abroad; it should, though, advise us in current matters, and in the future



I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment but I dont recall ever having said that the US should never act abroad.

No, but you DO think we ought not act unless specifically instructed to do so, and within very strict parameters, by the U.N., or whatever country requires our help, in which case we should offer uncompensated mercenary services, &#39;cuz we&#39;re rich.
We should function as a "hammer" to be wielded only by others.

There-see how I "spun" your previously expressed sentiments? Its purely a matter of perception.


QUOTE (j2k4)
EBP-what do you mean by, "....is no excuse"? Genuinely curious about that.



I mean that if the USA has done something bad that has a direct bearing on the topic at hand it is anti-american to mention it. In my experience at least.

I&#39;m still puzzled by your use of the word "excuse", but never mind, its not important.
Again, though, the idea the U.S. has "done something bad" may be solely the perception of someone such as yourself; even though the U.S. is not terribly popular, this sentiment is not universally held, and it is irritating to see those who opine act as if it is.




QUOTE (j2k4)
You mean we can&#39;t engage in that which provides so much entertainment for others? How can we be anti-French if no one is being anti-American? We can play the game, too, can&#39;t we?



I never claimed that no one is anti-american, merely that the term is loosely applied to anyone who questions any aspect of US foreign policy.

I, likewise, think such terms are thrown around a bit loosely; and I do not complain as often as is perceived, about anti-Americanism.

I think you&#39;d agree, though (not to be TOO picky), that what you term a "question" is more often couched as a "criticism".

Also if you believe something is wrong, in this case being anti-insertCountryHere, then when you do exactly the same thing it makes you look rather hypocritical. You can of course be anti-French if you wish (e.g your &#39;green&#39; comment in another thread) but that inevitably means that when you get on your high horse about anti-americanism, it does tend to make your moral highground look a little dubious.

"Well he abused my kid so I abused his kid. Whats the problem?"

Can I deal with this for my own self right now, and be done with it?

I personally am not getting along with "France" (insofar as it is embodied by Jacque Chirac) right now; I expect to have a rocky relationship with "France" until he leaves office.

After that, I fully expect to once again love all things French-for the nonce, though, I shall indulge my pique.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Honestly EBP, you ought to swear off the use of the word "hypocrisy" and all it&#39;s permutations; you over-use it.



See above and apply a little common sense to the issue. "They do nasty things to us so we can do nasty things to them" is hardly the most convincing argument.

In a nutshell.. to avoid being hypocritical yourself you must either;

a. stop complaining about anti-americanism even when its a valid complaint.
b. stop the ludicrous anti-French rubbish

Im afraid you cant have it both ways. What on Earth is hypocritical about that?

Forget I said that; feel free to use the word(s) whenever and wherever you like. :)


QUOTE (j2k4)
Is this some poorly executed attempt to launder or otherwise purify the intent of your post? Another of your patented proclamations from the presumptive moral "high ground"?



No. See the sections beginning "I mean that if the USA " and "I never claimed that" for an answer to this.

I think the moral of this section would be akin to the boy who cried wolf.

There is no crying in the forum-its in the FAQ.

Also my post is not &#39;impure&#39; in any sense. It&#39;s merely a mixture of common sense and stating the obvious for those who seem to determined to avoid it.

Some would argue you have no sense, common or otherwise, nor any acquaintance with what is "obvious", EBP.

The same goes for me-remember: We debate here; we INSTRUCT at our peril.

I&#39;ll assume your implying my &#39;intent&#39; is Anti-American. As usual.

I wouldn&#39;t term you "anti-American", EBP, though, other than that comment you made about our impending involvement in Liberia, I don&#39;t recall you making any positive noises about the U.S.

You are still a contrarian, though.


Rat-

I know how to "take "you. Worry not. ;)


Biggles-

Had I known you would be posting, I would have very pointedly excluded you from my comment.

No offense intended.

lynx
08-20-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by lynx@16 August 2003 - 14:38
So we are to be offered no insight into why they are being held outside US jurisdiction.

I&#39;m sure you know the reasons, j2k4, surely you merely have to ask the same source who told you that they "have relevant knowledge of the terrorist Al Qaeda organization".

I think you will find that the overwhelming sentiment is that any who are innocent should be released, and that the others should receive a fair and open trial, something which the US government seems unwilling to grant them.
Let&#39;s get this back on topic instead of the usual &#39;anti-x&#39; diversionary tactics which always seem to crop up.

j2k4
08-20-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by lynx@20 August 2003 - 03:57
[QUOTE=lynx,16 August 2003 - 14:38] So we are to be offered no insight into why they are being held outside US jurisdiction.

Let&#39;s get this back on topic instead of the usual &#39;anti-x&#39; diversionary tactics which always seem to crop up.
Devil&#39;s advocate, here-

Why not hold them at Gitmo?

Why is a civilian trial deemed necessary?

lynx
08-20-2003, 10:32 AM
There is a term for holding someone without lawful reason.
It is called abduction and carries severe international penalties.

But since there won&#39;t be any recourse to those, some factions may well decide to take similar actions against US citizens. Don&#39;t you dare cry foul when they do.

Barbarossa
08-20-2003, 12:46 PM
I think it&#39;s a case of "guilty until proven guilty" ... :o

Neil__
08-20-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by barbarossa@20 August 2003 - 13:46
I think it's a case of "guilty until proven guilty" ... :o



Especially if you hold all the evidence.

Lynx

There is a term for holding someone without lawful reason.
It is called abduction and carries severe international penalties.

But since there won't be any recourse to those, some factions may well decide to take similar actions against US citizens. Don't you dare cry foul when they do.


Do you think America would send troops into Britain to rescue their citezens if they were held illegally in the U.K.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't.

Neil

j2k4
08-20-2003, 03:39 PM
Relative to the detainment of "unlawful combatants" (which term was coined during WWII to describe those conducting acts of sabotage against U.S. interests while using civilian garb as "cover"):

The Geneva Convention doesn&#39;t define rules, laws or other sanctions having to do with participants in terrorist activities; that is to say, the body of policy has to do with NATIONS and their minions, signatory or not.

Terrorists, having no signatory entree or ability, fall outside the convention&#39;s dictates, thus the exceptional treatment, I believe.

They are an undefined quantity re: the convention.

The extant term "unlawful combatant" comes closest to describing their activity.

Given now the apparent need for a new set of rules to deal with the problem presented by the need to prosecute terrorists, why not amend the convention? An adjunct certainly would seem a solution to the international furor over continued detention.

I&#39;m sure the U.N., in it&#39;s infinite wisdom, could whip up a nifty set of rules for dealing with the "unlawful combatants", and could count on U.S. cooperation as long as said rules consisted of more than an immediate and penalty-free re-patriation.

How about it? Give that fancy new I.C.C. something to do.

j2k4
08-20-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 08:04

Do you think America would send troops into Britain to rescue their citezens if they were held illegally in the U.K.


Neil-

Have you given any thought as to why the U.S. chose Guantanamo over, say, Rammstein AFB? ;)

Tell me what you think.

lynx
08-20-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 14:04
Do you think America would send troops into Britain to rescue their citezens if they were held illegally in the U.K.
Ah, there&#39;s the nub of the argument.

If they were held in the UK or the US (and I am assuming you mean by government forces) they would have recourse to legal redress, so there would be no need for troops to be sent, just lawyers (and you can bet there would be an army of them). But of course these people are not being held in the US.

There is only one possible explanation.

COWARDICE

The US administration is afraid of it&#39;s own courts.

Edit: realised that cowardice is yellow.

j2k4
08-20-2003, 04:00 PM
The new color of anti-Americanism is thus yellow.

Lynx-

If it were possible the U.S. recognized there existed no appropriate venue in which to deal with these exceptional (read: non-nation-sponsored; not officially, anyway) detainees, and, for the sake of securing international recognition of this fact chose their current path, what say you then?*

*I am trying to indicate my sense of a diplomatic "gap" which could be filled by a nation sufficiently and "heroically" motivated. Is there such a nation?

evilbagpuss
08-20-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by j2k4
If it were possible the U.S. recognized there existed no appropriate venue in which to deal with these exceptional (read: non-nation-sponsored; not officially, anyway) detainees, and, for the sake of securing international recognition of this fact chose their current path, what say you then?*


Are you suggesting that these men are being kept in a legal black hole with no rights whatsoever to "secure international recognition of the fact that these are... exceptional non-nation-sponsored detainees" and that there is "no appropriate venue to deal with them."?

If you are then I would say the suggestion is highly dubious.

(If you believe I&#39;ve distorted the true meaning of your words by paraphrasing your quote please feel free to clarify the true meaning.)

lynx
08-20-2003, 04:58 PM
I was expecting the &#39;anti-american&#39; tag, glad you didn&#39;t disappoint me.

The problem is not so much where they are held, except that it allows the US administration to deny them legal representation and a fair trial. The administration could have allowed them normal human rights, but has chosen not to do so. It could not have made this decision had it detained them on US soil or on a base where US law is enforcible (eg Rammstein).

Thus it is only logical to assume that the reason for detaining them at Guantanamo Bay is simply to prevent them having normal human rights.

As for your sense of a diplomatic &#39;gap&#39;, you could well be right (though I doubt whether the US administration has looked too hard). But in any case, any such nation would be bound to allow the same rights to such detainees as it&#39;s laws permit, so any such offer would automatically be rejected.

j2k4
08-20-2003, 05:52 PM
I mean to communicate that it is just possible that the U.S. might appreciate some/any nation whose view of the situation is of the "these are people who participate in, or have guilty knowledge of terrorism, and they need to be tried/processed in such a way as to extract that knowledge while concurrently penalizing them appropriately for their actions".

It seems, though, that the international community (at least as constituted on this board) wishes them to be set free with no restraints-have I got that right?

As no one is inclined to discuss alternative motivations/scenarios, I&#39;ll bow out of this discussion, as there is no place for my "oily" views among your "watery" sentiments.

In other words, I have to go to work.

Enjoy.

j2k4
08-20-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+20 August 2003 - 11:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 20 August 2003 - 11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
If it were possible the U.S. recognized there existed no appropriate venue in which to deal with these exceptional (read: non-nation-sponsored; not officially, anyway) detainees, and, for the sake of securing international recognition of this fact chose their current path, what say you then?*


Are you suggesting that these men are being kept in a legal black hole with no rights whatsoever to "secure international recognition of the fact that these are... exceptional non-nation-sponsored detainees" and that there is "no appropriate venue to deal with them."?

If you are then I would say the suggestion is highly dubious.

(If you believe I&#39;ve distorted the true meaning of your words by paraphrasing your quote please feel free to clarify the true meaning.) [/b][/quote]
No, EBP-I don&#39;t believe you&#39;ve distorted anything having to do with my views.

Lynx-

Was my appreciation of your "yellow" remark out of line?

Biggles
08-20-2003, 06:34 PM
J2K4

As with many operations, things rarely go to plan. I see the situation in Cuba as simply another example of an administration making it up on the hoof.

There will be, without doubt, terrorists in the camp who could present a clear and present danger if released. Many others will simply be senior Taliban foot soldiers with no interest in anything much beyond their tribal homeland (many may even struggle to put a pin in the map to locate where they have spent the last year or so).

The latter would almost certainly have been returned some time ago if Afghanistan were a little more stable. Unfortunately it is not, and if anything it is getting more unstable by the day. I believe close on a 100 have died in fighting this week and it is only Wednesday. Hence I think there may be a certain reluctance to process any further inmates who may simply disappear into the hills with a gun on their return.

In this sense they are more like true prisoners of war and will not be released until hostilities end. The US appears in no hurry to try them for anything in particular and is understandably far more interested in those detained who represent AQ forces rather than the Taliban. I suspect many will not be tried at the end of the day. A small number have already been returned quietly to Afghanistan and more will follow in due course, if things go to plan there (a big if I know).

With regards "unlawful combatants" I would not hold my breath waiting for a clearer definition. I believe the wording is deliberately ambigious because, at the end of the day, no country will be prepared to give up the right to conduct guerilla operations if faced with an invasion. The French, Czech, Polish (to name but a few) resistence movements were all unlawful combatants in that sense. Many were school teachers, priests etc., and had little or no military training. In contrast, the Taliban armed forces were an army (of sorts) and most of those held were captured during formal military engagements.

The base at Cuba represents an expediency, it is &#39;real politik&#39; in action. We should not be surprised at this as international relations and diplomacy are at something of a 6s and 7s and there are no easy solutions to any of the ME issues. This is why, despite hiccups on other fronts, the US has not much in the way of formal criticism from the international community on this topic. I think ultimately the camp will prove counter productive, but I am sure those in the administration can see that too and are presumably working on alternative strategies as we pontificate.

At which point it is time for me to ponder over dinner.

evilbagpuss
08-20-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>these are people who participate in, or have guilty knowledge of terrorism, and they need to be tried/processed in such a way as to extract that knowledge while concurrently penalizing them appropriately for their actions".[/b]

Doesnt that seem like the wrong way round to you? How can we be sure that they have all participated in or have guilty knowledge of terrorism before they are tried? We&#39;ve already heard about how these people were &#39;selected&#39; for detainment and it certainly wasnt via due process. Dubious allegations from even more dubious sources in a significant number of these cases. Viewed in this light its hardly surprising that no other nation is sharing this view with the US.

Taken at face value it seems like you&#39;ve just confirmed suspicions of the "guilty until proven guilty" approach that is causing so much contention.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
It seems, though, that the international community (at least as constituted on this board) wishes them to be set free with no restraints-have I got that right?
[/quote]

I dont think so. I believe the consensus is for fair trials and access to lawyers. Basic human rights, nothing more.

Dont forget that the international community is also under threat from Al-Queda et al. More so in fact considering the geography of the Western world. Europe would be much easier to attack in todays post 9/11 climate, thus &#39;we&#39; dont want possible terrorists running free with "no restraints" any more than you guys do.

lynx
08-20-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@20 August 2003 - 18:55
Lynx-

Was my appreciation of your "yellow" remark out of line?
Obviously, I should have said "The US administration is detaining prisoners in Cuba, everyone except the Americans are absolute bastards for not making sure they are released". Hmmm, somehow it doesn&#39;t seem to fit the facts does it. I&#39;m sure you would like to pin the blame on the rest of the world, and for me to argue for the immediate release of the detainees, but I&#39;m going to debate the facts, not what you would like to pretend the facts to be.


It seems, though, that the international community (at least as constituted on this board) wishes them to be set free with no restraints-have I got that right?
Nope, you&#39;ve got it wrong again. If you look at the title of the thread (have you forgotten what it was about ?) you will see that it is about imprisonment without trial. But I suspect (since you seem to avoid the issue at every turn) that it doesn&#39;t suit your purpose to discuss this.

j2k4
08-21-2003, 03:50 AM
Okay.

Let me try this:

At root, I feel we (the U.S.) should push Castro into the sea so that we might expand the boundries of Gitmo until it&#39;s borders and Cuba&#39;s are indistinguishable; then buy more chicken-wire to build the requisite outdoor cages to house as many "enemy combatants" as we can find.

We should expand the definition of "enemy combatants" until it&#39;s as loose as Maggie&#39;s box, and begin wholesale detention of all dissenters; I mean, if we don&#39;t care, lets take it up a notch, huh?

Lynx-

I do remember the topic-at the outset, you and all the others demanded a civilian solution for what the U.S. has chosen to treat as a military problem-I responded that civilian detention and military detention are not the same; military detention is much more arbitrary, and the U.S. has deemed this a necessity.

There it is-simple.

But you (and others) choose to drag the thread through all the permutations of your distaste for the general situation, and here we are.

I spent my two cents pages ago; we have regressed to this point due to your harping on the point of timely and effective legal representation. I answered the U.S. doesn&#39;t feel they are deserving of same, and you don&#39;t like it-so?

If you want a question answered, ask one.

And please, no more lectures on how I&#39;m avoiding the "issue"; package it up neatly and I will address it.

Rat Faced
08-21-2003, 02:58 PM
Then lets turn devils advocate and examine the "Miliary Tribunals" and their legality, and whether they are even getting "Military Tribunals" in the sense you are putting forward....



Current situation is..... (http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/09/2focus.cfm)

Copied/Pasted below for those that dont fancy looking themselves:

Foreign Terrorist Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2001


On December 12, 2001, Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced H.R. 3468, the Foreign Terrorist Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2001 (Act), which would authorize the president to convene military tribunals for trial outside the United States of persons who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful resident aliens, and who are apprehended in connection with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. The Act, currently pending in House of Representatives committees, would serve to codify the authority assumed by President George W. Bush in his Executive Order of November 13, 2001. The Executive Order, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism (Executive Order), authorizes the trial of suspected terrorists by military commissions. The Act provides that military tribunals would be convened only outside the United States, and preserves broad executive authority to specify the location of the tribunals, the procedures to be employed, the suspects to be tried, and the offenses with which they will be charged. The Act requires that the president transmit to Congress and to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a semi-annual report specifying such details, and further provides that the report be unclassified "to the extent possible." The Act also includes a sunset provision, terminating its authorization of military tribunals on December 31, 2005. Similar to President Bush&#39;s Executive Order, the Act pertains to individuals suspected of planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the September 11 attacks, as well as those suspected of harboring any organization or individual that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks. The Act expressly preserves the right to petition for habeas corpus, providing that "[n]othing in any military order, executive order, regulation, or other directive of the executive branch may limit the rights or privileges of any individual . . . relating to habeas corpus."

The legitimacy of trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals has been debated fervently since President Bush&#39;s November decree. The Act, if passed, would partially rectify Bush&#39;s apparent attempt to deny those convicted by a military tribunal the privilege "to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding . . . in any court of the United States," by expressly prohibiting the executive branch from limiting the constitutional writ of habeas corpus. Nevertheless, in limiting post-conviction remedies to habeas corpus, the Act passively sustains the Executive Order&#39;s denial of the right to appeal a conviction by a military tribunal to an Article III court. The Act is also silent on a variety of other limitations embodied in the Executive Order concerning the procedural rights of suspected terrorists.

The Executive Order defines suspected terrorists as those whom the president determines "there is reason to believe" are or were members of al Qaida; engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit international acts of terrorism; or knowingly harbored one or more individuals meeting such descriptions. The Act fails to define the standard of suspicion necessary to detain and try suspected terrorists in military tribunals, passively supporting the "presidential determination of a &#39;reason to believe&#39;" standard, which the Executive Order articulates. Such a standard falls outside the realm of the more familiar "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" benchmarks, and therefore lacks a basis for comparative evaluation, rendering its reliability questionable.

Additionally, although the Act requires that the president report to Congress on the procedures used in any military tribunal convened, it is silent on the broad procedural guidelines articulated in Bush&#39;s Executive Order. Specifically, the Executive Order embraces all evidence "of probative value to a reasonable person," including hearsay and evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution; it provides for a determination of guilt by a two-thirds vote, as opposed to the unanimous verdict required in U.S. jury trials; and it also provides for a two-thirds vote for sentencing, including capital sentences. Even military court martial proceedings require a three-fourths vote for a life sentence and a unanimous vote to impose the death penalty.

The Act would passively sustain guidelines provided in President Bush&#39;s Executive Order for trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals although they fail to meet international standards for criminal prosecutions. For example, Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. ratified in 1992, provides that "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention." Similarly, it asserts, "[n]o one shall be deprived of his liberty except . . . in accordance with such procedures as are established by law." The arrest and detention of individuals on the basis of President Bush&#39;s personal determination that there is "reason to believe" they are terrorists; that they planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks; or that they harbored an organization or individual that so planned, authorized, committed, or aided, may well be arbitrary. Moreover, in diverging substantially from the procedures established under U.S. federal and constitutional law, and even from those established under U.S. military law for courts martial, the procedures set forth in Bush&#39;s Executive Order violate the ICCPR.

In defense of military tribunals, President Bush has asserted that those who would be tried in such courts are "unlawful combatants who seek to destroy our country and our way of life." Indeed, unlawful combatants, in contrast to prisoners of war, lack due process protections under the Geneva Conventions, which govern the laws of war. International treaties, such as the ICCPR, however, are not specific to certain persons, but rather protect the fundamental human rights of all persons. Moreover, the classification of detainees as unlawful combatants, and not prisoners of war, is a legal determination governed by the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1). In particular, Article 45 of Protocol 1 articulates a presumption that a person who partakes in hostilities and falls into an adverse party&#39;s power is a prisoner of war, and therefore protected by the Third Geneva Convention "if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf . . . ." Additionally, Protocol 1 provides that where "any doubt arise[s] as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status, and therefore, to be protected by the Third [Geneva] Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal (emphasis added)." Thus, President Bush&#39;s ad hoc decision that individuals, whose guilt he determines should be adjudicated by a military commission, are unlawful combatants is improper. An executive determination that detainees are unlawful combatants, rather than prisoners of war, may in some instances violate the guarantee of a judicial determination of such status codified in Protocol 1, and in graver instances, this executive determination could violate humanitarian protections guaranteed to prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions. Importantly, trial by a military commission of persons wrongfully denied prisoner of war status would violate Article 106 of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, which provides that all prisoners of war have the right of appeal or petition from any sentence, in the same manner as members of the armed forces of the detaining power.

Prosecuting and punishing perpetrators of the September 11 attacks on the United States is undoubtedly an important and formidable task. Sacrificing fundamental due process guarantees recognized under federal and international law, however, carries heavy consequences. Congressional authorization of military tribunals would constitute a great hypocrisy in light of U.S. criticism of military tribunals throughout the world, particularly those in Peru, where the U.S. Department of State criticized a military trial of an American accused of terrorism, demanding that the trial be held "in open civilian court with full rights of legal defense, in accordance with international judicial norms." In light of these potential legal and political consequences, it is critical that Congress take additional steps to regulate the procedures employed in military tribunals, and ensure that the U.S. effort to protect itself from terrorism does not result in seriously undermining U.S. credibility throughout the world.





In essence then:

They arent getting a "Military Tribunal" as in the case dictated by US Military Law... The Defendants have even less rights than those in a normal US Miliary Tribunal.

They are Kangaroo Courts where hearsay is given the wait of evidence.

In addition, the Executive Order specifically states that only members of Al Queda can be arrested and held this way....so why are the Taliban Soldiers being held? (about 75% of those held are Taliban...not Al Queda)


In addition....despite all the spin from Washington re: "Unlawful Combatants", the Articles of the Geneva Convention still cover them....and the Rights they have fall far short of the rights of POWs.

In conclusion....Hypocracy again from the US Administration....look at the Demands of the US when it was a US citizen being charged with Terrorism in Peru. In that case it they said it could NOT be by Miliary Tribunal, but had to be in open Civil Court.

Well, whats Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander..... If US citizens should have open civil trials for Terrorism, then so should the citizens of every other country on earth.

Rat Faced
08-21-2003, 03:11 PM
RF, gets off his soapbox and wanders off......

j2k4
08-21-2003, 03:14 PM
Whatever, Rat.

I haven&#39;t mentioned military tribunals anywhere, here.

I&#39;m done with this thread, I think.

lynx
08-21-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@21 August 2003 - 04:50
Lynx-

I do remember the topic-at the outset, you and all the others demanded a civilian solution for what the U.S. has chosen to treat as a military problem-I responded that civilian detention and military detention are not the same; military detention is much more arbitrary, and the U.S. has deemed this a necessity.

There it is-simple.

But you (and others) choose to drag the thread through all the permutations of your distaste for the general situation, and here we are.

I spent my two cents pages ago; we have regressed to this point due to your harping on the point of timely and effective legal representation. I answered the U.S. doesn&#39;t feel they are deserving of same, and you don&#39;t like it-so?

If you want a question answered, ask one.

And please, no more lectures on how I&#39;m avoiding the "issue"; package it up neatly and I will address it.
Go back and read this thread again. Apart from a quote by echidna (and I assume you would not want him to alter a quote simply because it contains a word which offends you) the only person to mention civilian trials is you.

And for some strange reason, you think that because the detainees are subject to military trial/tribunal, they can simply langour in jail until someone decides that they might have such a trial.

RF has adequately shown that the US does not have right to deny them legal representation, which has been the point of our argument all along.

You want a question ? Then I will repeat the question which i have asked about half a dozen times already. I want this question answered.
Why is the US administration unwilling to hold the detainees in a place where they would be subject to US law ?

If you can&#39;t or won&#39;t answer it then simply say so.

Edit: typo

j2k4
08-21-2003, 07:22 PM
QUOTE (j2k4 @ 21 August 2003 - 04:50)
Lynx-

I do remember the topic-at the outset, you and all the others demanded a civilian solution for what the U.S. has chosen to treat as a military problem-I responded that civilian detention and military detention are not the same; military detention is much more arbitrary, and the U.S. has deemed this a necessity.

There it is-simple.

But you (and others) choose to drag the thread through all the permutations of your distaste for the general situation, and here we are.

I spent my two cents pages ago; we have regressed to this point due to your harping on the point of timely and effective legal representation. I answered the U.S. doesn&#39;t feel they are deserving of same, and you don&#39;t like it-so?

If you want a question answered, ask one.

And please, no more lectures on how I&#39;m avoiding the "issue"; package it up neatly and I will address it.


Go back and read this thread again. Apart from a quote by echidna (and I assume you would not want him to alter a quote simply because it contains a word which offends you) the only person to mention civilian trials is you.

YOU go back and re-read the thread, Lynx-I didn&#39;t deny mentioning civilian proceedings; I DID deny mentioning military tribunals.

And for some strange reason, you think that because the detainees are subject to military trial/tribunal, they can simply langour in jail until someone decides that they might have such a trial.

That the military is administering the detention should be sufficient to indicate this is the case; with your overweening familiarity as to the nature and methodology of U.S. military procedure, I would have assumed you knew this.

As you do not, or have chosen to overlook it, here it is, in plain English:

The U.S. military, advised by Mr. Rumsfeld, feels perfectly able and comfortable inflicting languor (note the CORRECT spelling of the word) on whomever it chooses to detain, for whatever reasons, until such time it deems appropriate to try them in whatever venue it deems correct.

Like it or not, there you have it.


RF has adequately shown that the US does not have right to deny them legal representation, which has been the point of our argument all along.

YOU try telling the 800-pound gorilla it doesn&#39;t have the right-and while you&#39;re doing that, show us where, in whatever internationally accepted document you choose, where it says terrorists have a right to do what they do. Remember what I said about "exceptional circumstances"? We are accessing the same fiat as the terrorists.

You want a question ? Then I will repeat the question which i have asked about half a dozen times already. I want this question answered.
Why is the US administration unwilling to hold the detainees in a place where they would be subject to US law ?

If you can&#39;t or won&#39;t answer it then simply say so.

Gladly.

The U.S. is holding the detainees at Guantanamo as it is the most easily defended of any of our available military facilities suitable for detention of "enemy combatants".

Should any terrorist group, or any other mis-guided entity attempt an intervention on behalf of the "languorous" detainees, such an attack could be repelled with less chance of collateral damage to surrounding areas.

We wouldn&#39;t want any such incident to occur on our mainland, or at Rammstein, etc., either.

If you feel this indicates a lack of concern for the Cuban citizenry, consider that we feel it to be a "lesser-of-two-evils" scenario.

As to detaining them at Gitmo as a means of depriving them of legal counsel, consider that, in any case, they would be held at a military facility, where access to counsel could be just as easily denied, so that is a non-issue.

It should be clear by now that, in lieu of humane treatment (which the detainees ARE receiving) the U.S. government isn&#39;t overly concerned with the legal status of the detainees, okay?


There-you&#39;ve been enlightened as to policy as re: the detainees.

Nobody is asking whether it suits you or not.

evilbagpuss
08-22-2003, 03:27 PM
YOU try telling the 800-pound gorilla it doesn&#39;t have the right-and while you&#39;re doing that, show us where, in whatever internationally accepted document you choose, where it says terrorists have a right to do what they do.


I think this highlights j2k4s mentality quite well..

1. "Might is right"
2. "I must muddy the waters of a debate with irrational ludicrous crap at all costs."

lynx
08-22-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@21 August 2003 - 20:22
It should be clear by now that, in lieu of humane treatment (which the detainees ARE receiving) the U.S. government isn&#39;t overly concerned with the legal status of the detainees, okay?

I think that says it all - The US government doesn&#39;t care about international laws and conventions, except of course when it wishes to bash weaker nations whose regimes it disapproves of.

And of course, since the US is unwilling to stand by agreed international conventions, this is an open invitation to terrorists to behave the same way - on the basis that if it is good enough for the US then surely it is good enough for the rest of the world.

lynx
08-22-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+12 August 2003 - 15:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 12 August 2003 - 15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Military detention, or rather, detention in a military facility, is different than stateside, civilian detention.
[/b]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 August 2003 - 14:30
I&#39;m a bit tired of being subject to the "sensibilities" of others on this subject, and other than due-process complaints (typical when comparing civilian/military detention), these people are not being starved or tortured, I don&#39;t think, but that is also a problem:
Originally posted by j2k4@15 August 2003 - 14:02
The only firm and consistent claim I hear or see is of imprisonment without trial, but I don&#39;t believe the right to a speedy trial extends to military detainees; that is a civilian right.
Originally posted by j2k4@20 August 2003 - 11:14
Why is a civilian trial deemed necessary?<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@21 August 2003 - 04:50
I do remember the topic-at the outset, you and all the others demanded a civilian solution for what the U.S. has chosen to treat as a military problem-I responded that civilian detention and military detention are not the same; military detention is much more arbitrary, and the U.S. has deemed this a necessity.
[/quote]

Need any more examples of how YOU have tried to make it appear that others are asking for civilian trials ? Please feel free to point out the instances where others have mentioned civilian trials or detention.
The last quote shows especially how you are trying to present others as requiring a civilian solution. Quite obviously if the solution is not a civilian one then it must be a military one, so don&#39;t pretend you haven&#39;t suggested that it is. Unless of course you are suggesting that the detainees should just be released.

Rat Faced
08-23-2003, 02:49 PM
Erm....I also pointed out that its gone BEYOND US military detention.

A US soldier held in "Military Detention" has rights, and has much higher safegaurds against a possible Death Sentence.


In addition, i also pointed out that in the case of US citizens being the terrorists (eg Peru)..........The USA demanded they had the right to a civilian trial, and not a miltary tribunal.


ie. One rule for US citizens and another for everyone else.


This has already been demonstrated in that the one US citizen that was at this camp has already been tried....in a civilian court. ie Hypocracy in front of the whole world.....again.

j2k4
09-10-2003, 01:02 PM
Lynx-

I really hate to have to insist, but:


(Quote/j2k4)
YOU go back and re-read the thread, Lynx-I didn&#39;t deny mentioning civilian proceedings; I DID deny mentioning military tribunals.


I&#39;m not confused as to what I wrote; why you are, I cannot fathom.

Neither do I know why you are pursuing this-continuing does not decrease your wrongness on this point.

I must nonetheless apologize for my tardiness in returning post; I have not been properly situated as to proximity or timeliness during the board&#39;s intervening and infrequent spasms of usability.

I hope I have posted in time to alleviate your apparent apoplexy. :)

EBP-

I should have known you would chime in; a free ride on Lynx&#39;s comfy coattails, with nothing to offer beyond the usual insult.

But, as with friend Lynx, I must apologize to you for my delayed response.

Poor EBP-

Just look at you-your bib is soaked&#33;&#33; :(

Rat-

I&#39;m baffled; I am not usually left to conclude you haven&#39;t read my posts.

Oh. well-

As you say: CHEERS&#33;

chalice
09-10-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@10 September 2003 - 13:02
Lynx-

I really hate to have to insist, but:


(Quote/j2k4)
YOU go back and re-read the thread, Lynx-I didn&#39;t deny mentioning civilian proceedings; I DID deny mentioning military tribunals.


I&#39;m not confused as to what I wrote; why you are, I cannot fathom.

Neither do I know why you are pursuing this-continuing does not decrease your wrongness on this point.

I must nonetheless apologize for my tardiness in returning post; I have not been properly situated as to proximity or timeliness during the board&#39;s intervening and infrequent spasms of usability.

I hope I have posted in time to alleviate your apparent apoplexy. :)

EBP-

I should have known you would chime in; a free ride on Lynx&#39;s comfy coattails, with nothing to offer beyond the usual insult.

But, as with friend Lynx, I must apologize to you for my delayed response.

Poor EBP-

Just look at you-your bib is soaked&#33;&#33; :(

Rat-

I&#39;m baffled; I am not usually left to conclude you haven&#39;t read my posts.

Oh. well-

As you say: CHEERS&#33;
And with that, the traveller returned. :)
Welcome back, j24k. Been a little slow round here.

j2k4
09-10-2003, 01:34 PM
Thank you, sir. :)

I missed everyone here-even....some people. ;)

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 02:00 PM
Well, well, what a thread this is.

Listening to the crap j2k4 has come up with on this issue, it is no wonder to me that the United States is now more unpopular around the world than it has ever been.

911 was inevitable, it had to happen, and it had to happen to the US. Not only that, it will happen again, and again. The bully will be brought to it&#39;s knees, just like in Vietnam. Your economy will be crushed, another depression is on it&#39;s way.

On that note, I&#39;d like to ask you to stop for one minute, and silently reflect on the true victims of 911, the 20-30,000 innocent Afghani civilians slaughtered by US forces in the name of revenge&#33;


:ph34r:

ilw
09-10-2003, 02:11 PM
Actually between 2 and 5 thousand were killed by US forces, the other 15000 died because of starvation and various other problems.

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 02:19 PM
Well actually ilw, no-one knows how many were killed. The figures I use are the ones supplied by friends of mine who work in Afghanistan. Their estimates are 20-30,000, and as they are on the ground there, I&#39;ll take their word for it, certainly over any US estimates. Whatever the figure, it was still far more than died on 911&#33;


:ph34r:

ilw
09-10-2003, 02:42 PM
Independent estimates have put the number at less than a thousand confirmed deaths, a much maligned report from Professor Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated around 3-5000 and that is the highest number i&#39;ve seen quoted by anyone as number killed in the war. Are u sure your friends (reliable sources that they are) are not including the number that died as non-direct consequences eg famine & disease due to fleeing the fighting?

j2k4
09-10-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 09:00
Well, well, what a thread this is.

Listening to the crap j2k4 has come up with on this issue, it is no wonder to me that the United States is now more unpopular around the world than it has ever been.

911 was inevitable, it had to happen, and it had to happen to the US.&nbsp; Not only that, it will happen again, and again.&nbsp; The bully will be brought to it&#39;s knees, just like in Vietnam.&nbsp; Your economy will be crushed, another depression is on it&#39;s way.

On that note, I&#39;d like to ask you to stop for one minute, and silently reflect on the true victims of 911, the 20-30,000 innocent Afghani civilians slaughtered by US forces in the name of revenge&#33;


:ph34r:
Yes, Billy.

I&#39;m sure there will be repeat performances of 9/11, each accompanied by your cheers.

To bad you couldn&#39;t be bothered to butt your spliff long enough to aid the effort, huh?

BTW-I always reflect silently-it is the only way.

Apparently you have missed the thrust of my posting.

The U.S. has suffered the slings and arrows it has precisely because we have cared-it is my contention the process would be better served if we did not care.

It is also my contention you haven&#39;t the slightest idea what a real bully is.

And this-

You sure threw those figures around with abandon, only to immediately confess "no-one knows how many were killed".

I guess that type of irresponsibility isn&#39;t really....um.....irresponsible, when practiced by someone such as yourself, though.

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 02:58 PM
Haha&#33; I&#39;m surprised you feel you have any credibility left after Rat Faced built a brick wall in front of your arguments&#33;

And by the way, there are two O&#39;s in too, if you&#39;re gonna pull other people up for their spelling at least have the good grace to set an example.


:ph34r:

lynx
09-10-2003, 03:03 PM
@j2k4, if you can not acknowledge your own posts when they are pointed out to you, it would suggest you do not have the intellectual capacity for it to be worthwhile trying to hold a meaningful debate, consequently I shall cease responding to your childlike meanderings.

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 03:09 PM
Hi Lynx, how&#39;s your head? It must be frustrating banging your head against a brick wall&#33;

Thanx for your input here, it&#39;s been a pleasure reading sensible posts.


:ph34r:

clocker
09-10-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 09:09
Hi Lynx, how&#39;s your head? It must be frustrating banging your head against a brick wall&#33;

Thanx for your input here, it&#39;s been a pleasure reading sensible posts.


:ph34r:
I can only assume that your definition of "sensible" is "You agree with me".

It&#39;s quite an unassailable position you&#39;ve staked out for yourself Billy.

When the US employs direct military intervention, we are "bullies".
When the US uses diplomatic methods ( North Korea, China) we are "cowards".

BTW, exactly who are these mysterious " friends on the ground" that you are so fond of using as sources?
You keep posting 20-30,000 dead in Afgahanistan as though that were a figure that is undeniable.
Without any idea as to the qualifications and veracity of your "sources" that assertion is unacceptable.

j2k4
09-10-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 09:58
Haha&#33; I&#39;m surprised you feel you have any credibility left after Rat Faced built a brick wall in front of your arguments&#33;

And by the way, there are two O&#39;s in too, if you&#39;re gonna pull other people up for their spelling at least have the good grace to set an example.


:ph34r:
Rat didn&#39;t build a brick wall; you are misled.

The selectivity of argument you and Lynx demonstrate is typical of your ilk.

I do, however, appreciate your mention of my error in the spelling of so basic a word as too; my laziness at using a spell-check is pure sloth.

I thank you.

evilbagpuss
09-10-2003, 04:22 PM
Its good to see the MO of j2k4 hasnt changed. Abandon the topic and shoot the messenger asap. This occurred immediately after RF&#39;s very insightful post.

Strange that...


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The U.S. has suffered the slings and arrows it has precisely because we have cared-it is my contention the process would be better served if we did not care.
[/b]

caring = overthrowing democratically elected Gvts and installing dictators that kill thousands of their fellow countrymen..

LMAO&#33;

Seriously though I think echidna hit the nail on the head with this post..

<!--QuoteBegin-echidna
there seems to be a blindness for these strings of history in much of the voiced american opinion, failure to account for the american involvement in afghanistan, egypt, iran, lebanon, saudi arabia, turkey not to mention israel/palestine negates the plausibility of most of these explanations.
i fear this retards US foreign policy and our discussion of it for the foreseeable future.
[/quote]

The lack of knowledge about the history of their countries foreign policy and its relation to todays terrorist problem really does make any informed debate impossible.

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 04:58 PM
Haha&#33; You lot really are a scream&#33;

I worked with your lot Clocko, many times. My first encounter with the CIA was in Morocco in 1973, if you knew what we were up to there ....... Haha&#33;

My last outing was into Afghanistan in 1981, we had our agenda, we thought the CIA were working with us. Of course, they were doing their thing, as always&#33;

If you choose to believe the crap your government tells you, that&#39;s your problem. Just don&#39;t try telling me&#33;

@ j2k4: And my "Ilk", arsehole, risked, and still risk our lives protecting pricks like you.

EDIT:
Without any idea as to the qualifications and veracity of your "sources" that assertion is unacceptable.

Where are the qualifications and veracity of your "sources"?



:ph34r:

clocker
09-10-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 10:58
Haha&#33;&nbsp; You lot really are a scream&#33;

I worked with your lot Clocko, many times.&nbsp; My first encounter with the CIA was in Morocco in 1973, if you knew what we were up to there ....... Haha&#33;

My last outing was into Afghanistan in 1981, we had our agenda, we thought the CIA were working with us.&nbsp; Of course, they were doing their thing, as always&#33;&nbsp;

If you choose to believe the crap your government tells you, that&#39;s your problem.&nbsp; Just don&#39;t try telling me&#33;

@ j2k4:&nbsp; And my "Ilk", arsehole, risked, and still risk our lives protecting pricks like you.


:ph34r:
So you are what?
James Bond?

Edit:

Where are the qualifications and veracity of your "sources"?

I am not the one posting unverifiable statistics, am I?

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 05:02 PM
So you are what?
James Bond?


Wouldn&#39;t you like to know&#33;&#33;



I am not the one posting unverifiable statistics, am I?

No, you&#39;re just questioning mine. As i said before, I&#39;d rather believe my sources than listen to any more crap from the US government. Who aren&#39;t particularly known for telling the truth, are they?? ie. Nixon, (Watergate), Reagan, (Iran Contra), Clinton, (Monica), Bush, (WMD).


:ph34r:

clocker
09-10-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 11:02

So you are what?
James Bond?


Wouldn&#39;t you like to know&#33;&#33;



:ph34r:
Actually Billy, I couldn&#39;t care less.

Your buffoonish presumption of superiority in these discussions based on mysterious " friends on the ground" and thinly veiled hints about some sort of undercover/black ops backround are patently ridiculous.

As far as I can tell you certainly have a rich fantasy life, but that hardly qualifies as a basis for presumptive expertise.

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 05:17 PM
And you would be ....??



:ph34r:

clocker
09-10-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 11:17
And you would be ....??



:ph34r:
Just a regular guy with some opinions.

You?

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 05:30 PM
Just a regular guy with some opinions.



:ph34r:

evilbagpuss
09-10-2003, 06:07 PM
200
2000
20,000
200,000

It doesnt really matter anyway. They wear turbans and they arent white. Anything and everything is acceptable in the &#39;war on terror&#39;.

j2k4
09-10-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 11:58
Haha&#33;&nbsp; You lot really are a scream&#33;

I worked with your lot Clocko, many times.&nbsp; My first encounter with the CIA was in Morocco in 1973, if you knew what we were up to there ....... Haha&#33;

My last outing was into Afghanistan in 1981, we had our agenda, we thought the CIA were working with us.&nbsp; Of course, they were doing their thing, as always&#33;&nbsp;

If you choose to believe the crap your government tells you, that&#39;s your problem.&nbsp; Just don&#39;t try telling me&#33;

@ j2k4:&nbsp; And my "Ilk", arsehole, risked, and still risk our lives protecting pricks like you.

EDIT:&nbsp;
Without any idea as to the qualifications and veracity of your "sources" that assertion is unacceptable.

Where are the qualifications and veracity of your "sources"?



:ph34r:
Billy-

Anyone who would deign to refer to me as "arsehole" wouldn&#39;t have been engaged in activity likely to be of any benefit to me.

If indeed you were associated in any way with a government agency I&#39;m positive it would have not been in the field of intelligence-one must have some to get some (so to speak).

EBP-

Obviously you get your "info" and "history" from different places than I.

I am awestruck at comments such as yours; someone who naively proclaims the infallibility of the BBC (&#39;cuz they are bound by "rules" to be "impartial") should keep his rocks in his pockets; you have no credibility when it comes to "sources".

Lynx, you still haven&#39;t done your reading, I see.

Others have done, so whether you do or not is of no moment.

I myself am retired CIA, FBI, IRS, FDIC, FDA, and any number of other acronymics I can name.

I was personally witness to events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Little Big Horn, the Battle of Gettysburg, AND, believe it or not, was Gutenburg&#39;s personal mechanic; I assembled his printing press with the same hands I am typing this.

evilbagpuss
09-10-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by j2k4
I am awestruck at comments such as yours; someone who naively proclaims the infallibility of the BBC (&#39;cuz they are bound by "rules" to be "impartial") should keep his rocks in his pockets; you have no credibility when it comes to "sources".

Coming from someone who watches Fox news and believes that all media stations are the same... I think your skating on very thin ice.

I seriously doubt whether you&#39;ve even read one BBC report. Give it a try. Show me the bias :)

My comments were accurate. I&#39;ve never seen you give a damn about innocent victims of US Gvt terror. I&#39;ve never seen you deviate one iota from US foreign policy or Fox News propaganda. How nice it must be to have others do your thinking for you.

My... isnt it strange how OT we are now? You run a mile from the topic as soon as your inconsistencies and lies are pointed out. I find this behaviour rather encouraging as it means &#39;we&#39; are on the right track.

PS I never claimed the BBC was infallible (more of your lies), just that it is far less biased than &#39;news&#39; stations (propaganda machines) such as Fox.


Fox daytime anchor David Asman is formerly of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute. The host of Fox News Sunday is Tony Snow, a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration. Eric Breindel, previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post, was senior vice president of Fox&#39;s parent company, News Corporation, until his death in 1998; Fox News Channel&#39;s senior vice president is John Moody, a long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views.

"Fair and Balanced" :D :D :D

sabbath
09-10-2003, 06:49 PM
Am I the only one here wanting to hear j2k4 telling me again that the US have been attacking countries for the past 50 years because they care?

j2k4
09-10-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@10 September 2003 - 13:31
[PS I never claimed the BBC was infallible (more of your lies), just that it is far less biased than &#39;news&#39; stations (propaganda machines) such as Fox.


(Quote/evilbagpuss)

A non-commercial organisation that has a long history of fair reporting and who&#39;s impartiality is enshrined in UK law. Its a pretty unique organisation and one that most UK citizens are very proud of.

(Unquote)



Gee whiz, EBP-

Sounds like unabashed and unquestioning acceptance of the BBC line to me.

I have all your stuff at my fingertips.

j2k4
09-10-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by sabbath@10 September 2003 - 13:49
Am I the only one here wanting to hear j2k4 telling me again that the US have been attacking countries for the past 50 years because they care?
To clarify:

The U.S. has pretended to "care" what other countries thought about us and our motivations.

I believe we should cease this "caring for appearance&#39; sake".

I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true.

ilw
09-10-2003, 07:01 PM
it was far too quiet without you j2k4

evilbagpuss
09-10-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

A non-commercial organisation that has a long history of fair reporting and who&#39;s impartiality is enshrined in UK law. Its a pretty unique organisation and one that most UK citizens are very proud of.

[/b]

Is it non-commercial? Yes.
Does it have a history of fair reporting? Yes.
Is its impartiality enshrined in UK law? Yes.
Is it unique? Yes.

Does that mean its infallible? No.


Originally posted by j2k4@

Sounds like unabashed and unquestioning acceptance of the BBC line to me.

I have all your stuff at my fingertips.


Wow so you can use the search engine. "gee whiz"

Now the 1st line is very interesting. What is the BBC &#39;line&#39; j2k4? Enlighten us and show some evidence please :)

As for my comments on the history of US foreign policy.. are you denying the CIA has overthrown democractically elected Gvts and installed dictators? Are you denying this has anything to do with terrorism?

Do you really expect us to believe that you meant "caring for appearances sake" in your last post? And that this "caring for appearances sake" has led to 9/11? :blink: Cuckoo&#33; More fruitcake anyone?

I will drag you back to the topic kicking and screaming if needs be j2k4 ;)

PS Just to prove I can use the search engine too...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I get my news from everywhere; I form my own opinions and come to my own conclusions.[/quote]

Strange how these conclusions are always identical to the US Gvt/Fox News line eh?

sabbath
09-10-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+10 September 2003 - 20:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 10 September 2003 - 20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sabbath@10 September 2003 - 13:49
Am I the only one here wanting to hear j2k4 telling me again that the US have been attacking countries for the past 50 years because they care?
To clarify:

The U.S. has pretended to "care" what other countries thought about us and our motivations.

I believe we should cease this "caring for appearance&#39; sake".

I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true. [/b][/quote]
OK. Sorry for misinterpreting you

Rat Faced
09-10-2003, 08:13 PM
Please stop flaming each other and get back to the debate?


number that died as non-direct consequences eg famine & disease due to fleeing the fighting?


ilw

Direct or In-direct........they are of consequence, and happened due to the attack.

Granted many may have died anyway, an awful lot wouldnt have.



Add to this the 1000&#39;s dying today as a consequence of the warlords, which now control a far greater area than they did prior to the invasion.



However.....


What has all this got to do with whether the people held in Cuba should be tried or not?


We&#39;ve been through all this before.

Military detention, or rather, detention in a military facility, is different than stateside, civilian detention.

Different rules, legal access, etc., more room for expedience from the authority side-

As I said, this has been discussed ad nauseum; go to search, type in "Guantanamo", and commence reading-it&#39;s all there.



j2k4

This is the 1st post of yours on this thread j2k4.

I have demonstrated that they are NOT being held in miliary detention for a Military Tribunal, as implied by yourself, and have far fewer rights than they would have if this was the case.

I have also shown that US citizens, both in THIS situation and abroad (Peru)....received CIVILIAN trials.

I have asked a simple question....

Why are US citizens deserving of more "Human Rights" than anyone else?

Isnt whats good for the Goose, good for the Gander?



By the way....

welcome home ;)

ilw
09-10-2003, 08:27 PM
yeah, I definitely wasn&#39;t saying it was any better to die one way than another and as you say they are still victims of the attack, but that was i think the 3rd time Billy quoted the figure &#39;his mates told him&#39; and although i ignored it before, i thought it deserved to be put straight. And even if the numbers are for total number killed directly and indirectly they are still hearsay (though i&#39;m willing to believe they are in the right sort of scale).

Rat Faced
09-10-2003, 08:32 PM
Trouble is, Afganistan was never big on registration of Births Deaths and Marriages..i would have thought.

And a Cluster Bombs dont really leave a lot left...and its some awfully rugged country.


No one will ever know.. :(

ilw
09-10-2003, 08:41 PM
with cluster pellets around its not much consolation that no landmines were used in either of the 2 wars :(

hobbes
09-10-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@10 September 2003 - 19:07
200
2000
20,000
200,000

It doesnt really matter anyway. They wear turbans and they arent white. Anything and everything is acceptable in the &#39;war on terror&#39;.
Exactly, we are Jew lovers, who laugh as missles blow up innocent Palestinians. (Remember this line when you were the "impartial observer, caring about people not sides") We hate Islam and blow up turban heads at will.

That&#39;s it in a nutshell, you are filled with infinite and impotent rage and hatred towards the white man. You repeatedly accuse us (your forum members)of not caring about life despite repeated assertions otherwise. You just seem to erase it in your memory as it is not convenient to your conclusion.

The quotes come from a different topic (US/Israel) not 9/11, but the theme remains the same.


EBP: 9/9/03

You&#39;ve made your views clear in other threads clocker.

A dead Palestinian civilian means nothing to you. A dead Israeli civilian is a tragedy.


Let us review some other threads then:


EBP:
Perhaps neither side wants peace, but lets not pretend this is an American action film where the goodies wear uniforms and act impeccably whilst the baddies wear turbans and are pure evil

EBP: I could explain why extremists like yourself (clocker) on both sides are the main stumbling block to peace
Clocker an extremist- that is a delusional statement to say the least.

EBP @ clocker: If you would stop justifying murdering women and children I might have a little more respect for your posts.

EBP: This is going all over the place... lets get down to the core issue. This is my argument.

1) Nazis killing innocent Jews was wrong.
2) Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians is wrong.
3) Israeli troops killing Palestinian civilians is wrong.

Clockers response:
That is not an argument, that is a statement.
I agree with all three.


Clocker: I don&#39;t think that anyone has disagreed with the statement that the murder of civilians is wrong.

Decry their actions (the palestinians )as loudly as the Israeli&#39;s and I don&#39;t see any disagreement at all.

EBP:
2) Why are you so determined that Israel should continue to kill innocent people?

Heres a new one for you.

3) Are you getting round to the point that the only way forward that doesnt involve the destruction of Israel is for Israel to continue killing Palestinian civilians till there are none left? No Palestinians no problem? Is that your attitude?

Apart from that you seem to be inferring the good old tried and tested ethnic cleansing method. I hope Im mistaken in that inference.

Clocker:
2.) I have never said in a single post that they should. I defy you to find a direct quote from my writing that does say that.

3.) No. Refer to #2.


@clocker

Try and imagine, if you can, a world reversed....

Palestine is the one favoured by the USA. Jewish people are murdered in their hundreds as laughing Palestinians drop missiles from attack helicopters onto crowded streets. Helicopters and missiles paid for by US tax dollars of course.

Clocker responds:
The Israelis are laughing as they fire missles?

This single post characterizes your entire approach to this thread

My own perspective:

I think both sides are just a bunch of lunatics, killing each other to defend their belief in a loving God. The irony is so bitterly rich.

The bottom line is that religion is the only thing that matters to you. That is what this is about, not right or wrong. Had the entire 9/11 attack come from Boliva,the United States would have responded in the same fashion. Had we invaded that country, your name would be nowhere in this forum. We respond to the attack, not the religion/culture.

I work with a bunch of Turban heads, as you call them. Guess what, no problem. They are free to practice their religion as they see fit, no intra-office conflicts.

Since that is your bottom line, the hatred of Americans toward Turban heads, no amount of data or evidence contrary can sway you, as the conclusion is drawn.

I say we (USA) will kill anyone (Germans, Vietnamese, Japanese, South Americans, etc.) regardless of nationality. This really wasn&#39;t much of an issue for you until it hit your people. Now you are convinced that this is all about hatred of Muslims. And this bond you have is the only reason you care at all.

I can sympathize with you anger, it must be difficult having another country control your destiny, particularly when its agendas are different from yours. However, I have learned that if your goal is a fruitful discussion to help educate those who may not have your perspective or knowledge, you win more people over with sugar, than vinegar. Spitting venom only draws a defensive response.

I find the hate issue a difficult impass to overcome as from this logical exchange cannot be born.

I do respect the knowledge and intelligence of many posters here, I just caution you to use you weapons properly.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 12:09 AM
@hobbes..

Y&#39;know if I was a muslim living in Asia your post might actually mean something.

I am actually a white aetheist British male, so Im afraid your assumptions are way off the mark. Imagine&#33; A white British male taking this viewpoint&#33; Unbelievable eh?

Now getting down to the Israel issue.

Clocker states that he is against killing innocent Palestinians yet constantly defends the Israeli armies right to do so. So clearly..we have something of a contradiction here. The 2 views cannot co-exist.

As for my venom.. I admit.. I get frustrated at the constant support from the uber-patriots for US foreign policy no matter what it is, no matter how compelling the arguments against it. Its all a matter of Anti-Americanism etc etc insert excuses here.

These uber-patriots will be waving the flag muttering catchy phrases about defending freedom and fighting terror while the recently built concentration camp next door billows smoke from its chimneys. There is no doubt in my mind as to the truth of this.

As for the "laughing Palestinians" post. Havent you seen the news pictures of Israeli soldiers smiling and having their picture taken by a colleague whilst they stand over the body of a dead Palestinian? "Laughing Israelis" is not far from the truth. If you have the guts to see it, say it and handle the fallout.

Now the "turban heads" issue... they are the new communists for the next 50 years. The new excuse to do whatever the US wishes to do. Perhaps you can explain why the deaths of a few thousand innocent Americans causes more of an outcry than the deaths of a few thousand innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians and many many more innocent Palestinians over a 30 year period?

The only answer is that their lives are not percieved to be as valuable. Why else would the West give Israel the weapons to continue these atrocities even after so many UN resolutions condemning them? Even when their Prime Minister is a known war criminal&#33;&#33;

I know its not fashionable to say so.. but there is the world today, like it or not.

clocker
09-11-2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@10 September 2003 - 18:09


These uber-patriots will be waving the flag muttering catchy phrases about defending freedom and fighting terror while the recently built concentration camp next door billows smoke from its chimneys. There is no doubt in my mind as to the truth of this.


Very catchy.*
Clocker has consistently stated that he supports Israel&#39;s right to defend it&#39;s existence.
This clearly calls for military action and since the Palestinian "freedom fighters" chosen battleground is among their fellow countymen then I would expect civilian casualties.
I would also lay the blame for those deaths at the feet of the very men who&#39;s chosen tactics involve using teenage suicide bombers and hiding out amongst the very civilian population they claim to be fighting for.

That&#39;s the way I see the world today...like it or not.

Edit: Actually, EBP, the fact that "there is no doubt in your mind" about this particular piece of claptrap only shows that you are as prone to self-delusion as you accuse your detractors of being.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by clocker
Clocker has consistently stated that he supports Israel&#39;s right to defend it&#39;s existence.

Clocker has consistently argued that dropping missiles on residential areas knowing full well it will cause massive loss of innocent life is an acceptable tactic.

Case closed.


I would also lay the blame for those deaths at the feet of the very men who&#39;s chosen tactics involve using teenage suicide bombers and hiding out amongst the very civilian population they claim to be fighting for.

An interesting &#39;point&#39;, about the terrorists "hiding out amongst the.. civilian population"

IRA men used to live in Irish towns among Irish civilians. Spanish ETA terrorists live among Spanish civilians. This &#39;tactic&#39; is nothing new. (You expect them to live in a seperate apartment with a cross hair painted on the top?)

It doesnt justify dropping missiles on these areas.

This has been my whole point all along. This is why Clocker gets so upset.

How dare I say this&#33;&#33; Fighting terrorism without murdering women and children?? Heresy I say&#33; Heresy&#33;

NB I have noted that the Israelis are now bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers in order to punish their families. I believe the Nazis used similar &#39;tactics&#39; against the French resistance.. how ironic.

Like I said before everything and anything is acceptable in this &#39;war on terror&#39;.

hobbes
09-11-2003, 01:57 AM
Fair enough, my bad. I just found your anger so intense that I made a leap to explain it. Some of the other people in your court are muslims living abroad.

I guess we all approach a thread with our "spins" and since it would be impossible to explain every aspect of our posts, we try to lead each other across the stream the best we can. That leaves certain areas where the reader must jump from stone to stone as he follows the arguement. Based on our personal spin&#39;s, we may chose different rocks. So once completely across the stream, different readers my find themselves on different parts of the bank, and both spot may be different from where the author wanted you to land. I think this applies well to your exchange with him. I simply have a different interpretation of his intent.


When Clocker states that he is pro -Israel, and he can correct me on his own, I do not feel that he means that Israel is correct or righteous, but rather that he has more touchstones with Jewish people. Jewish people are our friends and neighbors, they are generally well educated and have many people in the entertainment business. Who can hate Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart, etc. These associations are akin to linking a beautiful women with a soft drink.

I don&#39;t know a single Palestinian, the only ones I see are on the news throwing rocks wearing robes on the news. Arafat looks like a used car salesman. The common perception is that their religion is intolerant of others (are there Catholic churches in Jordan, Iraq?). This really rubs against the grain of freedom of religion we practice here.

It is about touchstones, you sympathize with those who appears to more be like you. Human nature.

I think he would favor resolution of the conflict, but like myself, we both think that it is not likely until one side kills the other. Too many people are committed to hate on both sides.


Anyway, Clocker was right, you have the David vs Goliath mentality here. We all have that from time to time.


As for Afghanistan and 9/11, I would interested to hear how you would have handled the affair to minimize innocent citizens. I would have to say that I strongly feel in a case such as this, that not only the perpetrators but the government which supported them should be punished. Punished so overwhelmingly that host countries for motivated groups will think again.

How many Afghans would have died if Bin Laden had attacked China? Well, how many people live in Afghanistan, that is your answer. So athough many innocents died, I think an effort was made to restrict damage. And I don&#39;t think China would be sending 1.8 billion in aide, either.

My final assumption, as stated before, is that the Taliban would not have handed over the Alqueda to any outside court. I feel they would have used that as a stall tactic and the guilty would have disappeared into the hills. We saw this very thing happen on a small scale.


As with the attack, the retaliation would need to both symbolic and effective. I don&#39;t think a prolonged special ops invasion would have been practical, to hand pick out the rotten apples and save the innocent ones.

hobbes
09-11-2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@11 September 2003 - 02:43

NB I have noted that the Israelis are now bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers in order to punish their families. I believe the Nazis used similar &#39;tactics&#39; against the French resistance.. how ironic.


EBP,

You used the Nazi thing&#33; No, not you. The cheapest shot in the game. Every highschooler on the forum uses that&#33;

That kind of stuff really puts your views into question. I know you know how specious that is. Why do you lose your cool so quickly? Stay on the damn high road.

I guess my comment about "sugar and vinegar" was not found useful.


BTW, everything and anything would include the entire arsenal of weapons we have. I would imagine that we have chemical and biological weapons at the ready somewhere and I think we could scrounge up a hydrogen bomb or 2. Seems we have remained rather civilized given what is available.

Again, my attempt to draw you to the middle has fizzled by you voicing the uber-antiAmerican government hardline.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 02:17 AM
No I do not have the "David and Goliath" mentality.

I see atrocities being carried out that are supported by the USA and my country.

Atrocities which, if they were carried out by any other country, would cause international outrage. Stone throwing children shot dead. Missiles dropped onto apartment blocks full of people.

I see supposedley intelligent people, alleged compassionate &#39;people&#39; supporting these atrocities as if it were common sense.

Its as simple as that.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You used the Nazi thing[/b]

Just the truth. How offensive eh?

Are you denying the Israelis are doing this?
Are you denying the Nazis used similar tactics?
What is your factual objection to the comparison?

Please I&#39;d like to know.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
uber-antiAmerican government hardline[/quote]

hehe, only a matter of time eh? Funny how I was talking about the Israeli Gvts actions though... You mentioned something about cheap shots? :lol:

Next time just say AA it will save you and your ilk typing the same word 300 times a day. We&#39;ll know what you mean.

clocker
09-11-2003, 02:29 AM
EBP,

As i have stated before I find your comparison of Israel&#39;s situation to that of the UK and Spain to be faulty and misleading.

Neither country is surrounded by neighbors who&#39;s avowed intention is to drive them into the sea.
Thus, they enjoy the luxury of a more measured response.

You enjoy portraying me as heartlessly bloodthirsty, yet I don&#39;t really see where this perception comes from.

I would be pleased if a solution could be reached, yet I despair of that ever occuring. Both sides of that conflict, yea, all the states of the Middle East have inextricably tied politics and religion together and I think that&#39;s a fatally volitile mixture.

All of those states are either out and out theocracies (Iran), or monarchies, thinly overlaid on theocracies and paying an increasingly heavy toll to survive (Saudi Arabia).

The West ( and perhaps America in particular) has a difficult time understanding such a set-up. Being far more liberal about personal freedoms (including religion) and not especially inclined to mix politics and religion, we have tip toed around how to best deal with these countries.

After all, we don&#39;t want to appear to be attacking the Muslim religion, just the extremists who have "hijacked the religion for their own agenda".



We Americans would be satisfied with a political solution, but I suspect that Middle Easterners (including Israel) would not. To them, politics IS religion and vice versa.

Hence our difficulty.

hobbes
09-11-2003, 02:38 AM
Do we not support Israel, we could just give it too them. But your statement on terrorism has broader implications, obviously. Your comment that the US supposrts Israel and therefore supports killing innocent Palestians is hardly pro American government.


In regard to Nazi comparisons, the burden of proof is on the accuser, unless you practice "guilty until proven innocent".

Please compare and contrast. A single commonality does not a marraige make. If you can convincingly portray Israel as equivalent to the Nazi&#39;s, I am sure we will add them to our list of terrorists.


I think J2 may have been right when he made up the word "contrarian". I simply can&#39;t believe you believe what you are saying. You just like fencing, for fencings&#39; sake.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thus, they enjoy the luxury of a more measured response.
[/b]

Thus purposefully killing women and children is acceptable.

No.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
we have tip toed around how to best deal with these countries.[/quote]

For decades our countries have provided billions of dollars of military aid to Israel knowing it is being (ab)used to kill women and children.

&#39;We&#39; are then shocked and surprised when the favour is returned.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you can convincingly portray Israel as equivalent to the Nazi&#39;s, I am sure we will add them to our list of terrorists.
[/b]

I did not say they were equivalent. I pointed out that they are using similar tactics.

Here is the proof you require.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3146737.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3146737.stm)


Originally posted by hobbes@
I simply can&#39;t believe you believe what you are saying

That Israel has been carrying out atrocities for decades with support from the West? If it werent for all the evidence I would find it hard to believe as well.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
I think J2 may have been right when he made up the word "contrarian". [/quote]

Contrarian means to go against conventional wisdom. It does not mean one is wrong. Conventional wisdom used to involve the Earth being flat.

I cant believe the resistance one encounters when arguing such a simple point. i.e we shouldnt be supporting atrocities against civilians. Its truly amazing.

clocker
09-11-2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+10 September 2003 - 20:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 10 September 2003 - 20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker
Thus, they enjoy the luxury of a more measured response.


Thus purposefully killing women and children is acceptable.

No.

[/b][/quote]
To my knowledge Israel has never purposely targeted just women and children. There has always been a military component to their raids.

Which is more than can be said of the Palestinians.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by clocker
To my knowledge Israel has never purposely targeted just women and children. There has always been a military component to their raids.

Oh thats OK then. If theres one Hamas leader in a 10 storey block of flats full of innocent civilians then it is OK to drop a bomb on that building??? Please...

I am still amazed at the resistance I encounter when arguing this point.

clocker
09-11-2003, 02:58 AM
You know what EBP?

We are just wasting pixels here.

Your posts have not moved me one nanometer towards your position and I&#39;m sure that the reverse is true also.

We&#39;ll meet in another thread, I&#39;m sure.

Now I&#39;m off to reread Biggles&#39;s post in the child molester thread- to my mind, the best post anywhere on the forum of the past few days.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by clocker
Your posts have not moved me one nanometer towards your position and I&#39;m sure that the reverse is true also.


Yup, I didnt think you&#39;d be able to justify dropping a bomb on an apartment block full of innocent civilians in order to kill one man.

As for you "not being moved one nanometer" this is why I suspect you dont value a Palestinians life very highly, regardless of your PC protests.

How can any rational human not be disgusted or moved by such indiscriminate killing?

hobbes
09-11-2003, 03:08 AM
If you can convincingly portray Israel as equivalent to the Nazi&#39;s, I am sure we will add them to our list of terrorists.


I did not say they were equivalent. I pointed out that they are using similar tactics.

Here is the proof you require.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3146737.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3146737.stm)


Well I am sure the little tyke grew up in a vacuum, all his other family members were probably against his action. Or do vices cluster?

A bulldozer to the house and you win the Nazi seal of approval, and that is what you are trying to do right. Place the old Nazi label on Israel through some superficial analogy.

If you simply wanted to point out a comparison, why don&#39;t you also point to their use of pants. I mean this is almost worthy of an EBaum picture it is so trivial.

I have admitted that Israel has committed atrocities, most I have heard about have been retaliations (in response to a suicide bombing during a ceasefire) I couch it in my experience, this means that you can enlighten me otherwise- I am willing to listen). I was just wondering if Palestine has any culpability in this affair?

I think the resistance you get is not that you are wrong, but rather from your tendancy in afixing blame to one side over the other and not conceding that the street does go both ways.

hobbes
09-11-2003, 03:13 AM
That was not intented.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by hobbes
Well I am sure the little tyke grew up in a vacuum, all his other family members were probably against his action. Or do vices cluster?


Ah now were getting somewhere closer to your not so palatable beliefs ;)

Do we kill a murderers family? Do we bulldoze the house of a pedophile? Are your parents automatically responsible for your actions?

Face it, its disgusting, and it IS a Nazi style tactic. Regardless of how distasteful you find the comparison, its a very accurate one.

But since you asked...


The mother of Khamis Jarwan demanded retribution against the militants who sent her son to die.

She told the Associated Press news agency: "I&#39;ll kill whoever dispatched my son."

She&#39;ll have to get round to that after shes found a new place to live I guess.

Oh and not that it matters post-Iraq but...


Amnesty International told BBC News Online the demolitions were effectively a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

"This incident is yet a further instance of quite unlawful collective punishments practised systematically by the Israeli authorities for over a year," said an Amnesty spokesman.

Now on to the really good stuff


I have admitted that Israel has committed atrocities, most I have heard about have been retaliations. (I couch it in my experience, this means that you can enlighten me otherwise- I am willing to listen). I was just wondering if Palestine has any culpability in this affair?

I think the resistance you get is not that you are wrong, but rather from your tendancy in afixing blame to one side over the other and not conceding that the street does go both ways.

Retaliation? Chicken and egg anyone?

Does one atrocity make another acceptable? Should we have put the Germans into concentration camps and said "well they did it too&#33;"???

Moving onto an even more obvious point... suicide bombings are carried out by terrorists, Israeli atrocities are carried out by the armed forces of a democracy.

If you cannot see why that makes a huge difference.. there really is no point continuing this debate.

I will say this though. Our Gvts dont donate billions of &#036;&#036;&#39;s to support atrocities carried out by Palestinian terrorists so why is it acceptable for us to do this in support of Israeli atrocities?

Double standards and hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

edit: typo

hobbes
09-11-2003, 03:38 AM
I&#39;m off to argue with Fugley about the Ford Focus.

Goodnight.

Billy_Dean
09-11-2003, 04:39 AM
Fuck these time zones.


I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true.

Thank you for that j2k4, we seem to be finally getting the truth from you.

As I said, because of time zones I am not able to be here to defend myself, so I have to read back many pages.


Billy-

Anyone who would deign to refer to me as "arsehole" wouldn&#39;t have been engaged in activity likely to be of any benefit to me.

If indeed you were associated in any way with a government agency I&#39;m positive it would have not been in the field of intelligence-one must have some to get some (so to speak).

It doesn&#39;t take a whole lot of intelligence to see right through idiots like you. My background was neither military, nor intelligence, although I worked with both, try again&#33;

For the record, I am also a white, aetheist British male.

As for the references to nazis, the comparisons are obvious, maybe we should start a whole new thread. Forcing villagers to dig mass graves, lining them up and shooting them, dead bodies piled upon live ones and buried together. Let&#39;s not forget 1948 in this argument. Let&#39;s not forget the jewish terrorist organisations and the attrocities committed in their bid to set up a jewish state in a muslim country. And don&#39;t tell me the firing of missiles into apartment blocks is not meant to instil terror into a civilian population&#33;

There is a solution to the Israeli Palenstinian crisis, Israel must get out of the occupied territories. Don&#39;t tell me it wouldn&#39;t work, do it, then tell me&#33;


To my knowledge Israel has never purposely targeted just women and children. There has always been a military component to their raids.


To my knowledge ...

I re-quoted that part for you Clocker...

j2k4
09-11-2003, 06:05 AM
Boy, Billy, between you, EBP, and Lynx, you haven&#39;t read a thing.

Example:

Lynx goes off, yipping about my having mentioned civilian trials, then swearing up and down that I said that I did not mention them, then quoting me doing so, emphasizing and colorizing his "proof".

The fact is, I had mentioned civilian trials many times; however I had not denied that.

What I had denied was mentioning military tribunals.

He failed to read the post.

The same goes for you and EBP.

EBP goes on and on about an Israeli bomb/missile going off in the midst of a block of "innocent" Palestinians, and demands an explanation/justification.

I can&#39;t offer one, just as he cannot offer a similar justification for homocide bombers doing their gigs on buses; I haven&#39;t yet heard of any damage done to the Israeli military through the use of this tactic.

I, however, have never said I don&#39;t regret the harm done to innocent Palestinians.

He wishes, as most Palestinians do, that the Israelis were eliminated, genocide-style, and that the U.S. step aside so that this could be accomplished.


(Quote/evilbagpuss)

The Palestinian extremists would wipe out the Jews if the US dropped its support...(Unquote)

He is contrarian.

He is also wrong-case closed.

You yourself try to presume a level of insider knowledge due to your mysterious and ghostly participation in myriad covert operations which had the effect of saving all mankind.

What a triumvirate of hyper-socialist scaremongers you are.


Also-

For your edification:

I am well aware of our past actions regarding the overthrow of foreign leaders we deemed dangerous, or undesirable-so what?

We interject ourselves where we see fit-so what?

We aren&#39;t overly concerned with the status of a bunch of Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, and we don&#39;t care who is questioning our handling of the situation there.

As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?

If you sincerely don&#39;t like it, get off your duffs, put away your keyboards, and go join the fray-I won&#39;t miss you.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

Feel free to blather on as you see fit.

Billy_Dean
09-11-2003, 07:25 AM
I am well aware of our past actions regarding the overthrow of foreign leaders we deemed dangerous, or undesirable-so what?

We interject ourselves where we see fit-so what?

We aren&#39;t overly concerned with the status of a bunch of Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, and we don&#39;t care who is questioning our handling of the situation there.

As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?

If only you&#39;d said that in the first place, you could have saved us the trouble of pointing it out to you. The fact is, you DON&#39;T care, and neither does your government, you are a law unto yourselves, and the rest of the world hates you for it.

As to what I have or haven&#39;t done, I&#39;d love to talk about it, the fact is, I can&#39;t. So there you are.

For your information, I am also appalled by suicide bombers, although I can see it as an act of a desperate people, acheing for what other people take for granted. I do NOT want to see the destruction of Israel. I want to see a Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders. I want jewish settlers out of the 46% of the occupied territories they have stolen. I WANT, more than anything else, peace, not just in Palestine, but the whole of the Middle East. The key to this is Israel, and the key to Israel is the United States. The vicious circle again&#33; I want the overthrow of the Saudi regime, I want democracy and freedom for all. Again, the key to this is the United States.

This problem must be addressed through the UN. I don&#39;t like the UN setup, any more than your government does, but it&#39;s the best we have. We need to reform it, not abandon it.

Had the US and partners gone into Iraq to "kick this arsehole out", I would have been the first to congratulate them. but, in my opinion, doing the right thing, for the wrong reason, is still wrong. And, militarily, this was a cock-up, an invading armed force, and a liberating armed force, are two different cookies.

I still think we can sort all this out, but we have to do it together. The 280 pound gorrilla has to listen&#33;

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 01:48 PM
*sigh*


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EBP goes on and on about an Israeli bomb/missile going off in the midst of a block of "innocent" Palestinians, and demands an explanation/justification.[/b]

Oh I just love the quote marks around innocent. Just say what you mean you fascist. None of them are innocent so they all deserve to die, women and children first.

Imagine if I had put quote marks around innocent Israelis? For some amazing reason which I cannot fathom... that&#39;d be different.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He wishes, as most Palestinians do, that the Israelis were eliminated, genocide-style, and that the U.S. step aside so that this could be accomplished[/b]

lol&#33;&#33;&#33; I&#39;ve never stated that I wanted that to happen. I merely stated that it would happen if the US dropped its support. I was pointing out that the US could do a lot more to influence Israel because of this leverage it has.

Quoting me out of context eh j2k4? Naughty.. but again.. very encouraging.

Basically you&#39;ve been watching Fox far too much. Its melted your brain to the point where you now support ethnic cleansing but dont even realise it. "Most Palestinians" want to destroy Israel.. any proof? Or just what you&#39;ve heard from Fox?

You get more and more desperate as time goes on. Your mask is slipping and that just encourages me to keep on going until you show yourself to be the true Nazi you are :)


Originally posted by j2k4

I can&#39;t offer one, just as he cannot offer a similar justification for homocide bombers doing their gigs on buses;

(hehe spelling mistake from you of all people? The one who corrects us all on our written English? You must be going mad. Again very encouraging. Moving on...)

OK j2k4 concentrate theres an important distinction arising here.


Originally posted by EBP

Moving onto an even more obvious point... suicide bombings are carried out by terrorists, Israeli atrocities are carried out by the armed forces of a democracy.

If you cannot see why that makes a huge difference.. there really is no point continuing this debate.

Just remember I am NOT the one trying to justify atrocities here. Therefore I dont need to justify suicide bombings because I am NOT defending them. Like I said concentrate.


Originally posted by j2k4

He is contrarian

<!--QuoteBegin-EBP@
Contrarian means to go against conventional wisdom. It does not mean one is wrong. Conventional wisdom used to involve the Earth being flat.[/quote]

You mentioned something about not reading the posts? ;)

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?[/quote]

YES&#33;&#33; AT last&#33;&#33;&#33; He blows his top and shows us that all this pseudo intellectual reasoning is a cover&#33; I knew we&#39;d get the truth out of you one day j2k4&#33;

Your a fascist imperialist who supports atrocities against &#39;innocent&#39; Palestinians and believes that might is right and that International Law is a joke.

I will be sure to plunder this thread for inspiration when you calm down and attempt to get on your high horse about other issues. Hehe, you&#39;ll never have a leg to stand on again :)


I have all your stuff at my fingertips.

:D

PS

Remember folks all this "vengeance and furious anger" has been caused by me arguing that Israel shouldnt regularly kill innocent people on purpose. Such is the fucked up world we live in that this point of view is now highly contraversial.

Remember people, like j2k4 said, theres no such thing as an innocent Palestinian. So lets put em to death. Every last one of them. Anyone disagreeing with this policy.. well... you&#39;ve seen what kind of opposition you face now. Good luck.

Billy_Dean
09-11-2003, 01:58 PM
Well done EB, your work in flushing this guy out has been impressive, I salute you&#33;


:ph34r:

ilw
09-11-2003, 01:58 PM
This is just a big flame war now. Wouldn&#39;t it make more sense to start a new thread which actually discusses the problems being faced and discusses ideas of what could/should be done about Israel/Palestine and maybe the broader Middle East problems, I no longer feel like i&#39;m learning anything from this one.
I&#39;ll start a thread when i get home from work if no one else wants to make one now.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 02:07 PM
@ilw

We&#39;re very much on topic and.. I feel like I have learnt alot about the attitudes that exist about Israel/Palestine. You used to have to read between the lines but.. one good thing about a heated debate is that people tend to drop their pretence of being fair and reasonable.

Compare and contrast j2k4&#39;s most recent post with his earlier ones on the subject. We&#39;re definitely exposing some disturbing stuff here.

ilw
09-11-2003, 02:12 PM
Yeah we may be learning a lot about individual people, but nothing really about the topic. No one is really arguing a case and bringing up interesting points, its degenerated to a back and forth about how much force Israel should be allowed to use in hunting down and killing militants. And in a heated debate I find that i usually become more extremist than i really feel.

Billy_Dean
09-11-2003, 02:22 PM
I think you may be right, I&#39;d like the chance to debate Israel - Palestine too.

I&#39;d also welcome some time to swat up on facts.

I too become a little radical, unfortunately it becomes necessary when you know people are masking their true feelings.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by ilw+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>its degenerated to a back and forth about how much force Israel should be allowed to use in hunting down and killing militants[/b]

Not quite.. this is very relevant to the terrorist problem we face today.

<!--QuoteBegin-EBP

For decades our countries have provided billions of dollars of military aid to Israel knowing it is being (ab)used to kill women and children.

&#39;We&#39; are then shocked and surprised when the favour is returned. [/quote]

The constant "back and forth" is merely a symptom of the resistance one encounters when making any sort of point that doesnt involve 100% support for Israeli atrocities.

Once that has been dealt with and the origins of this resistance is uncovered.. (we&#39;re nearly there and its quite disturbing) then we can move on. Like Billy_Dean said, some people are hiding their true feelings underneath a veneer of respectability.

Pussy footing around each other is a waste of time. There are more important things at stake than fragile egos.

j2k4
09-11-2003, 04:08 PM
One last post here:

EBP-

I just did the math-no search needed.

You have, on many occasions, urged that the U.S. drop it&#39;s support for Israel and encourage them to "stand down", yes?

Then you make your statement:

Quote/evilbagpuss)

The Palestinian extremists would wipe out the Jews if the US dropped its support...(Unquote)


One is left to conclude only that which is obvious.

Hoist on your own petard, matey. ;)

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You have, on many occasions, urged that the U.S. drop it&#39;s support for Israel and encourage them to "stand down", yes[/b]

No. I challenge you to provide one iota of evidence that shows your statement to be true. If there are "many occassions" it shouldnt be too hard.. yes?

I have stated that the US should use its considerable influence to stop Israel committing atrocities.

Yet again... I am encouraged by your &#39;tactics&#39;.

One of us supports genocide and its certainly not me. I guess you have to draw a distinction between innocent civilians and "innocent" civilians eh?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
EBP goes on and on about an Israeli bomb/missile going off in the midst of a block of "innocent" Palestinians, and demands an explanation/justification.[/quote]

j2k4
09-11-2003, 07:08 PM
If you mean to say that you haven&#39;t said the U.S. should remove support, "just discourage Israel from using their U.S.-provided might against the Palestinians", I think we&#39;ve done that, especially lately.

As far as providing Israel with military capability, aside from the reasons for which we do this (regional hostility: i.e. the Palestinians, etc.), I think it would be silly for us to arm Israel and then admonish them for using the materiel to defend themselves.

In any case, while you have said on many occasions that you did not say this, here it is:

(Quote/EBP)

How about if the USA threatened to remove it&#39;s support unless the Israelis use it for defence only?

(Unquote)

I think that fits the bill nicely, and before you piss and moan about context, learn to practice what you preach.

You added hypocrite to your list of sins long ago, but I point it out here for posterity.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you mean to say that you haven&#39;t said the U.S. should remove support, "just discourage Israel from using their U.S.-provided might against the Palestinians", I think we&#39;ve done that, especially lately.[/b]

The US has been subsidising Israeli atrocities for over 30 years. Too little too late my friend.

If you really think the US has attempted to discourage Israeli atrocities recently you are very much mistaken. The only thing that will work is if the US threatens to remove its support and we both know that will never happen.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As far as providing Israel with military capability, aside from the reasons for which we do this (regional hostility: i.e. the Palestinians, etc.), I think it would be silly for us to arm Israel and then admonish them for using the materiel to defend themselves.[/b]

Hmm.. you seem quite incapable of following a point without corrupting it.

Atrocities do not equal defence. I have never called for Israel not to defend itself. Then again it wouldnt surprise me if you saw genocide and defence as the same thing. Your that &#39;type&#39;.

Now.. you made this accusation


Originally posted by j2k4
He wishes, as most Palestinians do, that the Israelis were eliminated, genocide-style, and that the U.S. step aside so that this could be accomplished.


Then you changed it to this...


Originally posted by j2k4
You have, on many occasions, urged that the U.S. drop it&#39;s support for Israel and encourage them to "stand down", yes?

and now your merely repeating what I have already said as if it is a terrible thing to say&#33;


Originally posted by j2k4

Originally posted by EBP
How about if the USA threatened to remove it&#39;s support unless the Israelis use it for defence only?

Im afraid that does not "fit the bill" of calling for the genocide of Israelis.

You are an amazing individual j2k4..

You support the overthrow of democratic Gvts and the installation of dictators..


Originally posted by j2k4
I am well aware of our past actions regarding the overthrow of foreign leaders we deemed dangerous, or undesirable-so what?

You believe in guilty till proven guilty..


Originally posted by j2k4
We aren&#39;t overly concerned with the status of a bunch of Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, and we don&#39;t care who is questioning our handling of the situation there.

You have no problem with hypocrisy or double standards


Originally posted by j2k4
As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?

you support the genocide of Palestinian women and children


Originally posted by j2k4
EBP goes on and on about an Israeli bomb/missile going off in the midst of a block of "innocent" Palestinians, and demands an explanation/justification.

you believe "might is right"..

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
YOU try telling the 800-pound gorilla it doesn&#39;t have the right[/quote]

And yet you still have the audacity to attempt to take the moral high ground&#33;

You epitomise everything that is wrong with US foreign policy.

<!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean
If only you&#39;d said that in the first place, you could have saved us the trouble of pointing it out to you. The fact is, you DON&#39;T care, and neither does your government, you are a law unto yourselves, and the rest of the world hates you for it.[/quote]

Give it up j2k4. Your credibility in this area has been shot to pieces by your own words.

hobbes
09-11-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@11 September 2003 - 08:25
Had the US and partners gone into Iraq to "kick this arsehole out", I would have been the first to congratulate them. but, in my opinion, doing the right thing, for the wrong reason, is still wrong. And, militarily, this was a cock-up, an invading armed force, and a liberating armed force, are two different cookies.

I still think we can sort all this out, but we have to do it together. The 280 pound gorrilla has to listen&#33;
Could you flesh this out?

What should have been done differently? What are you implying about our "goals" there? (BTW, for context http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=31003)

Old Saddam just used the fade into the population trick. Remember during war coverage there was discussion of the different republican guards. When we got to Bagdhad, they simply weren&#39;t there. It was decided that they didn&#39;t exist, just a paper army. Wrong, Saddam knew he had no chance head to head, so he dispersed his men into the population to work as a disruptive resistance force. His men are now attempting to sabotage efforts to restore normal life and establish a stable governing body. This is in hopes of frustrating the American people over a lack of progress and continued fatalities and causing them to demand withdrawl of the troops. This is especially effective now, as Bush&#39;s term is nearing its end. The future of Iraq will be the deciding political issue I believe. Will people be content to "stay the course". I hope not.

I cannot envision the United States wanting to take over Iraq (an invading army). The disruptive attacks of the resistance would never end and would constantly be re-inforced by neighboring countries. That is a no win situation.

I cannot envision the US leaving Iraq at the moment, as whomever fills the void will be anti-American and will likely be Saddam Hussein, himself. That is why it is so critical to find Hussein alive and turn him over to his own people. I think the resistance would fade as that fear of Saddam regaining power and exacting his revenge would be gone. I think fear of Saddam has a huge influence on the mentality of the Iraqi citizens.


As for Afghanistan and 9/11, I would interested to hear how you would have handled the affair to minimize innocent citizens. I would have to say that I strongly feel, in a case such as this, that not only the perpetrators but the government which supported them should be punished. Punished so overwhelmingly that host countries for motivated groups will think again before harbouring them.How many Afghans would have died if Bin Laden had attacked China? Well, how many people live in Afghanistan, that is your answer. So although many innocents died, I think an effort was made to restrict damage. I mean honestly, when the guilty melt in with the innocent, what distillation process can you use to separate the two. It simply does not exist.

My final assumption, as stated before, is that the Taliban would not have handed over the Alqueda to any outside court. I feel they would have used that as a stall tactic and the guilty would have disappeared into the hills. We saw this very thing happen on a small scale.


As with the attack, the retaliation would need to both symbolic and effective. I don&#39;t think a prolonged special ops invasion would have been practical, to hand pick out the rotten apples and save the innocent ones.


Billy, you have an interesting posting style. You either lash out or you discuss (as with ilw). Lashing out only detracts from the board, discussion allows people to appreciate different perspectives. If someone pisses you off, take the high road and ignore it. Just address the issues. I lead by example, as you well know considering you wished many more 9/11&#39;s upon me.

Rat Faced
09-11-2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by clocker+11 September 2003 - 02:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 11 September 2003 - 02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@10 September 2003 - 20:40
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
Thus, they enjoy the luxury of a more measured response.


Thus purposefully killing women and children is acceptable.

No.


To my knowledge Israel has never purposely targeted just women and children. There has always been a military component to their raids.

Which is more than can be said of the Palestinians. [/b][/quote]
Just one small point.


Israel practices Conscription for both Males and Females, and they are then Reservists after they leave the Military.

Therefore it can be argued that:

Every adult Israeli is a trained soldier ready to fight, and therefore as much of a "Military Target" as reservists in USA and UK.....albeit a "Soft Target".

hobbes
09-11-2003, 08:52 PM
What a nice for someone with the motivation (and I do not feel that Ratfaced has said motivation) to distort murder into an acceptable military tactic.

I don&#39;t think this information has any constructive value. It is a quibble, a nit-pick and an extreme way to justify what we all know to be an unacceptable act of civilian terror.

Had you told me the Palestineans were conscripted, I would have reponded the same way. In fact, I wish you had, just to show that I don&#39;t think either side is "right". In fact, both are "wrong".

Rat Faced
09-11-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by hobbes@11 September 2003 - 20:52
What a nice for someone with the motivation (and I do not feel that Ratfaced has said motivation) to distort murder into an acceptable military tactic.

I don&#39;t think this information has any constructive value. It is a quibble, a nit-pick and an extreme way to justify what we all know to be an unacceptable act of civilian terror.

Had you told me the Palestineans were conscripted, I would have reponded the same way. In fact, I wish you had, just to show that I don&#39;t think either side is "right". In fact, both are "wrong".
I agree. both sides are wrong.


However I seem to remember reading that a "Military Objective" that involved the death of civilians was OK.

Therefore, you must take into account what is meant by "Military Target".

An unarmed "Soldier" is much easier to kill than an armed one...especially when you cant a nice Rocket Launcher or Jet to shoot them at a distance.


The Palestinians are not the 1st to target reservists.......the IRA were doing it 30 years ago.

hobbes
09-11-2003, 09:09 PM
Ah, now Israeli citizens are called "reservists".

Again, talking about retaliation with rockets has no bearing on the issue of justifying suicide bombers by calling all Israeli citizens military targets.

Suicide bombers in no way effect the military might of Israel, they serve to disrupt civilian life, period, end.

In the context of this exchange:
Shooting rockets to kill people- wrong
Suicide bombers to kill people- wrong
Let us not use a quibble (conscription) to distort reality (the people in the shopping malls are "shoppers" not minutemen) to justify an unacceptable act.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 09:35 PM
hobbes. I think the important distinction here is that no one is justifying suicide bombers and moreover no democratic western Gvt subsidises them to the tune of billions of &#036;&#036;&#39;s every year.

Based on this evidence the current consensus is..

Suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians - wrong
Shooting rockets to kill Palestinian civilians - right

hobbes
09-11-2003, 11:00 PM
Are you commenting on the thread as a whole, or responding to my very specific discussion with RF about twisting definitions to justify actions.

That is why I specifically posted "in the context of this exchange" (exchange between RF and myself over the last 4 posts, exclusive to the rest of the thread), as we (everyone) discussed the bigger picture last night. I knew those last lines, read without the proper context, would bring about a flare-up I did not intend.

Please do not tell myfiles3000 that I used bold, he frowns about this, calls it amateur work.

evilbagpuss
09-11-2003, 11:17 PM
Do you mean to say suicide bombings and rocket attacks against civilians could be &#39;right&#39; in another context?

hobbes
09-11-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@11 September 2003 - 22:35


Based on evidence the consensus is..

Suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians - wrong
Shooting rockets to kill Palestinian civilians - right
Absolutely, I just found a post which confirms it.

Now please stay on topic, thanks.

clocker
09-11-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by hobbes+11 September 2003 - 17:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 11 September 2003 - 17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@11 September 2003 - 22:35


Based on evidence the consensus is..

Suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians - wrong
Shooting rockets to kill Palestinian civilians - right
Absolutely, I just found a post which confirms it.

Now please stay on topic, thanks. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes,

I believe you just stooped to using "tactics".

Naughty, naughty.

evilbagpuss
09-12-2003, 12:32 AM
now now clocker, he did say on topic.


Originally posted by hobbes
Now please stay on topic, thanks.

At the moment the topic is what constitutes a viable target.

Which, as it happens, is what I&#39;ve been talking about all along.. I guess there&#39;s OT and "OT".

According to Clockers own &#39;rules&#39; the recent suicide bombings were "legal" because the main target was Israeli soldiers (not reservists) and any civilians who got in the way are an acceptable loss.

Or are we working under a different set of &#39;rules&#39; now?

clocker
09-12-2003, 01:04 AM
Clocker hasn&#39;t made any rules.

Clocker has stated that he thinks Israel has a right to exist and defend itself.

Clocker takes no delight in the death of any civilian.

Clocker has stated that, as this is a dispute based on religion more than politics, he sees no end in sight.

Clocker is no position to "justify" the actions of the Israelis or the US government, any more than you, EBP, can "justify" that the sky is blue.

Clocker is still completely mystified as to the nature of your beliefs EBP, as all he can see is an unending tirade against the US.

Clocker is now going to listen to God&#39;s Song by Randy Newman, and reflect on it&#39;s suitability as an anthem for this thread.

j2k4
09-12-2003, 05:16 AM
EBP-

Your.....uh.....method of, well.....I really hesitate to call it "debate", or "argument" or even "editorialization", because it is none of these things-it would more aptly be described as sophist sissy-fighting, which, I must say, you excell at.

You are a hater into the bargain, and not worth the papier-mache you are printed on.

Billy_Dean
09-12-2003, 06:32 AM
From Hobbes.


Could you flesh this out?

We went into Iraq on the "certain knowledge" that Sadam had "Weapons of mass destruction", and that he could, and would, use them. We were told they could be deployed in 45 minutes. You don&#39;t need me to point out the truth or otherwise of these claims. Had we gone in to kick out Sadam, world support would have been far different.


And, militarily, this was a cock-up, an invading armed force, and a liberating armed force, are two different cookies.

By this I meant, the main problem in Iraq at the moment, is lack of services, water, food, medical supplies, electricity, etc. This should have been taken into account before the invasion. We didn&#39;t protect hospitals, museums, public buildings, nothing&#33; In fact, our troops watched it happen and did nothing until the worlds press got on their backs, we then had a token effort to stop the looting. A liberating army would have protected all these things, would have gone in with thousands of tons of medical supplies, would have restored services as a top priority. They would have provided jobs for Iraqis, and included them in their planning for the rebuilding of their country.

To believe we would be welcomed with open arms is naive in the extreme. Do you think these people have forgotten the promises Bush senior made after the first Iraqi war? "You rise up against Sadam and we&#39;ll help you." They rose up all right, what did we do? We stood by and watched them get slaughtered&#33;

As for Afghanistan, I&#39;ll give you one example, there are hundreds of stories like this: The US "intelligence" agencies, (and I use the term intelligence loosely) got wind of a wedding in a remote village. Their sources told them that the bridegroom was the niece of a top Taliban official. The US Air Force sent in a C130 gunship. These are the planes that fly around a target in a circular pattern and fire high powered, rapid fire, 150mm (?) cannon. They shot up the wedding, killed dozens of people, wounded many more, just on the off chance that the official may have been there, he wasn&#39;t.



You either lash out or you discuss (as with ilw). Lashing out only detracts from the board,

I refer you to these comments, after this person took the moral high ground for page after page ...


For your edification:

I am well aware of our past actions regarding the overthrow of foreign leaders we deemed dangerous, or undesirable-so what?

We interject ourselves where we see fit-so what?

We aren&#39;t overly concerned with the status of a bunch of Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, and we don&#39;t care who is questioning our handling of the situation there.

As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?

If you sincerely don&#39;t like it, get off your duffs, put away your keyboards, and go join the fray-I won&#39;t miss you.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

Feel free to blather on as you see fit.


Lastly, I&#39;d like to say this: I have lived with Afghanis, I have also lived with Moroccan muslims, and spent time in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. I have travelled overland through Iran and Pakistan, among others. I have had a lot to do with muslims. I have always found them to be peace loving, welcoming people. Their hospitality, to complete strangers, is legendary. This does not happen in our countries, and is part of their religion.

I could compare that to the jewish writings that state all non jews are animals, I could mention that ultra orthadox jews would not have a non-jew in their house, but I won&#39;t.


:ph34r:

j2k4
09-12-2003, 06:46 AM
I never claimed any "moral high-ground", Billy; I just told you what was what.

I never asked you to like it or accept it-I just told you how this shit works, and you don&#39;t like it-hence, so what?

If you want to know what I actually think (you really have no idea, either), re-read my posts, and try to key on phrases containing the words "I think...", or "I believe".

Your experiences with Muslims and those of Islamic faith seem to mirror mine; however, I don&#39;t think I strayed into any fundamentalist camps, and I&#39;m pretty damn sure you didn&#39;t, either.

Billy_Dean
09-12-2003, 07:17 AM
I don&#39;t think I strayed into any fundamentalist camps, and I&#39;m pretty damn sure you didn&#39;t, either.

Fundamentalists of any persuasion are scary j2k4. including christian ones, of which the United States has more than their fair share.

I lived among Afghani mujahadin during their fight with the Russians. I saw very, very strict adherence to a code you would certainly call fundemantalist. I saw an Afghani fighter executed for selling his AK47. I stood at the front of the crowd in a market square in Saudi Arabia in 1978 and watched a Pakistani and a Yemeni beheaded, the Pakistani for importing canabis, and the Yemeni for murder.

EDIT: Regimes don&#39;t come much more fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia. Where did the majority of the 911 terrorists come from? And which country keeps this lot in power? Living there was scarier than Afghanistan during the war.


:ph34r:

j2k4
09-12-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 02:17

I don&#39;t think I strayed into any fundamentalist camps, and I&#39;m pretty damn sure you didn&#39;t, either.

Fundamentalists of any persuasion are scary j2k4. including christian ones, of which the United States has more than their fair share.

I lived among Afghani mujahadin during their fight with the Russians. I saw very, very strict adherence to a code you would certainly call fundemantalist. I saw an Afghani fighter executed for selling his AK47. I stood at the front of the crowd in a market square in Saudi Arabia in 1978 and watched a Pakistani and a Yemeni beheaded, the Pakistani for importing canabis, and the Yemeni for murder.

EDIT: Regimes don&#39;t come much more fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia. Where did the majority of the 911 terrorists come from? And which country keeps this lot in power? Living there was scarier than Afghanistan during the war.


:ph34r:
No matter what you think about our involvement in the middle-east, we are not there to foist our religion(s) on it&#39;s inhabitants nor oppress them in the name of religion.

Saudi Arabia may be fundamentalist in it&#39;s societal mores, but the ruling class does not practice what it preaches.

In any case, that is not what I&#39;m talking about-for the sake of clarity, lets just say "terrorist" camps; extremist-fundamentalists, if you will.

The type who scream "KILL THE INFIDELS&#33;", and have no concept of a life or religion apart from their own.

I hereby give a nod of respect to the variety of places you have kept house; it doesn&#39;t seem to include any experience with the people I&#39;ve just described, though.

As with any country such as Saudi Arabia, all have enough bad apples to create malodorous biases and prejudices; as you say, the "christian" fundamentalists in the U.S. (which you equate to others in relative "scariness") are as capable as any of holding poisonous views-what is it, do you suppose, that keeps them from becoming a globe-trotting band of marauding terrorists, as have their mid-eastern brethren?

Could be nothing more than pure-D laziness.


I must say, though, I personally regret the level of business we do with the Saudis; they are a despicable lot of hypocrites, and the House of Saud deserves to fall-only trouble being the added regional instability which would result.

Does the mid-east need that at this point?

Just think, Billy-for want of the discovery of a "Miracle Fuel" to replace oil the U.S. could withdraw from the mid-east and you and all the others would have their dreams come true, huh?

Billy_Dean
09-12-2003, 03:25 PM
We seem to be finding common ground here, can&#39;t we argue about something else? [joke]

Walk into a Republican pub in Belfast and start a discussion on the rights and wrongs of the IRA. You think you&#39;d get out alive? Of course you would&#33;

The actual "extremists", as you pointed out, are a very small minority, you can still talk to people who supposedly "hate" you.

Let me ask you a question; Just suppose, George Bush, (or any current US president), were to ask for talks with Osama Bin Laden. Let&#39;s say he accepted, and the two men sat down an talked about all their issues. If the US were genuinely willing to find a solution, what do you think the outcome would be?

EDIT: (forgot this bit) During the second world war, there was a German Government in exile in England, they took over after the war, look at Germany now. Now, I&#39;m not saying the same thing would happen in Saudi Arabia, but they too have very capable politicians, Western educated, waiting to take over. I believe, and this is my opinion, that the US has already given the Saudi rulers a timetable for reform. I also believe that the war with Iraq is tied up with this.


:ph34r:

Rat Faced
09-12-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by hobbes@11 September 2003 - 23:00
Are you commenting on the thread as a whole, or responding to my very specific discussion with RF about twisting definitions to justify actions.

That is why I specifically posted "in the context of this exchange" (exchange between RF and myself over the last 4 posts, exclusive to the rest of the thread), as we (everyone) discussed the bigger picture last night. I knew those last lines, read without the proper context, would bring about a flare-up I did not intend.

Please do not tell myfiles3000 that I used bold, he frowns about this, calls it amateur work.
I agree, i was.

The very fact that i put in the line "It could be argued..." shows that i am playing Devils Advocate on that argument, and dont believe it myself.

However, the twist is no more than, although different, to the slant given by Israel for its justifications, by the US Government on some of its behaviour, and on my own Governments for its behaviour.


I find it strange that you take exception to this "slant", while excepting others that are equally bad....but conform to your world view.



Let me say, yet again:


Killing innocents by ANYONE is criminal.

I make no distinction between a Palestinian or an Israeli.

In my view, the peoples deserve peace, and the Leaders deserve to be tried on BOTH sides.


Specifically, to get back on-topic.....in a Civilian Court, with all their rights to a legal defence intact.

j2k4
09-12-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 10:25
Let me ask you a question; Just suppose, George Bush, (or any current US president), were to ask for talks with Osama Bin Laden. Let&#39;s say he accepted, and the two men sat down an talked about all their issues. If the US were genuinely willing to find a solution, what do you think the outcome would be?



EDIT: (forgot this bit) During the second world war, there was a German Government in exile in England, they took over after the war, look at Germany now. Now, I&#39;m not saying the same thing would happen in Saudi Arabia, but they too have very capable politicians, Western educated, waiting to take over. I believe, and this is my opinion, that the US has already given the Saudi rulers a timetable for reform. I also believe that the war with Iraq is tied up with this.


:ph34r:
Your scenario presupposes such a thing could actually take place; Bush would neither request nor entertain the idea of such a meeting, given (with much justification) that to appease terrorists (after all, that is what Osama is) or negotiate with them in any way is to abandon principle.

BUT-

Just to play out your string:

Osama, presumably, would also hold to his principles, and would make the following demands:

1-The U.S. immediately cease ALL activity in the mid-east, including support of Israel.

2-The U.S. stand idly by while Osama and his merry band of fanatical pranksters re-align the entire mid-east according to their and Allah&#39;s master blueprint, which would include holding all non-oil-producing nations hostage to selective distribution of the mid-east&#39;s only real resource (And I don&#39;t mean sand).

3-The U.S. commit, with all haste, genocide upon itself, as we are infidels, and Islam, as viewed by Osama, cannot countenance our continued existence.

Bush, of course, would refuse.


As to a "government-in-exile" awaiting a return to Saudi Arabia, I only wish such a thing were true; given the U.S.&#39;s bent for unwanted intrusion, do you think, if the option existed, that we would be sitting on our hands?

If the U.S. can bring pressure to bear on the royal family, I am sure that they are.

On the other hand, if it were ALL about oil, wouldn&#39;t we just "take" it?

j2k4
09-12-2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 September 2003 - 10:51
Specifically, to get back on-topic.....in a Civilian Court, with all their rights to a legal defence intact.
Rat-

Regardless of my wayward posting, I am as desirous as you to stay on topic.

I must, however, fall back on my "exceptional circumstances" argument of previous posts.

It is my contention that terrorists do not fit extant legal definitions; civilian, military, or those of the various international auspices (Geneva, et.al.), as they are not specifically nation-sponsored.

(If they wanted to claim a nation, or name names, so to speak, maybe we could get off the schnide as to their detention).

In the absence of this definition of "status", jurisdiction does not default to civilian courts; admittedly, the U.S. is exploiting what it sees as a legal "loophole", but, there it is.

I am glad to finally get to respond to you, Rat.

Billy_Dean
09-12-2003, 06:04 PM
I thought when I read your first point you intended to be serious, some hope&#33;

Do you HONESTLY believe the ridiculous rhetoric about wanting to destroy the western way of life? Do you really think that is what this is all about? Do you really believe 911 happened because the Americans were considered infidels? I just hope there are people in your government with more sense than that&#33;

And god forbid that the OWNERS of these resources would actually have the nerve to treat them as their own&#33; I wonder how it would be if the US owned the worlds oil?

As for the situation in Saudi Arabia, I suggest you aquaint yourself with a few more facts.

As for the "appeasement" of terrorists, I take it you believe the British government, with US assistance, was wrong to negotiate a ceasefire with the IRA?



If the whole of America holds your views, I fear for the world&#33;



:ph34r:

evilbagpuss
09-12-2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by j2k4
It is my contention that terrorists do not fit extant legal definitions; civilian, military, or those of the various international auspices (Geneva, et.al.), as they are not specifically nation-sponsored.

You are talking as if they have already been proved guilty of terrorism. They have not. You have to entertain the notion that at least some of these people are innocent and put their treatment in that context.

If you do then I dont see how you can come to any other conclusion than that the treatment being dished out to them is completely wrong.

Isnt the truth simply that these are the fall guys fated to appease the lust for vengeance for 9/11?

Bush has already influenced their &#39;trials&#39; by stating that "there is no doubt in my mind that there are some very bad people in there" (or words to that effect.)

Under any kind of justice, be it civilian, military or whatever.. a politician influencing a future trial in such a manner is unthinkable.

All of these factors lead me to believe that this has got nothing to do with any form of justice civilian, military or otherwise.

j2k4
09-12-2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 13:04
I thought when I read your first point you intended to be serious, some hope&#33;

Do you HONESTLY believe the ridiculous rhetoric about wanting to destroy the western way of life?&nbsp; Do you really think that is what this is all about?&nbsp; Do you really believe 911 happened because the Americans were considered infidels?&nbsp; I just hope there are people in your government with more sense than that&#33;

And god forbid that the OWNERS of these resources would actually have the nerve to treat them as their own&#33;&nbsp; I wonder how it would be if the US owned the worlds oil?

As for the situation in Saudi Arabia, I suggest you aquaint yourself with a few more facts.

As for the "appeasement" of terrorists, I take it you believe the British government, with US assistance, was wrong to negotiate a ceasefire with the IRA?



If the whole of America holds your views, I fear for the world&#33;



:ph34r:
Somehow, I have once again lost you, or you me-

Where would I get any idea what Osama&#39;s stance would be? Where do you get your ideas?

Has there been anything in what we&#39;ve seen from him that would indicate he would deign to negotiate with us?

Tell me what gives you any idea he wouldn&#39;t destroy us, for sins real or perceived?

Are we somehow supposed to ignore the actions and the rhetoric which constitute the sum total of the content of Osama&#39;s "message"?

Are we (with our "unenlightened" and "limited" views) to somehow divine Osama&#39;s truest and innermost "peaceful" thoughts?

Do you think he "yearns" for peace?

Does he "ache" when he terrorizes?

No, he does not-he laughs, as we have all seen.

I will not construct a total fantasy, Billy; you may proceed on your own.


As for the oil (which does, after all, belong to them), it does them (the citizens, anyway) no good not to trade or sell to us; its not as if other western countries could/would accomodate the production necessary to keep them in cash, and Osama, having lived a spartan existence these last few years, would have no qualms about demanding the same of others.

So the oil would stay in the ground, to the detriment of all.

I know all I need to know about Saudi Arabia, thank you very much.

As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it as has Osama; I trust you see the difference.

My views are most certainly not held by the whole of America-that is why these problems exist.

Surely you are familiar with the slogan of I.B.M.? I have amended it for personal use:


THINK -like I do

hobbes
09-12-2003, 10:26 PM
Billy,


From Hobbes

Could you flesh this out?

We went into Iraq on the "certain knowledge" that Sadam had "Weapons of mass destruction", and that he could, and would, use them. We were told they could be deployed in 45 minutes. You don&#39;t need me to point out the truth or otherwise of these claims. Had we gone in to kick out Sadam, world support would have been far different.

There are innumerable oppressive dictatorships in the world, if we had gone in under the premise that he was a "bad man", people would wonder why we supported him in the past. In addition, are we committing ourselves to a world tour of liberation. Where do you stop? As for WMD, my link on the last post is rather to the point.



And, militarily, this was a cock-up, an invading armed force, and a liberating armed force, are two different cookies.

By this I meant, the main problem in Iraq at the moment, is lack of services, water, food, medical supplies, electricity, etc. This should have been taken into account before the invasion. We didn&#39;t protect hospitals, museums, public buildings, nothing&#33; In fact, our troops watched it happen and did nothing until the worlds press got on their backs, we then had a token effort to stop the looting. A liberating army would have protected all these things, would have gone in with thousands of tons of medical supplies, would have restored services as a top priority. They would have provided jobs for Iraqis, and included them in their planning for the rebuilding of their country.

To believe we would be welcomed with open arms is naive in the extreme. Do you think these people have forgotten the promises Bush senior made after the first Iraqi war? "You rise up against Sadam and we&#39;ll help you." They rose up all right, what did we do? We stood by and watched them get slaughtered&#33;


Are you are saying that the attack was poorly planned, which is different from an intent to occupy. I think top priority was to capture Iraq and once supply lines and facilities were secure, then the relief effort could follow. As you see, this is not even the case now, wlth resistance disrupting attempts at return to normalcy. I agree that getting the average "joe iraqi" food, water and electricity has been disappointingly slow.

As far as occupation. I think that everyday that Iraqis are without food, water and basic medical care, resident US forces will come under mounting critcism. This would be unadvisable for an occupation. Why alienate the very people you were hoping to embrace you. We have enough people already trying to undermine us, as described in the prior post.

I think our troops watching the looting was a reflection of our fear that cracking down on the "innocent citizens of Iraq" would undermine the relationship we were trying to foster. It would be ideal for an Iraqi police force to handle this duty. Any sort of civilian shooting for stealing a TV or whatever by a US soldier would due irreparable harm. Remember, when a soldier goes to investigate a situation, he has no idea whether he will be facing a soldier or a plundering local. If he ponders the situation too much before taking action, he will be awarded a toe tag.

As for Basra, you are right. That is why I stressed the importance of the capture of Saddam, as his spectre still looms large.

As for Afghanistan, I&#39;ll give you one example, there are hundreds of stories like this: The US "intelligence" agencies, (and I use the term intelligence loosely) got wind of a wedding in a remote village. Their sources told them that the bridegroom was the niece of a top Taliban official. The US Air Force sent in a C130 gunship. These are the planes that fly around a target in a circular pattern and fire high powered, rapid fire, 150mm (?) cannon. They shot up the wedding, killed dozens of people, wounded many more, just on the off chance that the official may have been there, he wasn&#39;t.

I&#39;m sorry, stories of bad intelligence don&#39;t change my mind. Besides, why not drop a bunker buster or whatever on the whole affair if random carnage is your game. You would expect the wedding of a top Taliban daughter to have many Taliban supporters in the wedding party. If Bush&#39;s daughter got married, you might expect quite a number of important government officials there as well, no?

Anyway, that is not a justification for shooting up a wedding, that would come off as "blindly patriotic". I am not into twisting reality until it fits my belief.

The bottom line is that something had to be done, and it had to be crushing and an example to the world. When the guilty melt with the innocent, the situation becomes quite problematic. I&#39;m sorry, but I do not see an avoidable 30,000 being killed because we attacked weddings, funerals and other emotive events. I still am dissatisfied with the outcome.

If we played ball like China it would now be the Taligone and Bin Laden would be a glowing ember.

BTW, do you agree with me that the Taliban would not have turned over the Al Queda. Just let them filter into the hills, and poof, gone.


Final thoughts on Iraq: I believe that the reconstruction of Iraq is going so slowly because they are a country defined solely by a line on a map. They were only unified before by their fear or hatred toward Saddam Hussein.

With this commonality removed, the ethnic and religious factions of Iraq regard one another and say, "you know, I never really liked you". I think it is hard to generate momentum for a new government when the people who comprise this country have different agendas from on another.

Rat Faced
09-12-2003, 11:27 PM
As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it as has Osama; I trust you see the difference.


j2k4

Ask mainland Europe whether it was exported, and i believe the USA arrested some from Columbia not so long ago? Plus 1 or 2 shootings in the USA (although granted not a lot)

However, this aside. Your statement does not respond to Billy_Deans point, which was about abandoning "principles" and had nothing to do with "exportation".




Final thoughts on Iraq: I believe that the reconstruction of Iraq is going so slowly because they are a country defined solely by a line on a map. They were only unified before by their fear or hatred toward Saddam Hussein.

With this commonality removed, the ethnic and religious factions of Iraq regard one another and say, "you know, I never really liked you". I think it is hard to generate momentum for a new government when the people who comprise this country have different agendas from on another.


hobbes

Wasnt this what we were pointing out prior to the invasion?

That the whole area was rife for a totally different kind of war, that would make the Balkans look like a picnic?

Everose
09-13-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by echidna@11 August 2003 - 04:32

when the primary responses are that these people are guilty without any trial and that they deserve to die [so who cares how they&#39;ll be treated], i fear for what else could be sold to the USA&#39;s people, doesn&#39;t this worry anyone else?
Yes, it worries many of us.

AussieSheila
09-13-2003, 02:32 AM
[QUOTE]=Billy_Dean,12 September 2003 - 18:04]
And god forbid that the OWNERS of these resources would actually have the nerve to treat them as their own&#33; I wonder how it would be if the US owned the worlds oil?


Wot? I thought the US owned the world?

<_<


The following editorial appeared in todays Northern Star newspaper (NSW Australia) written by Russell Eldridge.

OUR APATHY WILL HAUNT US

The second anniversary of the September 11 attacks has been observed with due solemnity and expressions of resolve. But it is also a time to reflect on how the world and Australia in particular has changed in those two years.

The news is not good.

And Australians should consider seriously where this current Federal Government has taken us. And we should consider our own individual roles.

Australia is losing international respect. Our cherished reputation as an independant-thinking, larrikin, fair state has dissolved.

This government has taken us into Afghanistan. It has taken us into Iraq.

It&#39;s policies have made Australia a terrorist target.

Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.

When the build-up to the Iraq conflict began earlier this year, this newspaper took a stand against the war. We still believe the war was wrong.

Now, months after the so-called victory; after Australian troops returned home like grand final heroes, Iraq is a dangerous mess.

More US soldiers have died during the peace than during the war, and Iraq is a global rallying point for terrorists.

George Bush has asked for &#036;US130 billion to continue the debacle.

Australia continues to pay millions for this absurd venture; millions of dollars that is now being denied to our hospitals, schools, universities and roads.

Yes, we can blame John Howard&#39;s government for leading us into this mess. But what have we as individuals done?

The polls show we know it&#39;s a mess, but we kick back and watch Friday night footy, or talk about real estate prices over a backyard barbeque.

If we choose apathy, we can&#39;t complain when terror comes knocking at our door.

clocker
09-13-2003, 03:01 AM
AussieShiela,

While I can understand why Australians would be upset with their government ( contrary to popular belief- many Americans are, too) the article that you posted was riddled with errors of logic and fact.

Australia is losing international respect. Our cherished reputation as an independant-thinking, larrikin, fair state has dissolvedHe assumes that a independant, fair (I don&#39;t even know what "larrikin" means) state can&#39;t agree with the US without losing their status.

Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.


Those poor people died, not because they were Aussies, but because they had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The terrorists who set off that bomb had no way of knowing who might be killed and furthermore, they didn&#39;t care.

If we choose apathy, we can&#39;t complain when terror comes knocking at our door.
Apathy towards bitching about the US or apathy towards trying to deal with the growing spread of international terrorism?

Billy_Dean
09-13-2003, 04:28 AM
@ Clocker.


Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.

Those poor people died, not because they were Aussies, but because they had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The terrorists who set off that bomb had no way of knowing who might be killed and furthermore, they didn&#39;t care.

Read the trial reviews Clocker. They knew they were Australians, this was Bali. They said at their trials that they knew. They shouted slogans against Australia as they were led in and out of court.


Australia is losing international respect. Our cherished reputation as an independant-thinking, larrikin, fair state has dissolved

He assumes that a independant, fair (I don&#39;t even know what "larrikin" means) state can&#39;t agree with the US without losing their status.

We aren&#39;t talking about agreeing here, we&#39;re talking about taking our country to war without the consent of the people. And the lack of respect he talks about has already been voiced. But then again, what would you know about Australian politics?

@ j2k4


As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it as has Osama; I trust you see the difference.

This is the most uninformed statement you have made. Tell the citizens of England, Belgium, Germany, Gibraltar and the US that it wasn&#39;t exported&#33; Add to that the training of foreign terrorists. Too smart for your own pants now eh?


Has there been anything in what we&#39;ve seen from him that would indicate he would deign to negotiate with us?

Has he never stated his political aims, or have you just never bothered to listen?

@ Hobbes


There are innumerable oppressive dictatorships in the world, if we had gone in under the premise that he was a "bad man", people would wonder why we supported him in the past. In addition, are we committing ourselves to a world tour of liberation. Where do you stop? As for WMD, my link on the last post is rather to the point.

My point exactly, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. And please explain the difference between a world tour of liberation and a war on terror? Don&#39;t they involve doing the same things to the same countries?


The bottom line is that something had to be done, and it had to be crushing and an example to the world. When the guilty melt with the innocent, the situation becomes quite problematic. I&#39;m sorry, but I do not see an avoidable 30,000 being killed because we attacked weddings, funerals and other emotive events. I still am dissatisfied with the outcome.

This statement is an absolute disgrace, an example to the world of all that is wrong with US policy in Afghanistan. What if these people had been hiding out in Hawaii? How many civilians would it have been OK to kill then? And by the way, it was someones niece, not daughter. I&#39;d like to know if your opinion would have been different if members of your family had been at that wedding.


I&#39;m glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn&#39;t care less, what&#39;s best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don&#39;t understand, two years later, why 911 happened.

EDIT: Typo.


:ph34r:

j2k4
09-13-2003, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 23:28

I&#39;m glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn&#39;t care less, what&#39;s best for the US is best for the world attitude.&nbsp; So much so, you still don&#39;t understand, two years later, why 911 happened.


:ph34r:
Well, then-

Just for us American thickos, why don&#39;t you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?

chalice
09-13-2003, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+13 September 2003 - 04:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 September 2003 - 04:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 23:28

I&#39;m glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn&#39;t care less, what&#39;s best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don&#39;t understand, two years later, why 911 happened.


:ph34r:
Well, then-

Just for us American thickos, why don&#39;t you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"? [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m shuddering here, JK. This is a helluva thread. I wish I was qualified to comment.

Billy_Dean
09-13-2003, 05:03 AM
Just for us American thickos, why don&#39;t you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?

Yeah, like you&#39;d listen, or give a f*ck&#33;


:ph34r:

clocker
09-13-2003, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 22:03

Just for us American thickos, why don&#39;t you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?

Yeah, like you&#39;d listen, or give a f*ck&#33;


:ph34r:
Doesn&#39;t seem to have deterred you yet, Billy.

Why the sudden reticence?

Billy_Dean
09-13-2003, 05:24 AM
Run out of issues Clocko? Good&#33; I&#39;m glad I&#39;ve taught you a few things.



:ph34r:

clocker
09-13-2003, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 22:24
Run out of issues Clocko? Good&#33; I&#39;m glad I&#39;ve taught you a few things.



:ph34r:
Feel free to add "what you&#39;ve taught me" to your explanation of why 9/11 happened, Billy.

C&#39;mon.

You know you want to.

Billy_Dean
09-13-2003, 05:49 AM
I&#39;m a bit stoned at the moment Clocko, and I&#39;ve got Little Feat on real loud, not really conducive to serious matters. It is Saturday after all, a day of football, live music and good company.

And of course I include you lot in that.



:ph34r:

clocker
09-13-2003, 05:52 AM
Dixie Chicken I hope.

Billy_Dean
09-13-2003, 05:57 AM
"Waiting For Columbus" the live album. "Spanish Moon" on at the moment, "Dixie Chicken" next, 8.36 minute live version.



B)

AussieSheila
09-13-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by clocker@13 September 2003 - 03:01

Australia is losing international respect. Our cherished reputation as an independant-thinking, larrikin, fair state has dissolvedHe assumes that a independant, fair (I don&#39;t even know what "larrikin" means) state can&#39;t agree with the US without losing their status.


I&#39;m not so sure Russell was right when he said we were losing international respect. I dont really think the people on the other side of the world really give a crap what we think, say or do. But I think we have lost respect for ourselves and our government, by being dragged into a war which the majority of us thought was wrong. Time has proven us right, America has dropped the ball and Iraq is a mess and getting messier.

To clean up the mess, Bush says we have to make more sacrifices, human life and financial. To ensure that no American dies on American soil at the hands of terrorists we all have to go over to Iraq and wipe out the problem. Since when has violence on this scale (or any scale) solved anything? The terrible aftermath of war takes how long to recover from? How can the Iraqi people ever feel anything but fear and resentment towards the Western invaders? The terrible fear that these ever so ordinary people have had to live with for so long must be overwhelming, not to mention psychologically horribly damaging. Or don&#39;t they matter?

IMO if a poofteenth of the money spent on this disgusting war were spent on protecting and educating the women of the Middle East we might begin to see real change. There just might be a chance for peace.

That is, supposing this were not all about oil, money and power which it so is. Would America ever have bothered with the Middle East if there were no oil there? Of course not&#33; Some of the companies involved in the &#39;rebuilding&#39; of Iraq have direct links to high ranking Bush officials, they will do very nicely out of this, and after all, their own nearest and dearest aren&#39;t in any direct danger. Then there is the power and glory aspect, although I think that one has backfired somewhat. Still, George Bush and his band of merry murderers will be remembered in history, albeit as modern day Hitler type people.

AussieSheila
09-13-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by clocker@13 September 2003 - 03:01

Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.
Those poor people died, not because they were Aussies, but because they had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The terrorists who set off that bomb had no way of knowing who might be killed and furthermore, they didn&#39;t care.


No, they died because they were Aussies. Aussies were targeted on this occasion, partly, I think, because of our ties with the US. The rest of it is extreme fundamentalist crap. The opinions of the convicted Bali bombers are well known in Australia, perhaps not so well known over there. But these people make no secret of their hatred, they are very vocal. The terrorists knew exactly just who might be killed. And that included more Balinese than anyone else. Again, totally innocent people doing their best to earn a living in a harsh world, including small children who were begging. Do they matter?

To say the terrorists had no way of knowing who would be killed is purely stupid.

clocker
09-13-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by AussieSheila@13 September 2003 - 06:43


To say the terrorists had no way of knowing who would be killed is purely stupid.
I&#39;m sorry, none of the coverage I saw of that tragedy expounded on the specific targeting of Australians.
I&#39;m sure that was of much greater import to the news media over there.

That does not make me "purely stupid", just not as well informed as you.

Something you may want to keep in mind when you ponder the coverage YOU see about events here in the States.

ilw
09-13-2003, 02:01 PM
these ever so ordinary people
yes they are frightfully common aren&#39;t they :P :lol:


Since when has violence on this scale (or any scale) solved anything?
WWII

why does everyone think that oil is such a weak reason for going in? Oil is one of the single most important resources in determining a country&#39;s future

Bringing up the Hitler comparison is a bit weak, I&#39;m sure there are a lot better comparisons out there, maybe not quite as emotive, but a lot more accurate.



IMO if a poofteenth of the money spent on this disgusting war were spent on protecting and educating the women of the Middle East we might begin to see real change.
Tell me more about how this would bring peace.
(Just an aside BBC will be doing a debate on Monday about women in Islam in case anyone is interested. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/s...am/3094894.stm) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3094894.stm))

clocker
09-13-2003, 02:27 PM
IMO if a poofteenth of the money spent on this disgusting war were spent on protecting and educating the women of the Middle East we might begin to see real change. There just might be a chance for peace.

A noble sentiment AussieShiela.

How do you propose that it be implemented?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban seems to be specifically targeting human rights workers and schools.
In other Middle East countries, the government/religious leaders would have pretty strong objections to an invading army of schoolmarms, don&#39;t you think?

If the US intercedes with the stated intent of liberating the country from a dictator we are labeled "cultural imperialists" and "bullies"- how is your proposal any different?
They both presuppose that these countries would be better off were they to adopt a more Western approach to life.

AussieSheila
09-13-2003, 02:58 PM
Yes, well, purely stupid probably was a bit much. But do you really think terrorists don&#39;t know who they are killing?

It&#39;s really late here and I&#39;ve got an early start in the morning, will have to get back on the other stuff another time.

I really don&#39;t know how it could be implemented, I just think there must be a way to redirect some of this war money to doing something that would actually make a long term difference.

OK, going, too tired now. Everything I type is unrealistic. Catch ya&#33;

I&#39;m not talking about liberating a country from a dictator (although that would be nice) I&#39;m talking about education from within, so they at least stand a chance of liberating themselves. There was a time when the Irish were not permitted to be educated, they taught their children at Hedge Schools. Surely if even some of the money and brain power put into implementing a war was somehow channelled into countries like Afghanistan there could be a real difference. I quite obviously don&#39;t have the brain power to come up with a solution on the spot, or probably ever, but isn&#39;t it worth working on? Taking into consideration? A long term alternative to blowing the crap outta each other?

shelly
09-13-2003, 03:06 PM
IMO if a poofteenth of the money spent on this disgusting war were spent on protecting and educating the women of the Middle East we might begin to see real change.

As a German woman whos Govt. didn´t join this war,(Which I didn´t agree with) Iám wondering what world you live in ? WHO is going to protect and educate the women of the Middle East ? The men from the Middle East ? The Taliban ? The Middle Eastern Men? Come on join the real world these Men have abused women from the beginning of the Human race do you think a few dollars will change their mind over night. What the Americans did in Afghanistan and Iraq where right even though its not working Ideally at this time.

If the allies didnt go against Hitler where would we be now. Hitler & Saddam two of the same Iám afraid.

Imprisonment Without Trial no don´t agree with that, we had the Nürnberg Trials which were run by the Americans why not the same in this case ?

ilw
09-13-2003, 03:22 PM
AussieSheila are you assuming that women in the Middle East aren&#39;t educated at all? Or what level of education are you talking about?
And education from within sounds decidedly subversive.

clocker
09-13-2003, 03:34 PM
But do you really think terrorists don&#39;t know who they are killing?
I think that , for the most part, they don&#39;t care. If they were specifically targeting Australians ( and from your information, they were), then all the Balinese who also died were what? Irrelevant? An added bonus?
I think that the bombers first priority was to make as big an impression as possible and any political reasons were crafted after the fact to fit what had happened. If , for some strange reason there had been NO Aussies present that night, and instead a group of Japanese tourists, then the terorists would probably come up with a manifesto to justify that, too.



I&#39;m not talking about liberating a country from a dictator (although that would be nice) I&#39;m talking about education from within, so they at least stand a chance of liberating themselves
I think that the one has to preceed the other. No dictator, or repressive religious regime for that matter, is going to sit idly by whilst it&#39;s populace is educated to the point of rebellion. How &#39;ya gonna keep &#39;em down on the farm once they&#39;ve seen Gay Paree? Look at the upsurge of populist protest in Iran.

lynx
09-13-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by clocker@13 September 2003 - 15:34

But do you really think terrorists don&#39;t know who they are killing?
I think that , for the most part, they don&#39;t care. If they were specifically targeting Australians ( and from your information, they were), then all the Balinese who also died were what? Irrelevant? An added bonus?
I think that the bombers first priority was to make as big an impression as possible and any political reasons were crafted after the fact to fit what had happened. If , for some strange reason there had been NO Aussies present that night, and instead a group of Japanese tourists, then the terorists would probably come up with a manifesto to justify that, too.

I think your logic is a bit twisted there, clocker.
The attack was in an area well known for a high number of Australian tourists, it would have been extremely unlikely that on that particular occasion the Australians were suddenly replaced by Japanese tourists. You seem to be suggesting that they picked a target at random, then justified their target afterwards - that just won&#39;t wash.

clocker
09-13-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by lynx@13 September 2003 - 08:42
You seem to be suggesting that they picked a target at random, then justified their target afterwards - that just won&#39;t wash.
Not at all, lynx.

I&#39;m sure that they were very deliberate in their target selection.

What they couldn&#39;t control was the outcome. What if the death toll had been 95% Balinese instead of 1/2 Australian? Certainly, the bombers had no control over the deathtoll.
I wouldn&#39;t expect to hear them say "Ooops, we screwed up, we meant to kill more Australians..."
I would expect to hear some tripe which would ( to them at least) justify what has actually occured.
No matter the initial "political" intention, I still think that, in the end, bombers of this ilk simply don&#39;t really care. The body count is the main goal and the politics can be twisted later to fit.
If targeting Australians ( or anybody, for that matter) was the real goal, then wouldn&#39;t snipers be a better method? Or poison in the Fosters? Or any method less random than a bomb?

Billy_Dean
09-13-2003, 05:48 PM
OK, Clocko, ... do you mind if I call you Clocko? If we were talking about somewhere in the States, I would defer to your local knowledge. Let me assure you, (and this point is really academic), the Bali bombing was aimed at Australians. If you&#39;d ever been to Bali, you would understand this. I really don&#39;t see the point in arguing about this. What is the problem? The Sari club is an Australian hangout, can we leave it there?

Now, I&#39;m really pissed, (in Australia, that means drunk, by the way&#33;) I&#39;ve had a great night, 5 live bands, lots of cheap beer, good company, and now I&#39;m smoking a really nice joint. Aussie Sheila, a girl I very much admire and love, was expressing a point of view she is entitled to express. If I could stand up straight right now I would defend her, but f*ck it, you&#39;ll have to wait till I come out of this drunken stupor.

By the way, Frank Zappa sounds so much better when you&#39;re pissed, why is that?



B)

clocker
09-13-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@13 September 2003 - 10:48
OK, Clocko, ... do you mind if I call you Clocko? If we were talking about somewhere in the States, I would defer to your local knowledge. Let me assure you, (and this point is really academic), the Bali bombing was aimed at Australians. If you&#39;d ever been to Bali, you would understand this. I really don&#39;t see the point in arguing about this. What is the problem? The Sari club is an Australian hangout, can we leave it there?


I will happily defer to your expertise in this particular matter, then.


It&#39;s policies have made Australia a terrorist target.

Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.

So you are willing to have your foriegn policy dictated by "the perceptions of extremists"?
People who are willing to indiscriminately bomb their own countrymen just to target some Australians?
God forfend that Islamic fanatics ever take a dislike to Aussie rules football then, eh?

Billy_Dean
09-13-2003, 06:35 PM
Hi Clocko, just about to crash out.


Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.



So you are willing to have your foriegn policy dictated by "the perceptions of extremists"?
People who are willing to indiscriminately bomb their own countrymen just to target some Australians?

Couldn&#39;t let you get away with this one mate ... we have no more control over what our government does than you do. Watch the next election&#33;

As for your comment,
"the perceptions of extremists", isn&#39;t that what all our government&#39;s policies are based on? Isn&#39;t the war on terrorism a reaction to their perception of us? Or is 10 pots of beer clouding my mind? You know, I&#39;d forgotten just how good a song "Dyna-Moh- Hum was&#33;



B)

clocker
09-13-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@13 September 2003 - 11:35


As for your comment,
"the perceptions of extremists", isn&#39;t that what all our government&#39;s policies are based on? Isn&#39;t the war on terrorism a reaction to their perception of us? Or is 10 pots of beer clouding my mind? You know, I&#39;d forgotten just how good a song "Dyna-Moh- Hum was&#33;



B)
I much prefer Montana, but that is neither here nor there.

Whether or not you agree with my government&#39;s actions ( or yours, either), I really hope that they are not driven or dictated by the "perceptions of terrorists".

The perception of America ( and now, Australia, apparently) is that we are the Great Satan and need to be eradicated.
Wanna agree with that?
Think we should alter foreign policy to accomodate this idea?
Maybe march, lemminglike, into the sea?

Maybe when they alter their behaviour to accomodate my "perception" of them...


Sleep tight, Billy.

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 04:24 AM
Sorry Clocko, we seem to be saying the same thing here from different angles. Perception OF them, and perception of THEM.

But ...


The perception of America ( and now, Australia, apparently) is that we are the Great Satan and need to be eradicated.

I guess this is where we disagree. I understand the evidence for this one is on your side, so you&#39;ll have to put this down to my opinion. I believe their aims are political. I believe they include, Saudi Arabia, the holy of holies to muslims, Israel &#092; Palestine, obviously, Iraq, and any other muslim country they see the US interfering in the politics of.

If you look really closely at the politics in Iran at the moment, you&#39;ll see a balancing act between democracy, (yes, in Iran&#33;) and the Mullahs. The key there is the people, not many years ago the mullahs ran the place without question. The truth now is that the people want democracy.

Montana is indeed an awesome track. Better without the hangover maybe&#33;



B)

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 05:08 AM
But Bush cited the U.S. military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of the strides the United States has made in cracking down on anti-American militants and those who might harbour them or provide them with weapons of mass destruction.

A little quiz for my American friends. The above quote was from a news report.

Can you spot what really pisses a lot of people off in the above quote?

Clue: It&#39;s what&#39;s not there.



B)

clocker
09-14-2003, 05:11 AM
If you look really closely at the politics in Iran at the moment, you&#39;ll see a balancing act between democracy, (yes, in Iran&#33;) and the Mullahs. The key there is the people, not many years ago the mullahs ran the place without question. The truth now is that the people want democracy

Funny you should bring this up.

Before we invaded Iraq I saw a talk show where a expert on the Middle East was talking about the aftermath of the proposed "liberation". Despite the Bush administration&#39;s fantasy theory that we would be able to impose a democracy on Iraqis, he thought that almost certainly the natural course of events would lead to a mullah-lead theocracy.
He went on to say, using Iran as the prime example, that, if we just laid back for 10-15 years, the people would begin to clamor for more freedom and a voice in their government.

Iran has had a fairly stable society for the last generation- they have plenty of oil to sell and, despite the best efforts of the ruling theocrats, western influences have crept in.
Give&#39;em satellite dishes and guess what? Even 5yr. old Arab kids wanna be like Mike.

I guess we&#39;ll just have to wait and see what happens.

This guy could see two likely scenarios...

In the first, some sort of weird amalgamation of a democracy and a more traditional Arab monarchy is hammered out.

In the second, the ruling theocrats, in an effort to divert focus from unrest at home, turn the dissatisfaction towards the West and fan the flames of radical Islam.

I&#39;m hoping for the first while dreading the second.

MeMeMeSoHony
09-14-2003, 06:49 AM
For those who do not live in the USA or dont read many newspapers , online or offline (print) or websites ..anything dedicated to reporting "news" wont know much about the american justice system. Look what the prisoners are going are going through is jail without bond( i think) . There are thousands of ilegal "aliens" in the US and some are kept in jails for months , even years. Without knowing when they will be released , and thats just ilegal aliens. Now "terrorists" (they wont see em as &#39;suspected terrorists&#39;) So ya know Yeah you cant buy beer but you can go and fight for the USA and loose ur life , awesome huh? :huh:

AussieSheila
09-14-2003, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by MeMeMeSoHony@14 September 2003 - 06:49
So ya know Yeah you cant buy beer but you can go and fight for the USA and loose ur life , awesome huh? :huh:
B) Oh, ever such a good point MeMeSoHony&#33; WHY are children sent to fight wars?

:( <_< :angry:

MeMeMeSoHony
09-14-2003, 07:14 AM
Yep , i knew some of the people that have died over there. Also here in the area i live a story came out in the newspaper. A woman who lost her two sons in North Korea is getting &#036;12.05(dollars) per son , per month . She&#39;s 90 .....and thats all she gets..... :ph34r:

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 07:33 AM
@ Shelley ..


Iám wondering what world you live in ? WHO is going to protect and educate the women of the Middle East ?

I&#39;m wondering what world you live in ? Are you saying women can&#39;t be educated? Are you saying we shouldn&#39;t bother trying, because of their past treatment?

Strange post&#33;


B)

AussieSheila
09-14-2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by shelly@13 September 2003 - 15:06

As a German woman whos Govt. didn´t join this war,(Which I didn´t agree with) Iám wondering what world you live in ? WHO is going to protect and educate the women of the Middle East ? The men from the Middle East ? The Taliban ? The Middle Eastern Men? Come on join the real world these Men have abused women from the beginning of the Human race do you think a few dollars will change their mind over night. What the Americans did in Afghanistan and Iraq where right even though its not working Ideally at this time.

If the allies didnt go against Hitler where would we be now. Hitler & Saddam two of the same Iám afraid.

Imprisonment Without Trial no don´t agree with that, we had the Nürnberg Trials which were run by the Americans why not the same in this case ?
No, actually I don&#39;t think their minds will be changed overnight but I think it would be a start. Because this persecution has been going on since the beginning of time, does that mean it&#39;s right? That it has to go on? The world is becoming aware of the problem, therefore the problem can&#39;t go on being ignored.

@MeMeSoHony.......if I were a mother of any age that lost two sons in a war, I wouldn&#39;t want to live. At 90, I&#39;d be checking out mate, couldn&#39;t bear the pain.

MeMeMeSoHony
09-14-2003, 07:55 AM
@AussieSheila , yeah me too. But she&#39;s a fighter...not a quiter..... her sons were the same i suppose. :( Rick Perry governor of Texas , actually made some cuts to help the elderly and to help the old veterans....like from WW2 and Vietnam and stuff like that. I know ilegal aliens that get twice in aid as those who fought for this country. :ph34r: So much crap in Texas right now :angry:

thewizeard
09-14-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 08:33
@ Shelley ..


Iám wondering what world you live in ? WHO is going to protect and educate the women of the Middle East ?

I&#39;m wondering what world you live in ? Are you saying women can&#39;t be educated? Are you saying we shouldn&#39;t bother trying, because of their past treatment?

Strange post&#33;


B)
Well I think Shelley seems to show knowledge of Islamic cultuur. Namely factor Islamic male....

You can&#39;t just go &#39;educating" these (their) women. It would be looked upon as indoctrination and treated as such.....No I don&#39;t see many islamic women going to such schools of reeducation.

ilw
09-14-2003, 09:04 AM
and i think they&#39;re perfectly entitled to think of it as indoctrination / forcing your values on them. I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t think another country should decide what is taught in your country.

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 09:08 AM
Well I think Shelley seems to show knowledge of Islamic cultuur. Namely factor Islamic male....

You can&#39;t just go &#39;educating" these (their) women. It would be looked upon as indoctrination and treated as such.....No I don&#39;t see many islamic women going to such schools of reeducation.

I think Shelley is showing a LACK of knowledge about Islamic culture.

You speak as though ALL muslim women were downtrodden and uneducated. This is just not true. It&#39;s a minority of countries where women are treated like that.

And what did you think Andie meant? You walk up to a bunch of men, give them some money, and ask them to educate their women?

Women will do that job, with government approval. There are plenty of women&#39;s organisations doing that already. Their main problem is underfunding, not muslim men.

And if you really are concerned about women Shelley, what about the cultures where they circumcise young girls? Oh, but they&#39;re black cultures, arent they, mustn&#39;t talk about them, that&#39;s racism, but it&#39;s OK to talk about muslims, cos they&#39;re the enemy, eh?

EDIT: Which side of the fence are you coming from ilw? I don&#39;t understand what you are arguing for.


:ph34r:

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 09:26 AM
"When you capture a bird and put her into a cage, the bird will not have education or freedom. But even the owner of a bird gives it food and water to keep it alive. The Taliban doesn&#39;t even treat us like a caged bird. They don&#39;t care whether we die in our houses, or if we live," says Habib, who holds free literacy classes in her small Peshawar home for Afghan refugee girls.

The classroom is located in a 12-by-12-foot room, off a courtyard at the end of a maze of mud-walled alleyways. The classes are sponsored by a shadowy women&#39;s rights group called the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, or RAWA. For 14 years, this secretive organization has documented the oppression of Afghan women and operated a network of underground schools for women inside Afghanistan and refugees in neighboring Pakistan.


Here&#39;s an example of what women can do in the face of oppression. These are the sort of enterprise that should be funded.

EDIT: Oops, should have provided the link to above quote.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/...libanwomen.html (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/world/features/2001/oct/talibanwomen/011030.talibanwomen.html)



:ph34r:

ilw
09-14-2003, 09:35 AM
Why should they be funded?

thewizeard
09-14-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 10:08


And if you really are concerned about women Shelley, what about the cultures where they circumcise young girls?&nbsp; Oh, but they&#39;re black cultures, arent they, mustn&#39;t talk about them, that&#39;s racism, but it&#39;s OK to talk about muslims, cos they&#39;re the enemy, eh?




This terrible practise (FGM) is being addressed in the Netherlands. That&#39;s not so difficult. Although this problem, being cultural and not religious, is often perpetuated by the women themselves.

The problem is, how does one address it in the lands where it&#39;s practised?

Perhaps this is worthy of a new topic, being very much off-topic here.

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 09:41 AM
I wouldn&#39;t worry about being off-topic Nigel, no-one else seems to&#33;



B)

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by ilw@14 September 2003 - 18:35
Why should they be funded?
Do I really have to answer this??

If you can&#39;t see why, I&#39;m amazed&#33;


:ph34r:

ilw
09-14-2003, 11:09 AM
What are you basing this amazement on? Why should women be educated? Is it because they are educated in the west?

ilw
09-14-2003, 11:11 AM
And why should we force democracy on Iraq?

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 11:16 AM
Do you have a mother ilw, or were you found in bullrushes too?

Do you have daughters?

If you answered yes to either or both of them, I hope you feel a sense of shame.



:ph34r:

ilw
09-14-2003, 11:21 AM
i have mother and a sister. My belief is firmly in the &#39;they have completely equal rights&#39; camp. However, you are forcing this belief on others, which is something you would completely disagree with if the belief went against yours. Why is your belief right and theirs wrong, thats just arrogant. If someone said all children should be given sex education at the age of 4 or 5 or something and then funded groups that went around in secret and taught children, I would assume that you would be against it. (or if you wouldn&#39; t i&#39;m sure you can come up with something you wouldn&#39;t want to be taught to children).
Ah but women are adults I hear you think, well why if we have a legal separation of children from adults is it any different to have a legal separation of women and men?

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 12:31 PM
Oh, I see, not all women are created equal? Is that a religious thing with you, or did you come to your own conclusion?

Go argue with your mum and sister. But before you do, go back and click on the link I provided. Get that quote into context. Then say those women are wrong.



:ph34r:

ilw
09-14-2003, 12:41 PM
If you read my last post you&#39;ll realise i am in essence playing devil&#39;s advocate. However, do you really not understand the ethical argument or are you just being stubborn. What you believe is no more correct than what anyone else believes. The belief that women shouldn&#39;t be educated is equally as valid as the belief that women should be educated. Just because you have been brought up beliving one and not the other and have the power to enforce it on other countries is no reason to do so. I have seen you arguing a vaguely similar case for Americans abusing their power

AussieSheila
09-14-2003, 01:09 PM
Nobody is trying to force anything on these women, they want our help.

http://www.rawa.org/

http://afghanwomensmission.org/programs/he...atol_report.php (http://afghanwomensmission.org/programs/heal/ghatol_report.php)

http://www.rawa.org/help.htm

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 01:10 PM
The belief that women shouldn&#39;t be educated is equally as valid as the belief that women should be educated.

Is it? Who says?

Are you saying that women who want to be educated should be denied the opportunity if others object?

And I still don&#39;t believe you&#39;ve read the story I linked to.


:ph34r:

ilw
09-14-2003, 01:27 PM
I read the story and I was aware of it beforehand.
how about people in America who want terrorist training? Would the US government stand idly by and allow secret societies to train people in creating chemical and biological weapons? You may think these things are different, but the only difference is in what you perceive is dangerous.


The belief that women shouldn&#39;t be educated is equally as valid as the belief that women should be educated.
Is it? Who says?
Who says it isn&#39;t right to believe women shouldn&#39;t be educated.

If you believe you know what is right then you&#39;re wrong. Or to paraphrase the matrix:
Do not believe you can know what is right because that is impossible. Instead only try to realise the truth.
What truth?
There is no right.

AussieSheila
09-14-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by ilw@14 September 2003 - 13:27
I read the story and I was aware of it beforehand.
how about people in America who want terrorist training? Would the US government stand idly by and allow secret societies to train people in creating chemical and biological weapons? You may think these things are different, but the only difference is in what you perceive is dangerous.


Who says it isn&#39;t right to believe women shouldn&#39;t be educated.


:o WTF?????


I&#39;m confused, where&#39;s the comparison?

Women, that&#39;s who, ya bluddy great wanker&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 01:59 PM
So now you&#39;re getting so desperate for sensible arguments you&#39;re turning to fiction for inspiration.

You give me a call when you land.



B)

Rat Faced
09-14-2003, 02:01 PM
What is moral and ethical in one country, isnt in another.

You CANNOT judge a country on the ethics that you have been brought up to believe in, as they are not Universal.


For example, the female circumsition.......

I know how bad that is, however............why is it excepted that its OK to circumsice Males?


I believe its WRONG to damage a childs body in any way, unless its necessary for medical reasons, whether this be Circumsition for religious reasons (eg Jews) or getting a young girls ears pierced because her mother wants to put Ear Rings on her.....

To those that use "religion" as a basis for it....I would point out that they are claiming God got the design wrong in the 1st place, which seems a little strange...


However, i understand that my beliefs are not universal....I wouldnt dream of forcing them on others.

ilw
09-14-2003, 02:09 PM
Is no one understanding the philosophical points i&#39;m trying to make?
Ok I&#39;ll shift my argument away from women, since thats obviously annoying some people.
I&#39;m basically arguing that no belief system is wrong. If we found a society where killing each other was allowed, then I&#39;m sure we&#39;d all be shocked, but if that society is surviving who are we to force our culture on them? Anyone who disagrees with my last statement must think that their beliefs are somehow better (or more right) than this other culture&#39;s. Why? You are in effect believing you have the moral right to crush their culture.

Please think about some of these things before giving a knee jerk response.

And the resorting to fiction thing :( I was quite proud of that :(

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 02:10 PM
@ Rat Faced. Hi.

I also believe male circumcism is wrong, and in Australia it is done for "health" reasons, because men cannot keep their penises clean underneath a foreskin.

As for piercing daughter&#39;s ears, my experience of this has been my daughters (3) begging to have it done, and me refusing. This may be more prevailent than you think.


B)

ilw
09-14-2003, 02:12 PM
woohoo, just saw Rat faced&#39;s comment, and i agree 100%

cowswithguns
09-14-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by ilw@14 September 2003 - 13:27
I read the story and I was aware of it beforehand.
how about people in America who want terrorist training? Would the US government stand idly by and allow secret societies to train people in creating chemical and biological weapons? You may think these things are different, but the only difference is in what you perceive is dangerous.


The belief that women shouldn&#39;t be educated is equally as valid as the belief that women should be educated.
Is it? Who says?
Who says it isn&#39;t right to believe women shouldn&#39;t be educated.


So you&#39;re drawing parallels between the rights to train as terrorists and the right of a woman to have an education....and the dangers therein...A tad extreme I think.

I would have thought that it was everyone&#39;s right to a basic education regardless of what gender they were.

Hopefully one day women in any culture will be able to overcome the restrictions placed upon them and be able to freely educate themselves and be treated with the respect they deserve.

ilw
09-14-2003, 02:36 PM
The terrorism thing was because i needed an example everyone would understand as wrong to teach, and thats quite hard to think of in the thankfullly liberal societies we find ourselves in. Edit: I just thought of another, I think we should teach all teenagers how to have sex (ie practical lessons). Thats not as extreme is it, cos I would maybe agree with this idea, hmmm.


I would have thought that it was everyone&#39;s right to a basic education regardless of what gender they were ditto I think education is of supreme importance.

However, do you have the right to say that a culture which doesn&#39;t believe this is wrong? I think rat faced made the point more clearly than me

clocker
09-14-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 00:33
@ Shelley ..


Iám wondering what world you live in ? WHO is going to protect and educate the women of the Middle East ?

I&#39;m wondering what world you live in ? Are you saying women can&#39;t be educated? Are you saying we shouldn&#39;t bother trying, because of their past treatment?

Strange post&#33;


B)
Reading her posts, I don&#39;t get the impression that Shelley would deny that women should be educated.
Her post asks WHO is going to do it and HOW.

You going to march into Saudi Arabia or Iran and just start setting up women&#39;s acadamies? Woman&#39;s driving schools?

After all, it is the right thing to do.

Apparently, when you decide that something is just plain patently "right" it&#39;s perfectly okay to impose your belief on another country.

When the US does the exact same thing, we are bullies and cultural imperialists.

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 02:59 PM
Do you have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong then? Were they "right" then on 911? Are they "right" to want the destruction of the US?

If we didn&#39;t choose between right and wrong, as we perceived them, where do you think the world would be now?


B)

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 03:11 PM
Come on Clocko, go read here, get my comments in perspective first. This is the type of thing I was talking about.

When you get to this bit ...



"When you capture a bird and put her into a cage, the bird will not have education or freedom. But even the owner of a bird gives it food and water to keep it alive. The Taliban doesn&#39;t even treat us like a caged bird. They don&#39;t care whether we die in our houses, or if we live," says Habib, who holds free literacy classes in her small Peshawar home for Afghan refugee girls.

The classroom is located in a 12-by-12-foot room, off a courtyard at the end of a maze of mud-walled alleyways. The classes are sponsored by a shadowy women&#39;s rights group called the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, or RAWA. For 14 years, this secretive organization has documented the oppression of Afghan women and operated a network of underground schools for women inside Afghanistan and refugees in neighboring Pakistan.

.... you&#39;ll see where my comments came from.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/...libanwomen.html (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/world/features/2001/oct/talibanwomen/011030.talibanwomen.html)

The exact same thing? I think NOT&#33;



B)

clocker
09-14-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 07:59
Do you have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong then? Were they "right" then on 911? Are they "right" to want the destruction of the US?

If we didn&#39;t choose between right and wrong, as we perceived them, where do you think the world would be now?


B)
Did I not make myself clear?

Guess not.

I was not commenting on the essential &#39;rightness" of any particular stance, nor was I trying to deny anyone the right to choose one ideology over another.

Obviously, I don&#39;t agree with radical Islamic fundamentalists.

I was simply pointing out the disconnect in the board&#39;s tenor here.
If you can arbitrarily decide that it&#39;s okay to impose your western, liberal concept of women&#39;s rights on cultures that actively disagree with you, then why can&#39;t the US do the same with democracy?

ilw
09-14-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 15:59
Do you have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong then?&nbsp; Were they "right" then on 911?&nbsp; Are they "right" to want the destruction of the US?

If we didn&#39;t choose between right and wrong, as we perceived them, where do you think the world would be now?


B)
yes i have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong. Its freedom of speech which is a right granted to me by the country i am in.
Edit; removed some rubbish i was saying.


I take the &#39;we&#39; is the royal we. :P But then surely you agree people in the US can determine what is right and wrong and enforce it in other countries? If not the US who? The UN? why should the UN be able to say, what about non-member states? Should all countries get together and agree on what each country can do? Should it be democratically decided ie one vote per country or bigger countries get more votes? Bigger how population or size or economy or military power or ....?

Its gonna get confusing if you start talking about exactly what rights a country has because each country determines for itself what rights another country has. but then you can say what right does a country have to decide this and so on.

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 03:35 PM
Hold on, let&#39;s clear a few things up here, before you two have me claiming the pope is a catholic&#33;


If you can arbitrarily decide that it&#39;s okay to impose your western, liberal concept of women&#39;s rights on cultures that actively disagree with you, then why can&#39;t the US do the same with democracy?

Show me where I said that? Also show me where the US has imposed, and not opposed democracy. Start with Chile and work your way forward.

ilw, your post is totally confusing to me. Send me over some of the grass you&#39;re smoking and I&#39;ll try to get in the same mindframe.


B)

ilw
09-14-2003, 03:42 PM
So are you not saying that (irrespective of government and popular opinion in these countries) we in the West should fund a &#39;revolutionary&#39; group, because this group is right and government and popular opinion in the country is wrong?

Edit: Thats not so far from certain CIA tactics that we know you are so fond of :-"
And what is so great about democracy? Why is democracy the ultimate good and dictatorship the ultimate bad?

Billy_Dean
09-14-2003, 04:15 PM
And what is so great about democracy? Why is democracy the ultimate good and dictatorship the ultimate bad?

ilw, if there is such a thing as a "good" dictatorship, please point one out to me.


Edit: Thats not so far from certain CIA tactics that we know you are so fond of

A joke from ilw, at this time of night too&#33;


So are you not saying that (irrespective of government and popular opinion in these countries) we in the West should fund a &#39;revolutionary&#39; group, because this group is right and government and popular opinion in the country is wrong?

Yes .. or is it no? Isn&#39;t that exactly what we are doing? Have I ever said that it is wrong to interfere in the politics of another country?



B)

Rat Faced
09-14-2003, 08:13 PM
If you can arbitrarily decide that it&#39;s okay to impose your western, liberal concept of women&#39;s rights on cultures that actively disagree with you, then why can&#39;t the US do the same with democracy?



Correct me if im wrong, but the USA is a Republic based on Democracy.....not a Democracy.


As with Communism, Democracy in its extreme is unworkable.


de·moc·ra·cy

1/ The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

2/ Majority rule.


The USA, like the UK, is quite capable of having a government where the majority of the popular vote goes to the loser of the election.......therefore its not a True Democracy.


Supporting education in another country is OK.......as long as no one is forced to be educated.

Forcing democracy on another country is intollerable.

j2k4
09-14-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+12 September 2003 - 23:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 12 September 2003 - 23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 23:28

I&#39;m glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn&#39;t care less, what&#39;s best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don&#39;t understand, two years later, why 911 happened.


:ph34r:
Well, then-

Just for us American thickos, why don&#39;t you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?[/b][/quote]
I will ask only this once more, then leave it alone, Billy.

Try "Waiting for Columbus"; specifically, "Willin".

Are you?

I await with &#39;bated breath the true, inside story of 9/11.

ilw
09-14-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 September 2003 - 21:13
Supporting education in another country is OK.......as long as no one is forced to be educated.

If the education you fund goes against the wishes of the government of the country, then i disagree.



How do you measure how &#39;good&#39; a reign is? If you just mean by general impression of how things go for the country during the period of rule then although i can&#39;t really think of a great dictatorship, all the monarchies of europe were at one time or another dictatorships and there were good and bad rulers/periods. China seems to be doing alright for itself economically and industrially.

Rat Faced
09-14-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by ilw+14 September 2003 - 21:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 14 September 2003 - 21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@14 September 2003 - 21:13
Supporting education in another country is OK.......as long as no one is forced to be educated.

If the education you fund goes against the wishes of the government of the country, then i disagree.



How do you measure how &#39;good&#39; a reign is? If you just mean by general impression of how things go for the country during the period of rule then although i can&#39;t really think of a great dictatorship, all the monarchies of europe were at one time or another dictatorships and there were good and bad rulers/periods. China seems to be doing alright for itself economically and industrially. [/b][/quote]
Who gives a monkey&#39;s what a Government wants?

Its the people that concern me.

I wont force anyone to do anything, but if i want to learn/study something.......there is no way that what my government wants will come into the equation, or the legality of it.

Im quite happy supporting anyone, anywhere with learning.


If the people are unhappy enough to revolt, they will revolt.....the way the future of that country goes will depend upon what the people believe (or those that are in charge). I am not advocating educating people to rebell, but in educating people generally....if they want to be educated.

In some places a revolution will go to the extreme left or right....as it has done throughout last century, unless education is available to show how extremes (in either direction) do not give stability for the masses.

AussieSheila
09-14-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by ilw@14 September 2003 - 21:00
If the education you fund goes against the wishes of the government of the country, then i disagree.




What about the wishes of the people? The PEOPLE are asking for our help. The ordinary, everyday people of Afghanistan are asking the ordinary, everyday people (just like me) of the Western world for help. When I&#39;m considering ways that I CAN help, I won&#39;t be taking into consideration the &#39;wishes of the government&#39; at all, I&#39;m answering a plea for help. This is human rights. I don&#39;t believe I&#39;m forcing my Western ways on anyone.

Read this and tell me there is nothing we can or should do. Not in my name either, Mr. Howard.

http://www.rawa.org/betray.htm

Billy_Dean
09-15-2003, 06:48 AM
What about the ones you miss j2t4?


But Bush cited the U.S. military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of the strides the United States has made in cracking down on anti-American militants and those who might harbour them or provide them with weapons of mass destruction.


A little quiz for my American friends. The above quote was from a news report.

Can you spot what really pisses a lot of people off in the above quote?

Clue: It&#39;s what&#39;s not there.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ j2k4


I await with &#39;bated breath the true, inside story of 9/11.

I seem to remember your theory was, that 911 happened because America was seen as the "Great Satan" and had no political motive, is that right?

What do you want me to say? Do I really have to point out US involvement in Muslim countries? Do I have to point out that Osama Bin Laden was recruited, armed and financed by the US, then abandoned? Look at every US involvement in the muslim world for your answers. Look especially at Saudi Arabia.

@ Clocko.


If you can arbitrarily decide that it&#39;s okay to impose your western, liberal concept of women&#39;s rights on cultures that actively disagree with you, then why can&#39;t the US do the same with democracy?

By "... cultures that actively disagree...", do you mean by the men?


B)

Billy_Dean
09-15-2003, 08:41 AM
I think AussieSheila&#39;s link should be more prominent.

http://www.rawa.org/betray.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Afghanistan has been well and truly betrayed


The Herald (Glasgow), February 26, 2003
David Hayman, head of operations, Spirit Aid, 45 King Street, Glasgow.



I HAVE just returned from the last country we went to war with, barely 16 months ago, Afghanistan. I spent a month there taking in medical aid to 13 mountain villages that collectively go by the name of Sheik-Jalaal. Out of a population of 5000, 50% were children and they were dying. Dying of tuberculosis, diphtheria, malaria, whooping cough, gastroenteritis, and URI. They haven&#39;t seen a doctor in 24 years&#33; I arranged and paid for teams of doctors, nurses, and drivers. I bought thousands of pounds worth of medicines, and the Halo Trust (the mine-clearing organisation) loaned me a fleet of two ambulances and two Land Rovers.

....

At the end of the day, though, what I managed to achieve was but a sticking -plaster on the wounds of that beleaguered and forgotten country. Wasn&#39;t this the country that Tony Blair and George Bush pledged, in the same breath that announced war, that the people of Afghanistan would not be forgotten? Well, I can say after two visits to Afghanistan that they are not only forgotten but well and truly betrayed. The country is on its knees: roads, bridges, tunnels, schools, homes, hospitals, and farmlands are reduced to rubble and dust. It is one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world. Only 5% of the rural population have access to clean water, 17% have access to medical services, 13% have access to education, 25% of all children are dead by the age of five. Life expectancy is 43. An estimated three million people are still in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, let alone the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced peoples. This country is in a mess and if anyone tells me that millions of dollars worth of aid is getting into this country then I will gladly take them to Afghanistan and point out the brutal truth. The people are dying&#33; And we are turning a blind eye.

The people are dying and we are heading off to war with yet another country that hasn&#39;t bombed us or attacked us. How can we even contemplate creating another, inevitable, humanitarian disaster when the evidence of Saddam Hussein&#39;s threat to us all has yet to be proven? Surely, at the start of our 21st century, we should have evolved beyond the point where we reduce a country and a people to dust, for the flimsiest of excuses. War is the failure of politics&#33; War is the failure of diplomacy&#33; It is the absence of wisdom and understanding. The humanitarian crises, the desperation of the children, the betrayal of a people I witnessed in Afghanistan must not be repeated. Not in our name, Mr Blair.

Barbarossa
09-15-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 14:10
@ Rat Faced. Hi.

I also believe male circumcism is wrong, and in Australia it is done for "health" reasons, because men cannot keep their penises clean underneath a foreskin.

As for piercing daughter&#39;s ears, my experience of this has been my daughters (3) begging to have it done, and me refusing. This may be more prevailent than you think.


B)
Just a couple of points:-

1). You can in no way compare male and female circumcisions, they are (quite obviously) completely different operations, done for completely different reasons.


2). Although I don&#39;t condone a religious reasons for cicumcision, the medical benefits of male circumcision are well documented. For some reason it&#39;s very uncommon in the UK, although I believe it&#39;s more common in the states (some 60% of males I think)


I personally had to undergo a circumcision a couple of years ago due to medical reasons, the immediate aftermath of the operation was absolute HELL and I really wished that it had been all over and done with when I had been an infant, it&#39;s alot simpler&#33;&#33; (Infants don&#39;t wake up in the middle of the night with am excutiatingly agonising stiffy straining the stitches for example&#33;)

But as soon as it healed it&#39;s been brilliant, feels better, looks OK, and the wife likes it better too. :D

ilw
09-15-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by AussieSheila+15 September 2003 - 00:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AussieSheila @ 15 September 2003 - 00:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@14 September 2003 - 21:00
If the education you fund goes against the wishes of the government of the country, then i disagree.




What about the wishes of the people? The PEOPLE are asking for our help. The ordinary, everyday people of Afghanistan are asking the ordinary, everyday people (just like me) of the Western world for help. When I&#39;m considering ways that I CAN help, I won&#39;t be taking into consideration the &#39;wishes of the government&#39; at all, I&#39;m answering a plea for help. This is human rights. I don&#39;t believe I&#39;m forcing my Western ways on anyone.

Read this and tell me there is nothing we can or should do. Not in my name either, Mr. Howard.

http://www.rawa.org/betray.htm [/b][/quote]
Lets just skip the fact that you are in effect forcing democracy on these countries / people and are simultaneously assuming that democracy is somehow correct and any country&#39;s government that disagrees is to be ignored.

Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to teach any of their children who want to learn (irrespective of parents wishes)? If not then at what age do they become adults? If thats a minor point then what about any beliefs that women are not as capable as men and so fall into a different legal category much in the same way that children fall into a different legal category, should these beliefs be destroyed because they are &#39;wrong&#39;? If we in the west believe that its not right to teach children certain things (and the reason given is that they are not able to handle or somehow accept it) then what about countries where women are thought of in a similar fashion? Some countries may believe that they are protecting their women by not educating them. Just because we recognise anyone over 18 of either sex as a full adult doesn&#39;t mean other nations have to.

AussieSheila
09-15-2003, 12:41 PM
You&#39;re not reading the links, if you were you would understand that I&#39;m not trying to force anything on them. They are themselves asking for help in these areas because they understand that without education and health services, not currently provided, there is no hope for a better future. They are not stupid, they are oppressed. It is a small but powerful minority inflicting these terrible conditions on the Afghani women, and there hasn&#39;t been much of an improvement since the Talaban were ousted. The women want change. I&#39;m not going to back off because a group of the biggest male pigs (scrap that, detrimental to a fine animal) to walk the earth happen to be at this point in time, in control.

;) Such a sweetie you&#33; Mother and sisters, no wife? You might want to keep it that way.

Go here
http://www.rawa.org/

lynx
09-15-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by ilw@15 September 2003 - 12:17

Lets just skip the fact that you are in effect forcing democracy on these countries / people and are simultaneously assuming that democracy is somehow correct and any country&#39;s government that disagrees is to be ignored.

Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to teach any of their children who want to learn (irrespective of parents wishes)? If not then at what age do they become adults? If thats a minor point then what about any beliefs that women are not as capable as men and so fall into a different legal category&nbsp; much in the same way that children fall into a different legal category, should these beliefs be destroyed because they are &#39;wrong&#39;? If we in the west believe that its not right to teach children certain things (and the reason given is that they are not able to handle or somehow accept it) then what about countries where women are thought of in a similar fashion? Some countries may believe that they are protecting their women by not educating them. Just because we recognise anyone over 18 of either sex as a full adult doesn&#39;t mean other nations have to.
I&#39;m glag you skipped the fact of forcing democracy on people, because that wasn&#39;t what was being discussed, I rather think we were talking about education.

Let me see if I&#39;ve understood you correctly, are you saying that it is ok for women to be treated as second class citizens because their (male controlled) government says that&#39;s the way it has to be?

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realised it yet, but there is a slighht difference between women and children. Yes, there are always going to be slight differences in the age at which adulthood is legally attained, what of it? Children are children, they don&#39;t have the mental experience to handle some of the things we as adults do, but women have the same mental capacity as men (well almost ;) ) and there is no reason why a male controlled government should deny them the right (yes, it is a basic human right) to education.

Billy_Dean
09-15-2003, 01:09 PM
Biography of
martyred Meena,
founding leader of RAWA


MEENA (1956-1987) was born on February 27, 1956 in Kabul. During her school days, students in Kabul and other Afghan cities were deeply engaged in social activism and rising mass movements. She left the university to devote herself as a social activist to organizing and educating women. In pursuit of her cause for gaining the right of freedom of expression and conducting political activities, Meena laid the foundation of RAWA in 1977. This organization was meant to give voice to the deprived and silenced women of Afghanistan. She started a campaign against the Russian forces and their puppet regime in 1979 and organized numerous processions and meetings in schools, colleges and Kabul University to mobilize public opinion. Another great service rendered by her for the Afghan women is the launching of a bilingual magazine, Payam-e-Zan (Women&#39;s Message) in 1981. Through this magazine RAWA has been projecting the cause of Afghan women boldly and effectively. Payam-e-Zan has constantly exposed the criminal nature of fundamentalist groups. Meena also established Watan Schools for refugee children, a hospital and handicraft centers for refugee women in Pakistan to support Afghan women financially. At the end of 1981, by invitation of the French Government Meena represented the Afghan resistance movement at the French Socialist Party Congress. The Soviet delegation at the Congress, headed by Boris Ponamaryev, shamefacedly left the hall as participants cheered when Meena started waving a victory sign. Besides France, she also visited several other European countries and met their prominent personalities. Her active social work and effective advocacy against the views of the fundamentalists and the puppet regime provoked the wrath of the Russians and the fundamentalist forces alike and she was assassinated by agents of KHAD (Afghanistan branch of KGB) and their fundamentalist accomplices in Quetta, Pakistan, on February 4,1987.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Translation of a part of a poem by Meena

I’LL NEVER RETURN

I&#39;m the woman who has awoken
I&#39;ve arisen and become a tempest through the ashes of my burnt children
I&#39;ve arisen from the rivulets of my brother&#39;s blood
My nation&#39;s wrath has empowered me
My ruined and burnt villages fill me with hatred against the enemy
Oh compatriot, no longer regard me weak and incapable,
My voice has mingled with thousands of arisen women
My fists are clenched with fists of thousands compatriots
To break all these sufferings all these fetters of slavery.
I&#39;m the woman who has awoken,
I&#39;ve found my path and will never return.


OK ilw, you ignore them, I won&#39;t&#33; Whatever it is you believe, that&#39;s fine. You can argue till you&#39;re blue in the face if you wish. I don&#39;t care for your views, and I no longer wish to espouse mine to you.


:ph34r:

ang3968
09-15-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by ilw+15 September 2003 - 22:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 15 September 2003 - 22:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by AussieSheila@15 September 2003 - 00:57
<!--QuoteBegin-ilw@14 September 2003 - 21:00
If the education you fund goes against the wishes of the government of the country, then i disagree.




What about the wishes of the people? The PEOPLE are asking for our help. The ordinary, everyday people of Afghanistan are asking the ordinary, everyday people (just like me) of the Western world for help. When I&#39;m considering ways that I CAN help, I won&#39;t be taking into consideration the &#39;wishes of the government&#39; at all, I&#39;m answering a plea for help. This is human rights. I don&#39;t believe I&#39;m forcing my Western ways on anyone.

Read this and tell me there is nothing we can or should do. Not in my name either, Mr. Howard.

http://www.rawa.org/betray.htm
Lets just skip the fact that you are in effect forcing democracy on these countries / people and are simultaneously assuming that democracy is somehow correct and any country&#39;s government that disagrees is to be ignored.

Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to teach any of their children who want to learn (irrespective of parents wishes)? If not then at what age do they become adults? If thats a minor point then what about any beliefs that women are not as capable as men and so fall into a different legal category much in the same way that children fall into a different legal category, should these beliefs be destroyed because they are &#39;wrong&#39;? If we in the west believe that its not right to teach children certain things (and the reason given is that they are not able to handle or somehow accept it) then what about countries where women are thought of in a similar fashion? Some countries may believe that they are protecting their women by not educating them. Just because we recognise anyone over 18 of either sex as a full adult doesn&#39;t mean other nations have to. [/b][/quote]
Lets just skip the fact that you are in effect forcing democracy on these countries / people and are simultaneously assuming that democracy is somehow correct and any country&#39;s government that disagrees is to be ignored.


I don&#39;t think anyone is saying the wishes of the government is to be ignored..... but is it more wrong to ignore the wishes of the people????


Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to teach any of their children who want to learn (irrespective of parents wishes)?

I&#39;m sorry.... are we talking of education of grown women asking for help or children???

If thats a minor point then what about any beliefs that women are not as capable as men and so fall into a different legal category much in the same way that children fall into a different legal category, should these beliefs be destroyed because they are &#39;wrong&#39;?

So a minority of men (or more if you so wish) believe women are not capable.... so this makes it fact?? I think the only person forcing their belief on anyone is you... yes some countries may believe their women are second or even third class citizens... but if the women wish to be educated and are asking for help who says this is wrong??... Not so long ago (insert country here) had laws and beliefs that are now known to be wrong/against humanity... it takes education and an open mind to change things...

Now, please forgive me for butting in... I hope I haven&#39;t got the wrong end of the stick here.... if I have, direct me to the right end and I shall argue that point with you or agree with you....... one of the two anyway....

;)

ilw
09-15-2003, 01:23 PM
You&#39;re right i hadn&#39;t read the link, I couldn&#39;t be arsed. I just checked it and i&#39;m now of the opinion that its nothing i wasn&#39;t aware of, all very sad, but irrelevant. Have a look here for some more sad news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3097728.stm

And you are wrong, you are forcing something on them. Dispel the notion that people should get what they want because THAT IS democracy and you&#39;ll realise that by ignoring their governments wishes you ARE forcing democracy on the country. You just have to lose the blinkers that an entire life in democracy has given you. People don&#39;t know whats best for them and the majority is not always right.

Education is a basic human right in the west. Other countries/people have not agreed to that. And just as you see children being different to adults can you not see why some people think that women are different to men? If this were a matriarchy and men were considered to be incapable of learning then i would be arguing exactly the same thing. What i&#39;m arguing is not that women can be treated as second class citizens, but that countries have a basic right to self government which you are denying them. However i don&#39;t think there is anything setting out basic rights for country&#39;s so why is it wrong to force all our beliefs on other countries, I&#39;m sure a lot of our beliefs are better than theirs. Why is it wrong to control another country?

If they held a referendum in Afghanistan on whether women should be allowed to be educated and it came back no , would you still ignore their wishes and teach those who want to be taught?

Or does anyone wish to be scientific and argue biological differences between children / women / men and that religion should bow to these facts. If so make some points and i&#39;ll argue against them :D

The scary thing which no one has picked up on is that if you follow my argument to the logical end then a country can do anything to its inhabitants.


Edit: invade -> control

AussieSheila
09-15-2003, 01:44 PM
B) The original point was that the money being spent on the &#39;war on terrorism&#39; could be put to much better use. The current occupation, sorry, liberation of Iraq, is failing dismally as a way to peace. What&#39;s the count now, 72 American soldiers dead, since the war was &#39;won&#39;. How many Iraqi&#39;s?

It is the diplomats working quietly behind the scenes that are actually having the biggest impact. Not the brute force in the streets.

ilw
09-15-2003, 01:44 PM
I&#39;m gonna start my own country and show the world how crap democracy is, then i&#39;ll take over the rest of the world. Just you wait :P

But yeah, I&#39;ll shut up now, I don&#39;t think anyone understands what i&#39;m talking about, I thought for a moment Rat Faced did, but no :(
I give up http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/surrender.gif

ang3968
09-15-2003, 01:49 PM
are you playing the devils advocate now???


People don&#39;t know whats best for them and the majority is not always right.

so by this way of thinking the minority is more right especially if they hold a position in government??


Education is a basic human right in the west. Other countries/people have not agreed to that.
It is the basic human right of everyone. How can someone make an informed choice without some form of education??.... who says they don&#39;t want an education???.... who says the minority are making the RIGHT decision???


And just as you see children being different to adults can you not see why some people think that women are different to men? If this were a matriarchy and men were considered to be incapable of learning then i would be arguing exactly the same thing




There is a huge difference between an adult and a child.... and even uneducated people can see this difference. Whether you are arguing this point for men or women it is still wrong.... the only difference we have is in our physical selves so we can continue to populate..... there is no difference that recognises one sex needs to be educated over another..


The scary thing which no one has picked up on is that if you follow my argument to the logical end then a country can do anything to its inhabitants.


Isn&#39;t that happening now???


what???????............................... I just typed all that and you want to give up now?????...... too bad..... I&#39;m posting it anyway.... lol