Printable View
we're not minimising what happened in NY, Washington and Pennsylvania, we're just saying that there's no direct link between terrorism and Iraq, and that a war in Iraq will only cause more terrorism.
and that's something nobody wants...
Can I echo that SJ?Quote:
Nobody killed by terrorism deserved it, be they American, French, Brit, Hindu, Muslim okay? You people MUST stop discounting what happened like we deserved it or something.
I know ppl killed by terrorists too.
No cause is worth the lives of innocents to make a 'point'....be it a 'terrorist' organisation or a Government.
I hope you werent thinking i was attacking you or Americans in General SJ, and im sorry if it came across that way (except that bit at 'The Americans that think' which wasnt aimed at you, it was aimed at someone else) Im on record many times as attacking the American GOVERNMENT....and indeed my own, not the people.
In my view they are wholly different in nature, temperament and views.
Even that swipe on blue on blue in another thread...its the US Government/Military that refused to appologise....The airmen themselves did, and got bollicked by their own officers for doing it....I'll edit my post to make that clearer.
edited: typo
Could all those Nationalists
who are ready to die for their motherland
please do it now
SuperJude,
First of all I feel really sorry if I offended you, it was not the purpose. The sentence about the human bomb was somehow misplaced, I agree. I didn't intend to insult your deads, as I won't ever insult any dead. The thing I was criticizing was the whole 'revenge' idea, this 'an eye for an eye' which I think is stupid.
And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. You want to know ? I stayed three months in war-torn city of Ambon. Do you know where that is ? Do you even know what's happening there ? In this indonesian islands people have been fighting for three years for religious reasons. Christians against Muslims, Muslims against Christians. I stayed in both communities, and you know what ? They both were right. When your child is dead you need for revenge, there's nothing to say about it.
And you know what's the most surprising ? It's not the Muslims there who hate Americans most. It's the Christians. They think that your policy towards Afghanistan, then towards Irak is worthening the situation for them, by infuriating the Muslims. They also think it's not tolerable that nobody in this world talks about their 17,000 deads whereas they hear every days about yours.
I've lost many friends there and I've seen many atrocities, I know what's a putrefacting body, I know what's the fear at any noise your hear. And for these reasons I will never support a war if I'm not 100% sure that this war is needed.
(edit : some of my poor English)
Actually the 74% of , :) plus ALL the political parties except the one of the goberment (Not even the usual "partners" of the goverment have given their support. Not even their militants. Our goverment, our president is all alone), the major Universities, the whole Film and Art Academy, the Intellectuals, and many more...We are just hoping they hear our voices.Quote:
Originally posted by Jonne@12 February 2003 - 17:38
i also read somewhere in this forum that 70% of the people in Spain are opposed to a war
Why have we suddenly turned this into a debate on terrorism? The true measure of whether it is in the best interests of the world to attack Saddam's regime is the UN resolution calling for weapons inspections.
After the Gulf War, Iraq had significant chemical and biological weapons and was working toward nuclear armament. The world saw this and resolved, under proper UN requirements, to mandate inspections of weapon sites and possible manufacturing plants. Iraq was required to give full disclosure to inspection teams. To ensure compliance, and to keep the world safe from these known weapons, the threat of war for non-compliance was included in the original resolution.
In 1998, after years of working in a non-compliant environment, in which secret sites called "presidential palaces" (actually thousands of acres of territory) were deemed off limits, the inspectors were finally kicked out. These actions, if the UN were serious, should have resulted in military intervention, but members of the security council were unwilling to act.
A new resolution was drawn up last year that called for the same inspections under the same compliance. Again, according to recent reports by the inspectors themselves, Iraq is hiding or neglecting to provide critical information. One example is the mysterious disappearance of thousands of missiles Iraq has said, but cannot prove, it destroyed.
Now world leaders in the UN are calling for more inspections. If the inspectors cannot do their job, what is the point? And when does the threat of military action become real? Iraq will continue trying to produce or hide weapons it is not allowed to have by international agreement unless the threats can be backed up. And as it stands now, they will not be.
It is time for the UN to stand up for what it resolved and for nations averse to military action to stand behind what they agreed to.
Latest news: 80% of europeans are opposed to war (in Spain the news said 93% of citizens are opossed). European goverments may be divided. Europeans citizens are not. :)
We will be all expecting the inspectors reports tomorrow. UN has to decide, but it is quite important to have in mind (experts in International Laws have stated it) that if UN does not supports the war, a unilateral action will be ILLEGAL.
You honestly dont get it do you?Quote:
Originally posted by Another Cadaver@13 February 2003 - 04:30
Why have we suddenly turned this into a debate on terrorism? The true measure of whether it is in the best interests of the world to attack Saddam's regime is the UN resolution calling for weapons inspections.
After the Gulf War, Iraq had significant chemical and biological weapons and was working toward nuclear armament. The world saw this and resolved, under proper UN requirements, to mandate inspections of weapon sites and possible manufacturing plants. Iraq was required to give full disclosure to inspection teams. To ensure compliance, and to keep the world safe from these known weapons, the threat of war for non-compliance was included in the original resolution.
In 1998, after years of working in a non-compliant environment, in which secret sites called "presidential palaces" (actually thousands of acres of territory) were deemed off limits, the inspectors were finally kicked out. These actions, if the UN were serious, should have resulted in military intervention, but members of the security council were unwilling to act.
A new resolution was drawn up last year that called for the same inspections under the same compliance. Again, according to recent reports by the inspectors themselves, Iraq is hiding or neglecting to provide critical information. One example is the mysterious disappearance of thousands of missiles Iraq has said, but cannot prove, it destroyed.
Now world leaders in the UN are calling for more inspections. If the inspectors cannot do their job, what is the point? And when does the threat of military action become real? Iraq will continue trying to produce or hide weapons it is not allowed to have by international agreement unless the threats can be backed up. And as it stands now, they will not be.
It is time for the UN to stand up for what it resolved and for nations averse to military action to stand behind what they agreed to.
IF all UN resolutions were inforced, there would probably be no objection IF the UN backed military action.
But we are not hypocrits...why inforce ONLY the resolutions that suite YOU?
Why arent you calling on Israel to give back all that territory on threat of military action? (as an example)
OR threatening Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, South Africa....and every other country that has got hold of this type of weapon since the Security Council was set up (when the 5 permanent members were the ONLY ones).......they ALL had resolutions against them at the time of development/acquisition.
And the 'UN' inspectors were not thrown out in 1998....The US contingent was, for passing information direct to US security organisations...ie Spying. (The CIA could have got the info through the Security Council, but just had to interfere) And this was the ONLY opposition to these new UN inspectors..They didnt want US Inspectors there...because of their actions last time.
And I still dont get how you are STILL mixing up 'Terrorism' and an attack on Iraq....They are not linked subjects (except in that attacking Iraq will INCREASE Terrorism, and will be doing Al Queda a big favour...considering destabilising Iraq is one of ITS main objectives too).
There is no debate on the Terrorist issue.... There is a widespread debate on attacking Iraq.
you know the 2nd ammendment of the US of A?
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Saddam just like big ones ;)