PDA

View Full Version : anti americanism fashionable


Pages : [1] 2

kronas
13-11-2003, 04:35
jack straw has crticised the protesting which is likely insue on to the streets of london when bush arrives as a guest of the queen as 'fashionable'

http://rdu.news14.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=38776

maybe if bush was not after oil and invading countries which dont fit in to his vision there would not be such a fuss like father like son :rolleyes:

Russ
13-11-2003, 08:56
I certainly don't see anti-americanism as fashionable. I think most people (myself included) are just a little weary of the seemingly prevailant attitude 'across the pond' that everything about the US is superior to the rest of the world. From reading various discussion groups it's as if the american way of life is the planetary standard and other customs and ideas are just "strange", "wierd" "different" without realising that they are just one (albeit very large) country amongst countless others.

Paul
13-11-2003, 09:54
Someone is always protesting about something - and as always, there will be the young (and not so young) braindead element there whose only purpose is to cause as much trouble as they can (not even really caring what the actual reason for the protest is).

basa
13-11-2003, 10:45
I certainly don't see anti-americanism as fashionable. I think most people (myself included) are just a little weary of the seemingly prevailant attitude 'across the pond' that everything about the US is superior to the rest of the world. From reading various discussion groups it's as if the american way of life is the planetary standard and other customs and ideas are just "strange", "wierd" "different" without realising that they are just one (albeit very large) country amongst countless others.

I quite like America (the country) and generally the American people. The problem is they are extremely insular for the most part.

I don't know the exact figure, but I understand about 90% of Americans do not possess a Passport (i.e. they have never travelled outside of the US) !!

Also when you watch their multitudiness TV news channels, you rarely if ever see any items regarding issues relating to foreign (to them) countries.

They simply are not exposed to foreign cultures and attitudes and probably think the rest of the world thinks exactly as they do.

They are fed an almost non stop diet of how great America is and are extremely patriotic.

Stuart
13-11-2003, 11:47
basa: all true.

I personally have no problem with America, or Americans (some of the nicest people I know are American).

Americans do,however, seem to have this attitude that they are right and the whole rest of the world is wrong (and inferior) though.

philip.j.fry
13-11-2003, 18:12
It's not so much anti-americanism, it's more anti-american foreign policy. As Russ said, in general the US gives the impression that there is only one way of life and have difficulties comprehending that there isn't. I don't think it's 'fashionable' I think it's more that recent events are making people more aware of the world outside the country and people are seeing things that they don't like.

Comments like this from Jack Straw et al I think are just them trying to dissuade protestors from causing embarressment to them next week.

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 18:26
I don't know the exact figure, but I understand about 90% of Americans do not possess a Passport (i.e. they have never travelled outside of the US) !!
You don't need a passport to travel to Canada. To make the conclusion you're making is just wrong.

Also remember that England is tiny compared to the United States. We can travel all over North America and only visit two countries, but those include 50 states, and 15+ provinces and territories. It isn't like Europe where if you miss the toilet you **** in another country's backyard.

Think of our independent states as independent countries.


Also when you watch their multitudiness TV news channels, you rarely if ever see any items regarding issues relating to foreign (to them) countries.
It doesn't interest us.


They are fed an almost non stop diet of how great America is and are extremely patriotic.
And that is bad how exactly?

Defiant
13-11-2003, 18:27
I'm anti-anti-american protesters lol. I've seen them in the streets protesting and on telly. 90% jobless layabout's.

Get a job

Russ
13-11-2003, 18:29
Also remember that England is tiny compared to the United States

Is that England or the UK?


And that is bad how exactly?



You answered that question when you said...



It doesn't interest us.


Which IMO smacks of arrogance.

downquark1
13-11-2003, 18:58
Is that England or the UK? Jerrek you have to say UK or Britain otherwise the 'lesser countries' (kidding Russ ;) ) like Wales, Scotland and N Ireland feel left out. It's like people using America when they mean the USA.

Russ
13-11-2003, 19:08
It's like people using America when they mean the USA.

Or like people claiming that certain Scandinavian countries are part of the UK :erm:

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 19:11
Is that England or the UK?
Same bloody thing. :p

Which IMO smacks of arrogance.
Yes it does. And that is wrong how exactly?


Here is a small test of ignorance. Multiple choice. Don't google! Type your answers in notepad and then reply. Don't look at other's posts before you reply. Be honest.


1) What is the capital of Canada?
a. Montreal
b. Toronto
c. Ottawa
d. Vancouver

2) What is the mountain range that lies parallel to the east cost of the United States?
a. Rockies
b. Mojave
c. Ural
d. Appalacians
e. Pyrinees
f. Pennsylvania Range

3) Which state is the largest of the following?
a. Kansas
b. Nebraska
c. New York
d. Texas

4) Who was Canada's first Prime Minister?

5) Who is Canada's current Prime Minister?



The fact of the matter is, I don't know everything, and I certainly don't expect anyone to do so. What it basically comes down to is that, "Americans are ignorant because they don't pay enough attention to us."


It's like people using America when they mean the USA.
That does annoy me, but I guess what I said must be annoying too. Heh. My apologies.

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 19:14
Actually, that test was biased. What is the capital of Tajikisan? Who is the ruler of Bolivia? What are the major exports of Micronesia?

If you can't answer those questions, you're obviously ignorant. In my book though, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't expect the rest of the world to be able to rattle of all 43 presidents of the United States, all 50 states with their capitals, and know all of the governors, senators, and Congressmen in the United States.

Russ
13-11-2003, 19:18
Which IMO smacks of arrogance.
Yes it does. And that is wrong how exactly?

You've pretty much summed my point up there.

You make some good points there about other countries.

One final question - why is it when the US is planning to bomb the crap out of some country or there appears to be some anti-american feeling in some other land, your President has to go on TV and show 99% of your countrymen where it is?

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 19:21
Doubtful.

I have got a question for you though. On an unlabelled map, can you point out Sierra Leone? Samoa? Uzbekistan?

downquark1
13-11-2003, 19:22
You've pretty much summed my point up there.

You make some good points there about other countries.

One final question - why is it when the US is planning to bomb the crap out of some country or there appears to be some anti-american feeling in some other land, your President has to go on TV and show 99% of your countrymen where it is?Our news does that too :rolleyes:. It's just a visual aid thing.

downquark1
13-11-2003, 19:23
Doubtful.

I have got a question for you though. On an unlabelled map, can you point out Sierra Leone? Samoa? Uzbekistan?Can you?

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 19:28
I can, but I don't expect everyone to.

Ramrod
13-11-2003, 19:41
I can't:blush:

Russ
13-11-2003, 19:47
I reckon I could give it a go.

I'd never be as dispicable to say the US deserved 9/11, but it sure made me curious when after the attack, so many americans couldn't understand why their country is held in such disregard by so many others.

Chris
13-11-2003, 19:55
I can, but I don't expect everyone to.

well, our empire was a geographical rather than a cultural one, so as we owned most of the world at one time or another you would expect us to have a good stab at it... I think I could roughly get all three. Here goes:

Sierra Leone: West Africa
Uzbekistan: Asia, north and west of Afghanistan
Samoa: Polynesia

Now I'm off to Google and see how I did.

EDIT:
He shoots, he scores!!
Uzbekistan: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Kazakh_etc.htm
Western Samoa: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Pacific.htm
Sierra Leone: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Nth_Africa_W.htm

Two spot on, one almost spot on (Uzbekistan) ;)

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 20:00
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031117-538977,00.html

Comments from http://www.rightwingnews.com

To Hell with Sympathy...

"The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, our power. They hate us into incoherence. The Europeans, Ajami astutely observes, disdain us for our excessive religiosity (manifest, they imagine, by evolution being expelled from schools while prayer is ushered back in)--while the Arab world despises us as purveyors of secularism. We cannot win for losing. We are widely reviled as enemies of Islam, yet in the 1990s we engaged three times in combat †” in the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans †” to rescue Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslim peoples all. And in the last two cases, there was nothing in it for the U.S.; it was humanitarianism and good international citizenship of the highest order.

The search for logic in anti-Americanism is fruitless. It is in the air the world breathes. Its roots are envy and self-loathing †” by peoples who, yearning for modernity but having failed at it, find their one satisfaction in despising modernity's great exemplar.

On Sept. 11, they gave it a rest for a day. Big deal."

You want to know what anti-Americanism is for most people?

It's a Saudi oilman who lives in a mansion paid for with American money, who sends his sons to college in America, who was spared from becoming an Iraqi subject in the Gulf War because of our country, who hates us so much that he gives money to Al-Qaeda.

It's a Liberian eating food paid for by Americans, whose son is being treated for AIDS w/ drugs paid for by America, who is alive because America helped push Charles Taylor out of power, who tells his wife every day what a lousy country America is.

It's a German schoolteacher who vacations in America, who watches American movies, who was defended from the Soviets by America and then later met an Eastern German cousin she never knew because Reagan won the Cold War, who sneers at America in front of the kids she teaches every day.

These people are no different than the 17 year-old girls who hate the most popular girl in school, an uncle who gets all bent out of shape at what some rich guy does with his money, or even your friend who canââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t help but rant about how much he hates Britney Spears every time you mention her name.

You want to make them stop hating America? Thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s easy; all we have to do is fail, crash, burn, and preferably have our noses rubbed in it to boot. Then once America became another Belgium or Brazil, all of these petty people would stop hating us. But as long as America continues to be an economic powerhouse, a military juggernaut, & the worldÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s only super power, weâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢re just going to have to get used to people disliking us because it comes with the territory. So as far as Iâ₠™m concerned, let †˜em stew in their own hatred until they get tired of it or die of old age, whichever comes first.
There you go. The columnist nailed it.

downquark1
13-11-2003, 20:11
Jerrek, you are being very provocative :D
You want to make them stop hating America? Thatâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s easy; all we have to do is fail, crash, burn, and preferably have our noses rubbed in it to boot. Well, we are the ones who seem to get our noses rubbed in it by the Americans, and by the article he just wrote in particular. Always, again and again with 'we saved you in WW2 so you owe us'.

I'm not being spiteful but just remember that golden ages come and go. The British empire ruled 3/4 of the world and look at us now. Reduced back to a tiny little island full of people who are drinking and debting themselves to ruin. With tabloids that put more interest in someone's breasts than troops in Iraq, trains that won't run on time. And weather that is changing due to global warming.

dr wadd
13-11-2003, 20:18
That article almost brings a tear to your eye, but those are tears from laughing too much.

From a site called RightWingNews you can hardly expected unbiased reporting, and that article runs the risk of making Fox News look liberal.

downquark1
13-11-2003, 20:22
That article almost brings a tear to your eye, both those are tears from laughing to much.

From a site called RightWingNews you can hardly expected unbiased reporting, and that article runs the risk of making Fox News look liberal.too true :rofl:

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 20:28
Don't get confused. The article he quoted was from Time Magazine. The comments were his own. He doesn't report. He collects news from the web and writes his opinion. And I usually agree with him.

And you're right. Fox News is too liberal. I'd like something more conservative and right.


Now, some more news on why the United States is so hated. Or rather, envied:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=2172052

From The Economist:

From sea to shining sea

Nov 6th 2003
From The Economist print edition

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2003/11/6.gif

American exceptionalism is nothing new. But it is getting sharper

†œEVERYTHING about the Americans,ââ ¬Â said Alexis de Tocqueville, †œis extraordinary, but what is more extraordinary still is the soil that supports them.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â America has natural harbours on two great oceans, access to one of the world's richest fishing areas, an abundance of every possible raw material and a huge range of farmed crops, from cold-weather to tropical. Not only is it the fourth-largest country in the world, but two-thirds of it is habitable, unlike Russia or Canada. Any country occupying America's space on the map would be likely to be unusual. But as de Tocqueville also said, †œPhysical causes contribute less [to America's distinctiveness] than laws and mores.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â

There is nothing more satisfying than being told by a popular and respected foreign journal that you are exceptional and unique. Especially when what they say makes sense and it doesn't rape common sense on the way.

Gogogo
13-11-2003, 20:29
Doubtful.

I have got a question for you though. On an unlabelled map, can you point out Sierra Leone? Samoa? Uzbekistan?

Good point there man:

Interesting, when I taught history at a large London FE college I had many students who had no idea where to find on a map blanked out: France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany etc etc, they had no idea at all!

People may be critical that of US citizens not knowing their world geography but there are plenty here in the UK who don't know theirs.

:eek:

Russ
13-11-2003, 20:34
No, america isn't hated for it's success. It's for the "we're the best, the rest of you suck" attitude which seems to be so prevailant.

downquark1
13-11-2003, 20:38
Don't get confused. The article he quoted was from Time Magazine. The comments were his own. He doesn't report. He collects news from the web and writes his opinion. And I usually agree with him.

And you're right. Fox News is too liberal. I'd like something more conservative and right.


Now, some more news on why the United States is so hated. Or rather, envied:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=2172052

From The Economist:



There is nothing more satisfying than being told by a popular and respected foreign journal that you are exceptional and unique. Especially when what they say makes sense and it doesn't rape common sense on the way.And yet you continue to rub it in :D. That is one persons opinion and the article seems more to do with Americas resources than people, I think you are reading into a small compliement too much.

Russ
13-11-2003, 20:40
....and continuing on americans dictating to the world, they are now telling us why they are so disliked...the mind boggles.

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 20:44
Hey, if I'm disliked by people that like to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up amongst women and children, I feel good. I'd be rather troubled of they like me.

Russ
13-11-2003, 20:47
No, what those Al Q'eda (sp) nuggets did was pathetic (well it was a LOT more than pathetic but we've been over that a million time before) and you are entitled to be proud of being american (I'm just as patriotic) just like all 250 million of you are, just don't start asking "Why" when other nations aren't as impressed :)

downquark1
13-11-2003, 20:49
Hey, if I'm disliked by people that like to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up amongst women and children, I feel good. I'd be rather troubled of they like me.If I'm disliked by pompous Americans who serve only their interest and wouldn't know self-criticisium if it danced naked on a harpsicord - I feel good.

Stuart
13-11-2003, 21:11
Hey, if I'm disliked by people that like to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up amongst women and children, I feel good. I'd be rather troubled of they like me.
Not everyone who hates the US is a terrorist.

I don't hate the Americans and Canadians as such, but they do have this attitude that they are far superior to anyone else. Which, IMO, is certainly not the case.

Anyway, Jerrek, if America and Canada are so great, how come you don't speak your own language. AFAIK the three most spoken languages are English, French and Spanish..

dr wadd
13-11-2003, 21:23
Hey, if I'm disliked by people that like to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up amongst women and children, I feel good. I'd be rather troubled of they like me.

But what you are failing to take into account here is that if they liked you then they wouldn`t flying planes into your buildings. It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Ramrod
13-11-2003, 21:42
But what you are failing to take into account here is that if they liked you then they wouldn`t flying planes into your buildings. It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.No, I think it takes a real special kind of a**hole to do what they did. People like that need someone to hate and they don't need much excuse.

Ramrod
13-11-2003, 21:43
Anyway, Jerrek, if America and Canada are so great, how come you don't speak your own language. AFAIK the three most spoken languages are English, French and Spanish..He does, it's Afrikaans!:p

Stuart
13-11-2003, 22:46
He does, it's Afrikaans!:p
I stand corrected...

Russ
13-11-2003, 23:00
Oh hang on, they also have ebonics.

Apparently the Ebonics for "You are beautiful, I would like to make love to you" translates to "Dayum biatch, you stupid fly, lemme pull up to dat bumper and smak dat monkey" :D

More can be found here (http://www.theflasharchive.com/f/f-85.htm), be warned however, some choice language can be found therein :)

Jerrek
13-11-2003, 23:08
No, what those Al Q'eda (sp) nuggets did was pathetic (well it was a LOT more than pathetic but we've been over that a million time before) and you are entitled to be proud of being american (I'm just as patriotic) just like all 250 million of you are, just don't start asking "Why" when other nations aren't as impressed
The fact of the matter is, I'm patriotic and I'm proud of what I am. That doesn't sit well with the continental Europeans. I will, WILL, take care of my own country first, and the rest of the world later.

I don't hate the Americans and Canadians as such, but they do have this attitude that they are far superior to anyone else. Which, IMO, is certainly not the case.
Look: I want to be American and Canadian, and nothing else. You want to be English (or Scotish, or Welsh, or Irish), and nothing else. We all believe that our way is the right way and that we are a little better than the rest of the world. In the grand scheme of things, that might or might not be the case. Each country has its merits. Some more than others.

That attitute of being superior to anyone else is called patriotism. We are damn proud of who we are, what we have accomplished, and what we believe. To people that disagree with the way we do things, that has got to be annoying. *shrug* Deal with it.

Anyway, Jerrek, if America and Canada are so great, how come you don't speak your own language. AFAIK the three most spoken languages are English, French and Spanish..
You forgot Mandarin. And we do speak our own language as you Brits like to point out: American. :)


But what you are failing to take into account here is that if they liked you then they wouldn`t flying planes into your buildings. It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Not really. I wouldn't want to be friends with people like that regardless whether they like me or dislike me. If their culture teaches them to do things like that, they are just WRONG.

Ramrod
13-11-2003, 23:16
The fact of the matter is, I'm patriotic and I'm proud of what I am. That doesn't sit well with the continental Europeans. I will, WILL, take care of my own country first, and the rest of the world later.The English could do with more of that attitude....

kronas
13-11-2003, 23:23
The English could do with more of that attitude....


your so right not like tony blair who 'folds' under the pressure of the euro ministers :2up:

Ramrod
13-11-2003, 23:25
your so right not like tony blair who 'folds' under the pressure of the euro ministers :2up:Lets not go there!

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 00:15
No, I think it takes a real special kind of a**hole to do what they did. People like that need someone to hate and they don't need much excuse.

The whole point of the original post to which I was replying was in the context of the terrorists *not* hating the USA. If they didn`t hate the USA they wouldn`t fly planes into their buildings, it really isn`t a difficult concept to understand.

Your view of the world seems to be shockingly narrow. Are you honestly stating that the hate of these terrorists is something innate that would be expressed anyway, and that they just happen to have picked on the USA for some reason? You need to take into account the reasons for the hate, and as wrong as the events of 9/11, the USA pretty much had it coming for a long time, and they just brought it upon themselves.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 00:17
[b]The fact of the matter is, I'm patriotic and I'm proud of what I am. That doesn't sit well with the continental Europeans. I will, WILL, take care of my own country first, and the rest of the world later.

Sorry, I got the impression that the USA were taking care of the rest of the world, only to paraphrase Father Ted, they seem to be doing it in an Al Pacino kind of way.

Chris
14-11-2003, 00:19
The whole point of the original post to which I was replying was in the context of the terrorists *not* hating the USA. If they didn`t hate the USA they wouldn`t fly planes into their buildings, it really isn`t a difficult concept to understand.

Your view of the world seems to be shockingly narrow. Are you honestly stating that the hate of these terrorists is something innate that would be expressed anyway, and that they just happen to have picked on the USA for some reason? You need to take into account the reasons for the hate, and as wrong as the events of 9/11, the USA pretty much had it coming for a long time, and they just brought it upon themselves.

I think it's you that has the narrow view. You despise the USA so much that you find it possible to say 'they had it coming'.

Does the rape victim 'have it coming' because she wears a short skirt for a night out?

Nobody, but nobody, whatever they have done, deserves to have this happen to them, just because someone else doesn't like the politics of their government.

How can you argue against the invasion of Iraq? Surely, by your measure, Saddam 'had it coming' too?

downquark1
14-11-2003, 00:26
Your view of the world seems to be shockingly narrow. Are you honestly stating that the hate of these terrorists is something innate that would be expressed anyway, and that they just happen to have picked on the USA for some reason? You need to take into account the reasons for the hate, and as wrong as the events of 9/11, the USA pretty much had it coming for a long time, and they just brought it upon themselves.
The problem is they don't see it or refuse to except it. Their blatent support of Israel has got the eastern Muslims to dislike them, the refusal of the chiototo accord didn't go down well in europe, and the Iraq issue and offended the UN. And the best they can come out with is 'we saved you in WW2 from the nazi so you have to like us'.

I've seen a website owned by a right-wing american and he said he would ban the entire contenant of europe from posting on it if he could. He then adds 'with the exception of the UK' because apparrently we are full of culture and good because we supported them in the war.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 00:27
I think it's you that has the narrow view. You despise the USA so much that you find it possible to say 'they had it coming'.

Does the rape victim 'have it coming' because she wears a short skirt for a night out?

Nobody, but nobody, whatever they have done, deserves to have this happen to them, just because someone else doesn't like the politics of their government.

How can you argue against the invasion of Iraq? Surely, by your measure, Saddam 'had it coming' too?

This is a foolish analogy. The rape victim isn`t going around trying to make everyone else fall in step with their line of thinking, stomping all over anyone who disagrees with them.

But the USA does take that attitude. You're either with them or against them as their president pointed out. So the situation is simple, dance to our drum or you are the enemy. It's no wonder they are hated so much. They are as dictatorial as Saddam ever was.

I never stated that they necessarily "deserved" 9/11, but that doesn`t negate the possibility of them having brought it upon themselves.

I've also never stated that action shouldn`t have been taken against Iraq. My issue is with the manner in which that was taken, with the USA and the UK conveniently ignoring international law when it suits them. They do not have the right to commit a pre-emptive strike without a clear and present danger. North Korea is constantly threated by the USA, by the actions of Bush it has been demostrated that they have every right to pop a nuke off to the California.

The USA is hated by many people for the way it treats the rest of the world, and until it realises that it can't go around dictating how the governments of other countries are run under the threat of force it will continue to risk these attacks. But as a country it is far too dumb and arrogant to bother questioning why people despise them in the first instance.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 00:28
I think it's you that has the narrow view. You despise the USA so much that you find it possible to say 'they had it coming'.

Does the rape victim 'have it coming' because she wears a short skirt for a night out?

Nobody, but nobody, whatever they have done, deserves to have this happen to them, just because someone else doesn't like the politics of their government.

How can you argue against the invasion of Iraq? Surely, by your measure, Saddam 'had it coming' too?
He is not suggesting they deserved it, merely that the event didn't come as a surprise.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 00:35
He is not suggesting they deserved it, merely that the event didn't come as a surprise.

Thanks for the backup, it's nice to see that there are other people that can take into account the wider context.

As for despising the USA, I think that does pretty much sum up my feelings about the country at the moment, but I've only had that opinion since Bush came to power. As soon as democratically elected leader is in power, and preferably a Democrat, then there is every chance that they will redeem themselves.

Stuart
14-11-2003, 00:49
That attitute of being superior to anyone else is called patriotism. We are damn proud of who we are, what we have accomplished, and what we believe. To people that disagree with the way we do things, that has got to be annoying. *shrug* Deal with it.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a patriot as "a person who vigoursly supports their country and is prepared to defend it", so you are being patriotic by supporting your country.

It also defines arrogant as "having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities".

Believing you are better than everyone else is arrogant.

philip.j.fry
14-11-2003, 01:25
Good article here http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=403011&section=news

I especially like this comment from one american ex-pat living in London:


Christine Swanson, back home after taking the kids on the morning run to school, said: "I am frustrated. As horrible as September 11 was, it was a real opportunity to move forward in a positive way.

"There was a lot of goodwill to tap into and it took the incredible talent of George Bush to p*ss it all away in two years."


Edit Lol, this comment from G. Bush really does show just how out of touch with reality he really is:

But Mr Bush lavished praise on Mr Blair, whom he described as †œthe least political person Iâ₠™ve dealt withâ₠¬Ã‚

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 01:34
Are you honestly stating that the hate of these terrorists is something innate that would be expressed anyway, and that they just happen to have picked on the USA for some reason? You need to take into account the reasons for the hate, and as wrong as the events of 9/11, the USA pretty much had it coming for a long time, and they just brought it upon themselves.
I have no idea why they would act in such a manner. I just know that *I* wouldn't. And, since they have demonstrated what kind of people they are, I have no itention of pleasing them or making them happy. I don't want such friends. Apparently, you want such friends.

You just demonstrated your hatred for saying "You had it coming." What a completely and utterly stupid comment. Signs of a narrow mind. What exactly did the United States do to deserve it, as you put it?

Sorry, I got the impression that the USA were taking care of the rest of the world, only to paraphrase Father Ted, they seem to be doing it in an Al Pacino kind of way.
Not completely, otherwise Mugabe wouldn't be in power. But we do look out for ourselves and our allies.


Their blatent support of Israel has got the eastern Muslims to dislike them
My apologies for not making extremist Muslims--that beat their wifes, rape their prisoners, fly planes into buildings, and blow themselves up among women and children--happy. There are plenty of followers of Islam that I can live with and be friends with. But those extremist Muslims I really don't care about.

What about those recent comments by Mahattir? "Jews are ruling the world." SO WHAT?


the refusal of the chiototo accord didn't go down well in europe
Because we didn't want to dance to the Europeans' stupid rules. Hah. Kiss my ass. You go ahead and ruin your economy. Meanwhile, we will just continue living in prosperity. It isn't the United States that have double digit unemployment figures and negative economic growth...

and the Iraq issue and offended the UN
We really don't care for the United Nations. I hope those Congressmen that stated they want to get the United States out of the U.N. are working on it. The U.S. has violated more U.N. regulations than any other nation and should be kicked out of it if we don't withdraw from it ourselves.

And the best they can come out with is 'we saved you in WW2 from the nazi so you have to like us'.
You are rather narrowminded if this is all you see.


This is a foolish analogy.
No it is not. You just don't like it because it illustrate the point towny was making so very nicely and it doesn't fit with your narrow view of the world.

But the USA does take that attitude. You're either with them or against them as their president pointed out.
Exactly.

So the situation is simple, dance to our drum or you are the enemy.
I believe he was referring to the war on terror. So yep.

It's no wonder they are hated so much.
Because we want to get rid of terrorists? The same ones you seem to have quite a nice understanding with?

I never stated that they necessarily "deserved" 9/11, but that doesn`t negate the possibility of them having brought it upon themselves.
You have a short memory. You said, "They had it coming."

My issue is with the manner in which that was taken, with the USA and the UK conveniently ignoring international law when it suits them.
There is no such thing as international law. We don't recognize it. If you dislike that, well, deal with it.

They do not have the right to commit a pre-emptive strike
Yes we do. Deal with it.

North Korea is constantly threated by the USA, by the actions of Bush it has been demostrated that they have every right to pop a nuke off to the California.
North Korea is all mouth with nothing else. Besides, China and Japan are dealing with it, for the time being.

The USA is hated by many people for the way it treats the rest of the world
read: no free handouts from the rich people of the States.

But as a country it is far too dumb and arrogant to bother questioning why people despise them in the first instance.
Ah, as I said, it really isn't in our best interest to dance to the rest of the world. 80% of the world is a toilet. Do we really want to do what they say? I mean, there is a reason why the rest of the world is in such a crappy state.

As soon as democratically elected leader is in power, and preferably a Democrat, then there is every chance that they will redeem themselves.
Ignoring your obvious lack of education regarding the 2000 election, if Bush wins by a landslide victory, we will of course redeem ourself, right? It is very unlikely that a Democrat will win. Three key democrat states lost 2 electoral votes each and it was given to Florida, Texas, and another southern state due to population shifts. If all else remains the same, with just the shift in electoral votes, Bush will win with more than 8 electoral votes.

And now looking how the Democrats are losing in the south makes it really hard for them to win. They lost California's gubernational race. And Louisiana and Kentucky. One Georgia senator, a Democrat, threw in his support for President Bush. The Republicans will most likely gain more seats in the Senate and House in the 2004 election, as well as retaining the White House.

The only reason you like a Democrat is because they are more inclined to dance to the rest of the world's demands. Which I don't want, which is why I vote Republican.

Stuart
14-11-2003, 02:00
Ah, as I said, it really isn't in our best interest to dance to the rest of the world. 80% of the world is a toilet. Do we really want to do what they say? I mean, there is a reason why the rest of the world is in such a crappy state.

And an extremely large part of that 80% is the United States...

danielf
14-11-2003, 02:16
Jerrek,

That is such a nice summary of reasons why people dislike the US.

There is no international law? I guess the people at the international court of justice are just making things up in the war crime tribunals?

Geneva Convention?
Not for the people at Guantanamo Bay, as they are not prisoners of war, but illegal combatants, cought in the war on terrorism.

Kyoto?

Never mind the world is going to pots, blame the Chinese, Indonesians, Brazilians for burning trees. The US is per capita one of the largest contributors to Greenhouse gases but you can't be bothered to so anything about it, for fear of the economy.

And to top it off, you will not be held accountable for possible warcrimes committed by your soldiers. As a special court is being set up in The Hague to deal with war crimes anywhere in the world, you refuse to sign up, and use your wealth to coerce developing countries into signing treaties saying they won't deliver your soldiers to this court.

What's that? Covering your back for another unjust war for personal gain? Surely, you feel that war crimes must be prosecuted. Why not if they're committed by Americans?

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 02:42
And an extremely large part of that 80% is the United States...
That was not what I was referring to, and you know it. I'm referring to third-world countries.

There is no international law? I guess the people at the international court of justice are just making things up in the war crime tribunals?
We do not recognize that "court" of "justice." It is a politically motivated instrument to get some control over the U.S. justice system. What exactly is wrong with our own courts? Why go after Tony Blair and George W. Bush, but Saddam, Mugabe, and the guy from North Korea is free? It is a farce. So, NO international law (we are a sovereign nation), and no "court" of "justice."

Geneva Convention?
Not for the people at Guantanamo Bay, as they are not prisoners of war, but illegal combatants, cought in the war on terrorism.
Please. Like Saddam adhered to the Geneva Conventions. But I don't see you go after him. Hmmm, I wonder why? Could it be that ...?

Which of these conventions did the United States break, by the way?

Never mind the world is going to pots, blame the Chinese, Indonesians, Brazilians for burning trees. The US is per capita one of the largest contributors to Greenhouse gases but you can't be bothered to so anything about it, for fear of the economy.
Kyoto is a socialist system designed to take money away from first world nations and send it to third-world dicators' pockets. We have no interest in that.

And to top it off, you will not be held accountable for possible warcrimes committed by your soldiers.
I guarantee you a soldier guilty of misconduct will be tried before a military tribunal. There is no need for the rest of the world to appoint themselves as judges over us.

As a special court is being set up in The Hague
First problem. Lovely little self-appointment of the European Union, wouldn't you say?

to deal with war crimes anywhere in the world
Provided the "crimes" are commited by an American or other person of the western world (Saddam, Mugabe, and the other dictators can be overlooked because they are the greatest humanitarians in history.)

you refuse to sign up
Damn right.

and use your wealth to coerce developing countries into signing treaties saying they won't deliver your soldiers to this court.
Coerce? We simply ask them to sign a treaty with us. What is wrong with that?

OH WAIT!!!! It isn't approved by the Europeans! How CAN we do something without Europe's approval?!!!

Covering your back for another unjust war for personal gain?
The majority of Iraqis are going to disagree with you on this "unjust" part.

Surely, you feel that war crimes must be prosecuted. Why not if they're committed by Americans?
You're making an assumption that we don't prosecute war crimes. We do, unless you can provide conclusive proof that it is U.S. policy not to. In any case, I find it mildly amusing how you liberals are so concerned about us Americans, but Mugabe's little humanitarian missions in Africa is A-OK.

philip.j.fry
14-11-2003, 03:20
That was not what I was referring to, and you know it. I'm referring to third-world countries.



Do you think that those people living in those countries particularly like it? Do they enjoy living from day to day not knowing whether they will have enough to eat? Do you think that they enjoy living in fear? I suspect not, it's not their fault that they were born into this part of the world, no more than it's your fault that you were born in a free country where you could be provided with freedom, education and a good standard of living.

I'm not saying that you should apologise for this, because as I said, this is no-ones fault but simply dismissing the rest of the world as 'a toilet' and saying it's their own problem is no way to deal with things.
It's under these conditions that terrorism thrives, branding all these people as terrorists is not right, the terrorists are the minority...unfortunately the minority with the power (read weapons).

We all live on one planet, 'if a butterfly flaps it's wings...' as the saying goes. Without help, these third world countries will never be able to move beyond the state they are in at the moment and that help can only come from first world countries. Things like Kyoto are there to address these problems, ignoring them and continuing to support one countries economy at the expense of another is a sure way to bring eventual destruction on everyone. The same goes for any country, not just the US.

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 04:27
Do you think that those people living in those countries particularly like it?
I have no idea. Some of them, no. Some of them, yes. Some of them are particularly eager to express how bad the western lifestyle is and that us "infidels" should all die. So, if they want to live in such crappy conditions because Allah tells them to, or if you would rather have your child die than to slaughter one of the quadzillion cows on the street and feed your child, whatever. I'm not about to force my beliefs onto you.

Do they enjoy living from day to day not knowing whether they will have enough to eat? Do you think that they enjoy living in fear? I suspect not, it's not their fault that they were born into this part of the world, no more than it's your fault that you were born in a free country where you could be provided with freedom, education and a good standard of living.
Except that I wasn't. I'm a refugee. Regardless, that isn't the point.

The point is, these same people keep electing numbskill idiotic dictators. WHY is it that Africa is incapable of governing themselves? WHY? Yes, now someone is going to call me racist, but I don't care. It is the truth. I do pity the people that live in bad conditions, but damn, STOP ELECTING and SUPPORTING dictators!

I'm not saying that you should apologise for this, because as I said, this is no-ones fault but simply dismissing the rest of the world as 'a toilet' and saying it's their own problem is no way to deal with things.
You know, I really don't want to tell the rest of the world how to live and what to do. I think I'll just ignore them. If we don't, people yell at us for unilateral action. And for U.S. imperialism. And other crap. Who are YOU to say to another person in another country how he should be living his life?

And then you get 4/5 of the world angry at the U.S. for not giving out free handouts. Big whoopie ****. If you want to increase your standard of living, stop electing and supporting dictators, implement a free enterprise capitalistic economic system, deal with crime (executing anyone that rape, murders, or kidnaps is a good start), and get rid of the religions in the government.

We all live on one planet, 'if a butterfly flaps it's wings...' as the saying goes. Without help, these third world countries will never be able to move beyond the state they are in at the moment and that help can only come from first world countries.
I completely disagree. Germany came out of a mess in under 5 decades. So did Japan. And countless other countries. If these people are serious about fixing their countries, start implementing some basic common sense practices. It isn't MY job and my country's job to fix up other countries.

Things like Kyoto are there to address these problems
Like redistributing the wealth from first world nations to dictator's pockets.

Russ
14-11-2003, 08:02
I think this thread just about sums it all up! Jerrek, when you live in a community with others (such as the US with the rest of the world) you simply must compromise on some things, however the US seems completely incapable of doing that and thinks there's nothing wrong with it and still wonders why terrorists will blow up buildings there. No, it's not because your country is the ultimate super power on Earth, it's because of your (country's) attitude.

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 08:53
What attitude exactly? And are you saying that justifies the terrorists actions? Because, in my mind, no matter what a person's attitude is, it does not warrant such action.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 08:57
To sum up Jereks post, we can do what we want and disobey international law because they [sadam and extremists muslims] did it first.

It seems to me that the constituion should be altered to read 'liberty and justice for all ... on the condition of living in America and supporting the governments views' hmmm sounds like certain communist idealisms.

In that list you wrote off most of the world as 'we don't care what they say' isn't that what we've been saying is wrong all along.

I will repeat my question: 'when was sadam involved in a terriorist attack on American soil?'

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 09:31
Saddam was a threat to Israel, our loyal ally.

As for the rest of your post, I really don't get where you're getting it from.

For example, I very specifically stated that there is no such thing as international law (for us) because we are a sovereign state. Period.

The Constitution also only applies to Americans. Do you even know what communism is?

basa
14-11-2003, 09:52
Sorry for the late reply:

You don't need a passport to travel to Canada. To make the conclusion you're making is just wrong.

Actually you misconstrue my post...I didn't make any conclusion...just pointing out Americans rarely travel outside their country, which limits their experience of foreign culture.

Also remember that England is tiny compared to the United States. We can travel all over North America and only visit two countries, but those include 50 states, and 15+ provinces and territories. It isn't like Europe where if you miss the toilet you **** in another country's backyard.

Think of our independent states as independent countries.

But in fact they are not...the different states are still American with American culture and only regional variations.

It doesn't interest us. (" Foreign TV news coverage")

I know !!

("They are fed an almost non stop diet of how great America is and are extremely patriotic")

And that is bad how exactly?

Did I say it was bad ? On the contrary I think it is laudable and wish it were more apparent here. (Unfortunately patriotism here is so often seen as 'racist' !!)

My post was not intended as criticism...just an observation as to why America seems oblivious to the problems of rest of the world.

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 10:01
The whole point of the original post to which I was replying was in the context of the terrorists *not* hating the USA. If they didn`t hate the USA they wouldn`t fly planes into their buildings, it really isn`t a difficult concept to understand.People like this need someone/something to hate. If it wasnt the US it would be another country, if they didnt hate the US for whatever reason they hate it for they would hate it for some other reason. Rather like the belligerent type you get in a pub who is spoiling for a fight and just looking for an excuse, if he dosn't pick on you it will be someone else instead. 'It really isn't a difficult concept to understand'

Your view of the world seems to be shockingly narrow. Are you honestly stating that the hate of these terrorists is something innate that would be expressed anyway, and that they just happen to have picked on the USA for some reason? Yes, you have to be a special type of person to do what they did-see above.
You need to take into account the reasons for the hate, and as wrong as the events of 9/11, the USA pretty much had it coming for a long time, and they just brought it upon themselves.I find your apologism for mass murder and terror disturbing

timewarrior2001
14-11-2003, 10:13
Can I just add....

I theink the reason the US is hated as much as it is, especially from within Europe is that the US insists that THEY won the second world war. Hey can I just point out to all the Americans that read this, there were a couple of other countries fighting too you know? When did the second world war start? hey 1939?? bloody hell a few years before the US entered heh. What happend specifically between 10th July and 31st October 1940?

Yeah Great Britain took on and defeated the mighty German luftwaffe thereby halting any German invasion. who helped us then? Certainly not the US there may have been a few american pilots that came here to fly but it wasnt official.

Then again jerrek the article you posted states that the Saudi's shuod thank the US because they stopped them becoming an Iraqi citizen, sorry but I understood that it was Kuwait not Saudi that was invaded by Iraq. And again there were more countries than the US fighting there.

The second gulf war, not just the US.

There is also a feeling of distrust because even during the Falklands war where incidently the US condemned us for fighting, there were rumours that there were American mercenaries fighting for the Argentinians.
Then there was all the hassle that we faced because we allowed US jets to take off and bomb Libya, did the US help us out there? Nope they sttod by and watched us take the flak.

Then we approach the Irish Americans, the people that convinced the "most powerful country in the world" to support the IRA. Thats Support the IRA in their campaign to blow up city centres, maiming and killing hundreds of innocent women and children and thats only in the England, god only knows what they spent the money on in Northern Ireland or how many innocent women and children were killed there.

We now appraoch the issue that leaves the greatest distastre in my mouth, the innability of the US troops to identify a friendly target before firing.
In GULF WAR 1 we lost a few soldiers because a US pilot ignored the NATO markings on a british convoy and open fired on them.
GULF WAR 2 well there were several incident, but I will mention the RAF tornado crew who clearly had IFF signals, coming in to land and were shot down with a patriot missile. The excuse.....the Americans were jumpy because one of their own threw greanades around the camp.

That is why a lot of people do not like the US in my oppinion and I am one.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 10:18
Yes, you have to be a special type of person to do what they did-see above.
I find your apologism for mass murder and terror disturbing

Mass murder, battle for liberation, military campaign - The term that gets applied is not dependent on the act, but on who wins to write the history books.

The Mujahideen fighting against the occupying Russian forces are seen as freedom fighters, the IRA fighting against occupying British forces are seen as terrorists. At the end of the day there is no difference.

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 10:31
Mass murder, battle for liberation, military campaign - The term that gets applied is not dependent on the act, but on who wins to write the history books.

The Mujahideen fighting against the occupying Russian forces are seen as freedom fighters, the IRA fighting against occupying British forces are seen as terrorists. At the end of the day there is no difference.Ok then, what do you call flying civilian planes into civilian buildings then?!
Stop hiding behind words and rose tinted glasses!

Russ
14-11-2003, 10:35
Can I just clear up any confusion, I have never said or implied that america deserved any terrorist attack.

This 'attitude' I speak of is the one which makes america feel it isn't bound by international law, that it ownes the world, that everything on earth needs to be done the american way etc etc. By all means be proud of your country, you are free to do that but with that liberty comes the responsibilty to be respectful of other countries and they way things are done there.

America shares this planet with other nations and therefore should behave responsibly and respectfully - only you (generically) don't.

basa
14-11-2003, 10:52
America IMO is, as someone earlier said, hated not so much for being successful (which in itself is open to debate), but more for their arrogance in that most of that success is derived from careless abuse of lesser countries assets (oil / timber/etc ??) and selective contracting to rebuild the countries they have smashed to bits.

I find it unusual that Britain is not hated quite so much, since most of the troubles in the Middle East were spawned in 1919 when Lloyd George decided to grab Iraq and Palestine (and set the seeds for the creation of Israel) rather than grant the area self rule.

Then again the US arrogance at first supporting Saddam's Iraq to defeat Iran who threatened their allies of Kuwait and Saudi, but then following that, a US empowered Iraq had then to be removed as a threat to Israel !!! Talk about pulling strings ?? USA then went on to to encourage Kuwait to provoke Iraq with economic sanctions with the inevitable result of Iraq attacking Kuwait (exactly what USA, Britain and Iraq wanted - but for different reasons !!) Don't forget here..Britain created Kuwait to avoid Iraq having sea ports amongst other reasons ! They now had the perfect reason to attack Iraq !! Further arrogance was the allies leaving large scale presence in Saudi to antagonise...guess who...Bin Laden !

The rest is well known !!

No US is not hated for success and patriotism, but for its arrogance and world manipulation for its own ends.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 11:12
Ok then, what do you call flying civilian planes into civilian buildings then?!
Stop hiding behind words and rose tinted glasses!

I`m honestly not sure that there is any difference between terrorism and a military strike these days, especially when you see the way certain countries such as the USA and Israel conduct themselves.

If, as Bush claims, this is a war, then by definition 9/11 was military action.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 11:26
Saddam was a threat to Israel, our loyal ally.

And evidence for that is....

Let's look at this hyperthectically.

If Iraq doesn't have any WMD as the evidence now suggests. And if we put the whole Sadam being insane thing asside. Then the USA invaded a country and removed it's government simply because it thought it was threat and had the resources to do it. they then gain money from the rebuilding contracts - this would make the US a conquorer. they now occupy land they have no right over and are making money from it's resources.

So if they think france is a threat will they do the same with them. If I think the US is a threat to international security can I try to overthrow Bush? Oh wait I'm not a state.

Hyperthetically if France say the US is a state 'terrorising' the middle east and are a threat to them, does that give them the right to invade the USA?

Stuart
14-11-2003, 11:59
I have no idea. Some of them, no. Some of them, yes. Some of them are particularly eager to express how bad the western lifestyle is and that us "infidels" should all die. So, if they want to live in such crappy conditions because Allah tells them to, or if you would rather have your child die than to slaughter one of the quadzillion cows on the street and feed your child, whatever. I'm not about to force my beliefs onto you.
OK. Fair enough. The extremists in any religion are bad. You do seem to tar everyone with the same brush though. I know muslims that would never cause harm to anyone.

The point is, these same people keep electing numbskill idiotic dictators. WHY is it that Africa is incapable of governing themselves? WHY? Yes, now someone is going to call me racist, but I don't care. It is the truth. I do pity the people that live in bad conditions, but damn, STOP ELECTING and SUPPORTING dictators!
You are viewing the whole problem of dictatorship in a rather simplistic way. Not all dictators are elected. AFAIK very few are.

You know, I really don't want to tell the rest of the world how to live and what to do. I think I'll just ignore them. If we don't, people yell at us for unilateral action. And for U.S. imperialism. And other crap. Who are YOU to say to another person in another country how he should be living his life?
Aren't the US busy telling other countries how to live?


And then you get 4/5 of the world angry at the U.S. for not giving out free handouts. Big whoopie ****. If you want to increase your standard of living, stop electing and supporting dictators, implement a free enterprise capitalistic economic system, deal with crime (executing anyone that rape, murders, or kidnaps is a good start), and get rid of the religions in the government.
While I agree that some countries need to be tougher on crime, and while I am not relgious you should NOT ban religion from Government.

Like redistributing the wealth from first world nations to dictator's pockets.
Because the US government would *never* do that. (hint: Who financed Saddam?)

Stuart
14-11-2003, 12:04
For example, I very specifically stated that there is no such thing as international law (for us) because we are a sovereign state. Period.
Sorry to be picky, but a Sovereign state is ruled by a Monarch. Last time I checked, Canada and America did not have a royal family. You are a republic.

The Constitution also only applies to Americans. Do you even know what communism is?So the americans can kidnap and keep anyone else they want in their country?

Communism is a failed experiment in socialism (ie government owns and runs everything put simply), Capitalism is far better.

Chris
14-11-2003, 12:14
I don't think any other thread on this forum has shocked me the way this one has. The blind hatred for the United States displayed by some folks here is very saddening indeed. Glib phrases like 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' and 'I'm honestly not sure that there is any difference between terrorism and a military strike these days' put some members of this forum in the same league as Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, cynically regretting the deaths of innocent people but inwardly feeling it is somehow justified. But of course, I expect some people in this forum consider Sinn Fein to be heroes of freedom as well.

It would be easier to cope with all this negativity towards the USA if it was in part due to a sense of pride in our own nation - hey, you guys aren't the best, we are! - but no, all we see is self-loathing and post-colonial guilt. Some of you people need to learn to get over yourselves or else why bother getting out of bed in the morning?

I am not an apologist for the American Way. I don't agree with everything they do. But to return to the title of this thread, it saddens me that it is so popular to be anti-American at the moment. There is not a little jealousy in evidence here.

Empires are the way of the world. We had one, not so long ago. Now it's their turn. At least the 'weapons' of US imperialism are generally Hollywood films and Big Macs. If we were facing down the USSR or China at this point, it would be concentration camps and T-55s.

Things could be a whole lot worse. As Jerrek is so fond of saying, deal with it.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 12:18
The Constitution also only applies to Americans. Do you even know what communism is?
Yes I do know. My relatives were anti-communist in a communist conquered country and therefore weren't allowed to work and thus to recieve money. Whenever the local governor wanted to look firm on the captolists they would be imprisioned without warning in the middle of the night.

A lady in America was put on the 'no-fly' list purely because she was the editor of an anti-war news letter. The FBI have refused to explain why or remove her from it. It would seem people are being penalised for disagreeing with the government and practicing 'free speech'

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 12:22
I`m honestly not sure that there is any difference between terrorism and a military strike these days, especially when you see the way certain countries such as the USA and Israel conduct themselves.

If, as Bush claims, this is a war, then by definition 9/11 was military action.Military action does not allow for deliberate strikes against civilian targets, targeting civilians only.
I could stomach terrorism if the terrorists attacked military targets, I would feel that their actions were justified in some way. What I find reprehensible is when they attack civilians (some of whom probably are their own countrymen)

I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers?

downquark1
14-11-2003, 12:29
I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers? As Towny mentioned the main thing about america and the western world is it's economic wealth, the world trade centre is the symbolic link to that. The pentagon was the symbolic link to the military and the white house was the link to the international polictical bias. These people can't attack military targets because they are well defended and secret.

Remember these people are religiously fueled - they prefer symbolisum over practicallity.

handyman
14-11-2003, 12:45
As Towny mentioned the main thing about america and the western world is it's economic wealth, the world trade centre is the symbolic link to that. The pentagon was the symbolic link to the military and the white house was the link to the international polictical bias. These people can't attack military targets because they are well defended and secret.

Remember these people are religiously fueled - they prefer symbolisum over practicallity.

There are many American base's that are not secret, andrews etc. It does not take a genius to find them and if your going to crash a commercial jet into it then even if shot down there would be lots of damage.

What happened on 9/11 was a huge shock to the US, it should have been a kick in the pants for them to have such a large scale terrorist atack on their own soil and they should have taken a long look at thier international profile. However the US has taken it upon it self so send in a large scale military attack on a country rather than use its Intelligence services to go after the leaders behind it.

Dont get me wrong Saddam and Bin Ladden are terrorists and should be removed from power. Attacking a few countrys whilst doing that? Maybe not the best way. With all the military might the US has why are they still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan???

For the record I think America is a nice place, they just need to work on their international relations a bit.

philip.j.fry
14-11-2003, 12:49
You are viewing the whole problem of dictatorship in a rather simplistic way. Not all dictators are elected. AFAIK very few are.


In fact, isn't an elected dictator an oxymoron.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 12:55
In fact, isn't an elected dictator an oxymoron.
Not entirely you could elect one person with absolute power, but they must hold a electon after a certain time. Problem is they don't want to.

Works in theory - not in practice.

philip.j.fry
14-11-2003, 13:19
I have no idea. Some of them, no. Some of them, yes. Some of them are particularly eager to express how bad the western lifestyle is and that us "infidels" should all die. So, if they want to live in such crappy conditions because Allah tells them to,


Yes, some of them, in the main the minority. All most of these people want is to get on and lead happy lives. You also forget that they know nothing different, they don't have the choices of how they are brought up so their beliefs are formulated based on experience. Education, understanding and compromise is the only way to help this.


or if you would rather have your child die than to slaughter one of the quadzillion cows on the street and feed your child, whatever. I'm not about to force my beliefs onto you.


Again, you are referring to other people in a derogatory fashion. Cow's I would have no problem killing to feed my child, other human beings I would have to be pushed very very far before considering that choice.


Except that I wasn't. I'm a refugee. Regardless, that isn't the point.


Then I would have thought that you would have more understanding. You or your parents or whoever escaped but millions can't, and would you be happy for all those who wish to to enter and live in America?


The point is, these same people keep electing numbskill idiotic dictators. WHY is it that Africa is incapable of governing themselves? WHY? Yes, now someone is going to call me racist, but I don't care. It is the truth. I do pity the people that live in bad conditions, but damn, STOP ELECTING and SUPPORTING dictators!


As far as I understand it, dictators often aren't elected, it's the minority siezing power. In times of strife and hardship, dictorships thrive, look at pre-war Germany, or are you saying that all of those people were as evil as Hitler and that's why he came to power?


You know, I really don't want to tell the rest of the world how to live and what to do. I think I'll just ignore them. If we don't, people yell at us for unilateral action. And for U.S. imperialism. And other crap. Who are YOU to say to another person in another country how he should be living his life?


I don't want to tell the world how to live, but actions have consequences and I want people to see and understand this so that the negative consequences of peoples actions are mitigated.



I completely disagree. Germany came out of a mess in under 5 decades. So did Japan. And countless other countries. If these people are serious about fixing their countries, start implementing some basic common sense practices. It isn't MY job and my country's job to fix up other countries.


I believe that the countries you mention had help.


Like redistributing the wealth from first world nations to dictator's pockets.

Redistributing the wealth to people so that people have a fair chance in life, I'm all for removing brutal leaders of undemocratic regimes.

I'm sorry Jerrek, I realise that as one of the few Americans (the only one?) on this board that you must feel like you are being backed into a corner and probably your opinions are polarising more than you mean for them too. I'm not anti-americam, just anti-prejudice.

philip.j.fry
14-11-2003, 13:20
Not entirely you could elect one person with absolute power, but they must hold a electon after a certain time. Problem is they don't want to.

Works in theory - not in practice.

Hmm, the initials TB are flashing in my mind at this point :D

Chris
14-11-2003, 13:22
Hmm, the initials TB are flashing in my mind at this point :D
Yes, any British political party with an overwhelming Commons majority could be seen as an 'elected dictatorship'. Thatcher was accused of this, and Blair is now as well. But then I think this is unsurprising, as Blair is clearly Maggie's genetically re-engineered experiment for holding on to power :p

philip.j.fry
14-11-2003, 13:26
Yes, any British political party with an overwhelming Commons majority could be seen as an 'elected dictatorship'. Thatcher was accused of this, and Blair is now as well. But then I think this is unsurprising, as Blair is clearly Maggie's genetically re-engineered experiment for holding on to power :p

I was thinking more of when the time comes for him to go, I can see him clinging onto the doorframe of no.10 screaming that he doesn't want to go :LOL:

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 13:36
I don't think any other thread on this forum has shocked me the way this one has. The blind hatred for the United States displayed by some folks here is very saddening indeed. Glib phrases like 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' and 'I'm honestly not sure that there is any difference between terrorism and a military strike these days' put some members of this forum in the same league as Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, cynically regretting the deaths of innocent people but inwardly feeling it is somehow justified. But of course, I expect some people in this forum consider Sinn Fein to be heroes of freedom as well.

The Russians took over Afghanistan, when the local population fought back they were regarded as freedom fighters. The English annexed a vaste swathe of Ireland, I think that the Irish had every right to fight to reclaim the land that was rightfully theirs.

Chris
14-11-2003, 13:39
The Russians took over Afghanistan, when the local population fought back they were regarded as freedom fighters. The English annexed a vaste swathe of Ireland, I think that the Irish had every right to fight to reclaim the land that was rightfully theirs.
OK, so let's be absolutely clear about this. Are you saying that you believe this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm) was justified in the name of a Republic of all Ireland?

Incidentally, the Loyalist population of Northern Ireland are largely descended from Scots, not English. ;)

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 13:54
OK, so let's be absolutely clear about this. Are you saying that you believe this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm) was justified in the name of a Republic of all Ireland?

Incidentally, the Loyalist population of Northern Ireland are largely descended from Scots, not English. ;)

It's all swings and roundabouts, was Bloody Sunday justified?

Stuart
14-11-2003, 14:03
Yes, any British political party with an overwhelming Commons majority could be seen as an 'elected dictatorship'. Thatcher was accused of this, and Blair is now as well. But then I think this is unsurprising, as Blair is clearly Maggie's genetically re-engineered experiment for holding on to power :p
I've always thought of him as "Thatcher Lite". The version for people who don't want to admit they like the full thing..

Chris
14-11-2003, 14:20
It's all swings and roundabouts, was Bloody Sunday justified?Answer the question m8.

OK, so let's be absolutely clear about this. Are you saying that you believe this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm) was justified in the name of a Republic of all Ireland?

Incidentally, the Loyalist population of Northern Ireland are largely descended from Scots, not English. ;)
Well do you?

For the record, I think the shooting of unarmed civilians without provocation is despicable. Even if the army was shot at first, they were aware that the crowd was largely a peaceful civil rights movement and should not have started spraying the place with bullets.

It is possible that the IRA was using that peaceful crowd as cover and if they were, and if they did shoot first, I would be suspicious that it was a cynical ploy to goad the Army into a firefight in which everyone must have realised civilians would get hurt.

I have no trouble condemning such actions. How about you?

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 14:39
Answer the question m8.

From an objective viewpoint, we would have no problems if this was done to the occupying Russian forces in Afghanistan. In this case the British are the occupying force, so they have to expect the same sort of action. I don`t think that justified and correct necessarily equate.

I find it quite hypocritical to condemn the battle for liberation when we are the ones on the receiving end, whereas we would be applauding such actions if they were taken against some other regimes. A bomb of this type in an area of Iraq with strong loyalty to Saddam Hussein would be interpreted as an act of defiance against a dictator. Ok, so we aren`t being dictators over to Ireland, but we are the occupying force.

Whoever wins writes the history, sometimes you need to stand back and be objective.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 14:43
I don`t think that justified and correct necessarily equate. Exactly, we all know Sadam deserved to be removed, but the way it was done wasn't justified.

Chris
14-11-2003, 14:45
From an objective viewpoint, we would have no problems if this was done to the occupying Russian forces in Afghanistan. In this case the British are the occupying force, so they have to expect the same sort of action. I don`t think that justified and correct necessarily equate.The Warrington bomb didn't kill any soldiers. It killed two young children who were out shopping with their parents and injured a lot of others. Their names were Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball. Did you click the link? Here is is again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm

So, again: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

downquark1
14-11-2003, 14:49
So, again: In your opinion, is blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland? No, but when bombs hit children in Iraq people except it as accidents of war.

Chris
14-11-2003, 14:52
No, but when bombs hit children in Iraq people except it as accidents of war.
I don't think planting a bomb in a shopping centre with the sole aim of maiming and killing civilians is quite the same as targeting an armed enemy and accidentally killing bystanders.

However I feel the need at this point to remind you that personally I'm a pacifist and cannot condone killing people ever, for any reason. To that extent, I agree with you. :(

downquark1
14-11-2003, 14:59
We are digressing. No-one deserved September 11 but it wasn't unexpected and we must understand the reasons behind it and why the terriorists thought it was justified

Chris
14-11-2003, 15:07
We are digressing. No-one deserved September 11 but it wasn't unexpected and we must understand the reasons behind it and why the terriorists thought it was justified
I agree, the terrorists' own justification for this is interesting, but several pages back Ramrod posted an article from the Times which was roundly condemned by some folks in this thread because of the 'agenda' of the person who wrote it. If it's valid to question an opinion based on the agenda of the one expressing it, then I think the agenda of those expressing opinions in this thread is also a legitimate line of enquiry.

At the moment, I am very disturbed indeed by some of the agendas I believe are being portrayed in some posts in this thread.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 15:16
I agree, the terrorists' own justification for this is interesting, but several pages back Ramrod posted an article from the Times which was roundly condemned by some folks in this thread because of the 'agenda' of the person who wrote it. If it's valid to question an opinion based on the agenda of the one expressing it, then I think the agenda of those expressing opinions in this thread is also a legitimate line of enquiry.

At the moment, I am very disturbed indeed by some of the agendas I believe are being portrayed in some posts in this thread.
My agenda:

I liked America in democratic rule
when George Bush was elected I said to myself 'a disaster is going to happen and he's going to handle it badly'
Sept 11th happened, I was obviously furious at the terriorists and sympathetic for america. But again I said to myself 'oh god what are they going to do'
I accepted the war against Aufghanistan since Alqueda was based there. I became outraged when George Bush started to say things like it is the policy of his government to remove sadam. How can your policy be to overthrow a foreign leader? Then the Iraq thing started when Iraq hasn't done anything since the last time we bombed them. They have found no WMD, the war had no reason to it now that could have been applied before sept 11th.

The patriot act is taking away civil liberities and the prisoners in thingy bay are just terrible contradictions to what americans are suppose to believe in

Chris
14-11-2003, 15:26
Here's mine (I kind of mentioned this when the thread started anyway):

I like America. I like the American people. Their optimism for the future and their national pride are something I wish there was more of in this country.
I am a Christian. My understanding of the New Testament absolutely forbids me to take part in, or condone, death and violence of any kind; I am a man of peace, just as my Lord is.
I recognise that the New Testament comments widely on secular politics - starting with Jesus' own words, 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword.'
The whole business of conflict sickens me. But as the people engaged in it have chosen that path, I offer an opinion upon it, attempting to gauge 'right' and 'wrong' from within that world view.

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 15:27
As Towny mentioned the main thing about america and the western world is it's economic wealth, the world trade centre is the symbolic link to that. The pentagon was the symbolic link to the military and the white house was the link to the international polictical bias. These people can't attack military targets because they are well defended and secret.

Remember these people are religiously fueled - they prefer symbolisum over practicallity.The question still stands, no-one has answered it. Just avoided it!
Here it is again: I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers?

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 15:52
I theink the reason the US is hated as much as it is, especially from within Europe is that the US insists that THEY won the second world war. Hey can I just point out to all the Americans that read this, there were a couple of other countries fighting too you know? When did the second world war start? hey 1939?? bloody hell a few years before the US entered heh. What happend specifically between 10th July and 31st October 1940?
Europe was getting a royal spanking by Germany and Italy before the United States came in, and Winston Churchill said that. Yes, the other nations helped, but it was by large American forces that were responsible for putting order back into Europe.

Just like today, it is Americans that keep the peace in Europe.

And again there were more countries than the US fighting there.
All of two people. (ignoring the British military though, they did contribute quite a bit.)

Then we approach the Irish Americans, the people that convinced the "most powerful country in the world" to support the IRA.
I wasn't aware my government supported the IRA. Mind providing some sources?


This 'attitude' I speak of is the one which makes america feel it isn't bound by international law
Russ, North Korea isn't bound by "international law." And neither is Iraq. Or Libya. Or countless other countries. We are a sovereign nation. Respect that. If you don't, well, *shrug.*


If Iraq doesn't have any WMD as the evidence now suggests.
Oh please. I don't believe that, and I certainly didn't believe it back then. And, the United Nations certainly didn't believe it either, because in ruling 1441 they declared that Iraq had WMD and that they were to show IMMEDIATELY proof of it being dismanteled, which they failed to do.


Then the USA invaded a country and removed it's government simply because it thought it was threat and had the resources to do it.
Damn right. And I support them in that.


they then gain money from the rebuilding contracts
Meanwhile the war costs $1 billion a week, and we just gave Iraq $87 billion. Yep, so profitable.


If I think the US is a threat to international security can I try to overthrow Bush?
Oh I see. Bush is a worse guy than Saddam right?


does that give them the right to invade the USA?
By all means. If you can't solve your situations diplomatically, war usually follows. I will resepct their right to declare war on the United States. Just keep in mind we won't send troops over to support them in that.


Sorry to be picky, but a Sovereign state is ruled by a Monarch. Last time I checked, Canada and America did not have a royal family. You are a republic.
scastle, you're being very dumb. Two points.

Sovereign means, as Webster's put it, c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT <sovereign state>. It has nothing to do with royalty.

Second, Canada has a queen. So please. The United States is a sovereign republic, and Canada is a sovereign constitutional monarchy.


Military action does not allow for deliberate strikes against civilian targets, targeting civilians only.
And I couldn't agree more. The United States does not go out there targetting civilians on purpose. Sure, accidents happen, and that is tragic. But I am quite a firm believer that our soldiers are rather honorable compared to the rest of the people. When was the last time you heard American soldiers rape their PoWs?

Israel is the same. They don't target civilians. They target militants. It just so happens that the Palestians, demonstrating the bravity, find it useful to hide among civilians and put their ammunition factories among schools and hospitals.

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 15:56
Here's mine (I kind of mentioned this when the thread started anyway):

I like America. I like the American people. Their optimism for the future and their national pride are something I wish there was more of in this country.
I am a Christian. My understanding of the New Testament absolutely forbids me to take part in, or condone, death and violence of any kind; I am a man of peace, just as my Lord is.
I recognise that the New Testament comments widely on secular politics - starting with Jesus' own words, 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword.'
The whole business of conflict sickens me. But as the people engaged in it have chosen that path, I offer an opinion upon it, attempting to gauge 'right' and 'wrong' from within that world view.
Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.

Chris
14-11-2003, 16:04
Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.
And I respect your view. :)

(and will pray for you in order to try to prevent you getting your @ss blown off).

Chris
14-11-2003, 16:15
BTW, completely forgot to pick up a point Timewarrior made earlier - the USA did not oppose the Falklands War. It was caught in the middle because it favoured Gen. Galtieri as a leader of Argentina as opposed to any of the Communist wannabe dictators waiting in the wings, and saw that a British victory over him would weaken his position. HOWEVER, and this is the crucial point, when it came to a fight, Ronald Reagan chose to back his ally Great Britain, and send supplies to the task force which frankly, kept the British Army in food and ammunition until it was safely in Port Stanley. It is doubtful things would have gone so smoothly without this US help, which remained secret (although widely suspected) until recently.

So, Britain marching in to Iraq with the USA is not all one-way 'poodling'. Foreign power invades British territory; Britain goes to war, USA helps us sort it out. Foreign power threatens world (and USA) security; USA goes to war, Britain helps them sort it out.

Like it or not, UK and USA are extraordinarily close allies and have been since WW2. Both countries are immeasurably better off because of this.

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 16:23
Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.Good for you!

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 16:41
So, again: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

I`m sure this will provoke your ire, but it wasn`t a deliberate attempt to blow up children per se, these two deaths are just used by the media to put an emotive spin on the issue. Otherwise why make such a big deal about the two children getting killed in comparison to the other victims who suffered? Hence your question is flawed to begin with.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 16:42
Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.

Well at least you won`t have to worry too much about being attacked by the enemy, your own forces will provide enough of a threat to your life in that respect.

Seriously though, I think that anyone who voluntarily joins the armed forces these days needs their head examined. When I walk past the Army recruitment office in town and see young men in there I really feel like sticking my head in the door and telling them not to do it.

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 16:44
And they will most likely pity you.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 16:46
And they will most likely pity you.

Good for them, but at least I won`t be participating in illegal military actions.

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 16:49
It is so funny how you call it "illegal," as if there is some law regarding war.

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 16:50
No-one has answered my question yet.....:rolleyes:

Chris
14-11-2003, 16:54
I`m sure this will provoke your ire, but it wasn`t a deliberate attempt to blow up children per se, these two deaths are just used by the media to put an emotive spin on the issue. Otherwise why make such a big deal about the two children getting killed in comparison to the other victims who suffered? Hence your question is flawed to begin with.It doesn't provoke my ire, but it does demonstrate that you're very reluctant to answer the question. You've tried ignoring it and misunderstanding it, and now you're trying to redefine it.

The media's agenda in reporting the 'human angle' of this event is not at issue here. The facts are:

1. The IRA, in pursuit of its aim of a united Ireland, planted a bomb in Warrington town centre.
2. 30 years of experience meant they were fully aware of the serious risk of loss of life to men, women and children.
3. In any court in the civilised world, such reckless action would rightly be enough to prove the charge of murder.
4. Murder is defined as the deliberate (or malicious) and unlawful killing of another human being.
5. Our society (generally) values children highly, as they represent innocence and hope for the future. Not because they make heart-rending news copy.

The question is not flawed. Your silly attempts to avoid answering it are flawed.

I'll ask you again, and I suggest that unless you post otherwise, it is reasonable for me to conclude that you believe blowing up children was the correct course of action for the IRA to take.

So: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

Over to you.

Stuart
14-11-2003, 16:54
scastle, you're being very dumb. Two points.

Sovereign means, as Webster's put it, c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT <sovereign state>. It has nothing to do with royalty.

Second, Canada has a queen. So please. The United States is a sovereign republic, and Canada is a sovereign constitutional monarchy.
OK. I stand corrected.

But, do not call me dumb. That is insulting.

You still haven't answered my question: Who financed Saddam?


And I couldn't agree more. The United States does not go out there targetting civilians on purpose. Sure, accidents happen, and that is tragic. But I am quite a firm believer that our soldiers are rather honorable compared to the rest of the people. When was the last time you heard American soldiers rape their PoWs?
That's fair enough. Accidents do happen. I don't call the kind of "soldiers" that target civillians, rape & pillage soldiers. I call them thugs. Americans don't do this (rape & pillage I mean).

Israel is the same. They don't target civilians. They target militants. It just so happens that the Palestians, demonstrating the bravity, find it useful to hide among civilians and put their ammunition factories among schools and hospitals.
I have to admit, unless they are using the general public as a human shield, they wouldn't put military facilities in the middle of populated areas. We don't. The US & Canada don't. In fact, I don't think any civilised country does.

Now, just in case this isn't clear from my posts. I am not anti-American, and I do think it was right to remove Saddam (I actually think we should have done it in Gulf War 1). The only stupid thing (IMO) that both George Bush and Tony Blair did was announce that Saddam had WMDs before they had firm evidence. Having said that, I don't think we would have gone to war if they hadn't said that.

I also believe that Saddam did have (and possibly still has) WMDs, although I would be very surprised if they are anywhere near Iraq.

I have also found the few Americans I have met to be charming and extremely friendly.

The only thing I don't like is the "We are better than you attitude", but I don't like that attitude wherever it comes from. As I said in my earlier post, I don't think that attitude is patriotic, just arrogant.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 17:01
The question is not flawed. Your silly attempts to avoid answering it are flawed.

I'll ask you again, and I suggest that unless you post otherwise, it is reasonable for me to conclude that you believe blowing up children was the correct course of action for the IRA to take.

So: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

Over to you.

To be honest, I don`t give a damn what conclusions you come to, but I simply refuse to answer a leading question that I believe is flawed in the first instance. Interpret that how you wish, it is of little concern to me as I do not need my beliefs and opinions validated by others.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 17:01
I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers? I call it a diabolical act of terriorism perpatrated by people who feel they have been driven to such measures or conditioned to do so.

Oh and add to my list of reasons for opinion:
The us seek immunity from warcrimes. If no crimes are commited why do they need immunity

Stuart
14-11-2003, 17:07
I`m sure this will provoke your ire, but it wasn`t a deliberate attempt to blow up children per se, these two deaths are just used by the media to put an emotive spin on the issue. Otherwise why make such a big deal about the two children getting killed in comparison to the other victims who suffered? Hence your question is flawed to begin with.
Dr Wadd. The IRA planted a bomb in a shopping centre. They have also planted a bomb in one of the big department stores (Harrods I believe) at Christmas. Are you seriously suggesting they were not trying to kill civillians? And, of course, there are bound to be a few kids around.

Chris
14-11-2003, 17:09
To be honest, I don`t give a damn what conclusions you come to, but I simply refuse to answer a leading question that I believe is flawed in the first instance. Interpret that how you wish, it is of little concern to me as I do not need my beliefs and opinions validated by others.
I don't know whether I am saddened or sickened by this. What I am sure of is that your reputation, as far as I'm concerned, should not be green. :(

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 17:11
Dr Wadd. The IRA planted a bomb in a shopping centre. They have also planted a bomb in one of the big department stores (Harrods I believe) at Christmas. Are you seriously suggesting they were not trying to kill civillians? And, of course, there are bound to be a few kids around.

I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.

basa
14-11-2003, 17:14
I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.

What !!! .. You don't think the IRA were trying to manipulate the fears of the British public by planting bombs where children were likely to be killed ????????

That amounts to little more than terrorism in the extreme !!

Chris
14-11-2003, 17:20
I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.
Really, I don't think this requires any 'media manipulation' at all in order to make any right-thinking individual feel sick to the core.

Stuart
14-11-2003, 17:23
I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.
True, the Media do tend to play up the death of Children. Children do seem to be more important to this society than adults.

However, if the IRA bombs either a shopping centre or a major department store (especially at Christmas), it is a fair bet they were aiming to hurt some kids, is it not?

downquark1
14-11-2003, 18:00
However, if the IRA bombs either a shopping centre or a major department store (especially at Christmas), it is a fair bet they were aiming to hurt some kids, is it not? Bear in mind I'm only trying to understand the terrorist mind, not agree with him. But I don't think they said 'hey let's go blow up children'. The idea is to get attention, what better than to aim a populated area in a busy period. I don't think children in particular had any part in their thinking.

handyman
14-11-2003, 18:09
Bear in mind I'm only trying to understand the terrorist mind, not agree with him. But I don't think they said 'hey let's go blow up children'. The idea is to get attention, what better than to aim a populated area in a busy period. I don't think children in particular had any part in their thinking.

This is drawing away from the topic at question which is anti-american views.

No one is doubting that acts of terroism involving bombs in public places will cause loss of life indiscriminatly and those involved should be hung. Maybe these views warrant a thread on thier own to be discussed.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 18:17
I don't know whether I am saddened or sickened by this. What I am sure of is that your reputation, as far as I'm concerned, should not be green. :(
I'm confused by this response

etccarmageddon
14-11-2003, 18:53
It is so funny how you call it "illegal," as if there is some law regarding war.

there are the geneva conventions.

etccarmageddon
14-11-2003, 18:57
True, the Media do tend to play up the death of Children. Children do seem to be more important to this society than adults.

However, if the IRA bombs either a shopping centre or a major department store (especially at Christmas), it is a fair bet they were aiming to hurt some kids, is it not?

yes and as the IRA considered it a war then isnt that a war crime to target civilians - geneva convention 4.

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 19:11
I call it a diabolical act of terriorism perpatrated by people who feel they have been driven to such measures or conditioned to do so.

Oh and add to my list of reasons for opinion:
The us seek immunity from warcrimes. If no crimes are commited why do they need immunityI was rather hoping drwadd would answer that one but he seems to be ignoring it....
Here's a thought: If I was cut up on a road by another car and insulted by the other driver even though it was his fault, would it be reasonable for me to go round to his place and kill his dog and put a brick through his window?
Not really....so why is it deemed reasonable by some members of this forum that terorists fly planes into buildings because they are pi**ed off with the USA?

downquark1
14-11-2003, 19:25
I was rather hoping drwadd would answer that one but he seems to be ignoring it....
Here's a thought: If I was cut up on a road by another car and insulted by the other driver even though it was his fault, would it be reasonable for me to go round to his place and kill his dog and put a brick through his window?
Not really....so why is it deemed reasonable by some members of this forum that terorists fly planes into buildings because they are pi**ed off with the USA?
I don't deem it reasonable I deem it to have a reason - valid or not it's there.

Me and Dr. Wadd seem to be the only people who see things in shades of grey rather than Black and white. It is obvious that to some people it seems reasonable because it actually happened - ie by the people who saw reason. Reason is relative, one person's is different from the others. I do not think that terriorists are the Devil incarnate that people are making them out to be, they are severly misguided people

Chris
14-11-2003, 19:43
This is drawing away from the topic at question which is anti-american views.

No one is doubting that acts of terroism involving bombs in public places will cause loss of life indiscriminatly and those involved should be hung. Maybe these views warrant a thread on thier own to be discussed.

On the contrary I think it's exactly on-topic HM. I think the view that the USA 'had it coming' with regards to the events of 9/11 is pretty blatant anti-Americanism, and part of the 'agenda' of some people in this thread has been to hide that by attempting to justify (or at least explain away) the actions of the terrorists.

In trying to pin down some of the logical consequences of such a line of argument we have strayed into terrorism more generally, and other specific examples of it - the IRA, for instance - but always with one eye on the important question: What is really behind the anti-war, anti-America and anti-Bush sentiments being expressed?

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 19:44
I don't deem it reasonable I deem it to have a reason - valid or not it's there.

Me and Dr. Wadd seem to be the only people who see things in shades of grey rather than Black and white. It is obvious that to some people it seems reasonable because it actually happened - ie by the people who saw reason. Reason is relative, one person's is different from the others. I do not think that terriorists are the Devil incarnate that people are making them out to be, they are severly misguided peopleWell put!
I do see things in shades of grey. I just happen to think that 9/11 is a black and white situation.
Another thing thats winding me up here is that terrorists actions are being examined in a 'shades of grey' way here but the USA is being given the 'black or white' treatment.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 19:45
I was rather hoping drwadd would answer that one but he seems to be ignoring it....
Here's a thought: If I was cut up on a road by another car and insulted by the other driver even though it was his fault, would it be reasonable for me to go round to his place and kill his dog and put a brick through his window?
Not really....so why is it deemed reasonable by some members of this forum that terorists fly planes into buildings because they are pi**ed off with the USA?

Some of us simply aren`t sitting on the forum 24/7.

I don`t think you'll find anyone has said it was reasonable, merely that it was undertandable why someone would do it.

As Downquark pointed out, you can't look at the world in absolutes, there is no black & white, it is all shades of grey. You can`t look at an event without examining the wider context behind the event. The inability to see events from someone else's point of view is symptomatic of the arrogant attitude of some that we are somehow the good guys and they are the evil enemy. It's all cause and effect, and these are merely the effects of the actions of the west. It is time that people started examining the attitudes of the west in the context of the world as a whole.

darkangel
14-11-2003, 19:53
yes and as the IRA considered it a war then isnt that a war crime to target civilians - geneva convention 4.the Geneva convention does not apply unless there is a formal declaration of war i belive

darkangel
14-11-2003, 20:01
Israel is the same. They don't target civilians.can u explain the deliberate shelling by Israel of a UN base in Lebanon killing scores of civilians

Ramrod
14-11-2003, 20:11
Some of us simply aren`t sitting on the forum 24/7.

I don`t think you'll find anyone has said it was reasonable, merely that it was undertandable why someone would do it.

As Downquark pointed out, you can't look at the world in absolutes, there is no black & white, it is all shades of grey. You can`t look at an event without examining the wider context behind the event. The inability to see events from someone else's point of view is symptomatic of the arrogant attitude of some that we are somehow the good guys and they are the evil enemy. It's all cause and effect, and these are merely the effects of the actions of the west. It is time that people started examining the attitudes of the west in the context of the world as a whole.Nothing wrong with examening the wider context behind events. I think that if you are talking about cause and effect then the effect was out of all proportion to the cause (at least in the 9/11 and even Bali bomb cases)
No ammount of apologism can change the fact that the acts carried out by those terrorists were obcsene and there can be no excuse for them. There are no shades of gray in an act like that.



*edit*
So you see 9/11 as 'understandable'?
Ok, does anyone here know exactly why they did it?

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 20:56
There are no shades of gray in an act like that.

Amen. Let us say that again: There are no shades of gray in an act like that.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 20:57
I think that if you are talking about cause and effect then the effect was out of all proportion to the cause (at least in the 9/11 and even Bali bomb cases)
If I nudge my glass it will fall off the table, break and stain the carpet, much much more than my little nudge. No body said that cause and affect had to be equal.

Whoose fault is the mess?


*edit*
So you see 9/11 as 'understandable'?
Ok, does anyone here know exactly why they did it? No not at all but people don't kill themselves likely. I can't for the life of me figure out football hulagism's motives, but they are there.

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 20:59
there are the geneva conventions.
The United States does not violate the Geneva Conventions when waging war. The people you don't want to critisize, such as Saddam and Mugabe, does violate the Geneva Conventions. Regardless, I doubt that was what waddy was referring to.

downquark1
14-11-2003, 21:01
The United States does not violate the Geneva Conventions when waging war. The people you don't want to critisize, such as Saddam and Mugabe, does violate the Geneva Conventions. Regardless, I doubt that was what waddy was referring to.
But with this 'war' on terror, they keep the prisioners of the 'war on terror' in terrible conditions.

kronas
14-11-2003, 21:04
But with this 'war' on terror, they keep the prisioners of the 'war on terror' in terrible conditions.


im sure that breaks many conventions human rights ?

as i have read through this thread i agree with some of dr wadd's comments that the US had it coming...

ignorance and cockeyness will only give you negativity every country has it positives and negatives its just the US does not obey international law

it claimed saddam had weapons of mass destruction id like to ask where are they ?

oh and jerrek not every muslim is anti US or a terrorist :rolleyes:

darkangel
14-11-2003, 21:05
they keep the prisioners of the 'war on terror' in terrible conditions.
how do u know, what conditions are they being kept in?

kronas
14-11-2003, 21:07
how do u know, what conditions are they being kept in?

the news reports they show pictures........

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 21:08
The United States does not violate the Geneva Conventions when waging war. The people you don't want to critisize, such as Saddam and Mugabe, does violate the Geneva Conventions. Regardless, I doubt that was what waddy was referring to.

Leaving aside the issue of Guantanamo Bay which has already been mentioned, the USA bombed neutral countries during the Vietnam war. That is a war crime. Not to mention the attack recently within the borders of Syria.

I don`t see the USA storming in to help the oppressed people of Zimbabwe, but they don`t any resources you want to plunder. If the US government is so concerned about protecting the rights of oppressed peoples around the world, why did Dick Cheney vote *against* a motion codemning the house-arrest of Nelson Mandela?

Back on the topic of Bush, I suppose it's no suprise that he is attempting to stifle freedom of speech within the UK, he is already doing that in his own country.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/WorldNewsTonight/protest_zones_031112-1.html

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 21:22
But with this 'war' on terror, they keep the prisioners of the 'war on terror' in terrible conditions.
Really. Terrible conditions. My idea of living in terrible conditions does not include living in a tent and given food and water every day, and allowed in the sun, on an island in the Caribbean.

My idea of terrible conditions is a Saudi jail under ground, locked away never to see daylight, not getting adequate water and food, no toilets, and perhaps the occasional rape or two.

the USA bombed neutral countries during the Vietnam war
Now let us see. Vietnam war. That would be a war started by liberal Democrats. Which countries are these that you speak of?

Not to mention the attack recently within the borders of Syria.
Which attack? Are you referring to the Israeli one?

I don`t see the USA storming in to help the oppressed people of Zimbabwe, but they don`t any resources you want to plunder.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What about Bosnia? There wasn't any resources either...

If the US government is so concerned about protecting the rights of oppressed peoples around the world, why did Dick Cheney vote *against* a motion codemning the house-arrest of Nelson Mandela?
Mandela is a terrorist and a communist. He should have been executed when he was arrested for the murder of innocent civilians. He and his cronies planted bombs and killed many people.

darkangel
14-11-2003, 21:28
the news reports they show pictures........yep my point exactly, u know nothing of how the prisoners are being treated

homealone
14-11-2003, 21:41
I can understand Patriotism & loyalty and how people can hold strong views for & against other countries & causes.

I think I can understand how a "crime of passion" can result in one person taking the life of another - one on one, anyway.

What I can't understand is how anyone, could cold bloodedly, plan to murder & maim other people in order to to express their views - or even why they would think it could achieve their aims.

You would have thought that the sheer horror of atrocities like 9/11, Bali & what the IRA did to Manchester, would make these people think again about their strategy - what kind of person could do something like that & then start thinking about what to do next?

No pro/anti cause is worth the appalling carnage of these acts of violence, how the people who perpetrate them ever get support for what they do is beyond me?

downquark1
14-11-2003, 21:49
yep my point exactly, u know nothing of how the prisoners are being treated
:confused:

Really. Terrible conditions. My idea of living in terrible conditions does not include living in a tent and given food and water every day, and allowed in the sun, on an island in the Caribbean. :rolleyes:

darkangel
14-11-2003, 22:04
:confused:my point was that all we know is being showed by a bias media who have a vested interest in make the pictures etc show what they want

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 22:13
Really. Terrible conditions. My idea of living in terrible conditions does not include living in a tent and given food and water every day, and allowed in the sun, on an island in the Caribbean.

My idea of terrible conditions is a Saudi jail under ground, locked away never to see daylight, not getting adequate water and food, no toilets, and perhaps the occasional rape or two.

Or being illegally detained, without legal representation, without being charged, for an indefinite amount of time. Being deprived access to your family. These are not terrible conditions? They are in the sun, yes, but being kept in the beating sun constantly without any proper protection isn`t exactly a walk in the park you know.

Which countries are these that you speak of?

Laos might well have something to complain about.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12165

Cambodia didn`t fare too well either.

Which attack? Are you referring to the Israeli one?

No, I`m referring to this one,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3032536.stm

or perhaps you'd like to try this later incident.

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6644892%255E401,00.html

If you are going to contribute to this thread you may wish to keep up with current affairs, and not rely on the stream of propaganda that the Whitehouse keeps pushing down your throat. Or is it simply more convenient for you to forget about the atrocities of the USA?

Mandela is a terrorist and a communist. He should have been executed when he was arrested for the murder of innocent civilians. He and his cronies planted bombs and killed many people.

I seem to recall in an earlier post someone mentioning that you speak Afrikaans and that you spent some period of time in South Africa. Given that you were raised in a country where racism was the national pastime I`m really not surpised by this attitude.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 22:15
my point was that all we know is being showed by a bias media who have a vested interest in make the pictures etc show what they want

And what political bias would the Red Cross have? They have roundly codemned the situation at Guantanamo Bay. There are sources of information above and beyond the news media.

darkangel
14-11-2003, 22:43
And what political bias would the Red Cross have? They have roundly codemned the situation at Guantanamo Bay. There are sources of information above and beyond the news media.everybody is biased in some way not necessarily politically even the red cross, what claims have they made?

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 22:48
Or being illegally detained
Illegal under what law?

Being deprived access to your family.
I couldn't care less. They are terrorists.

These are not terrible conditions?
No my dear boy, it is not. You don't know the meaning of terrible living conditions.

They are in the sun, yes, but being kept in the beating sun constantly without any proper protection isn`t exactly a walk in the park you know.
Oh, they're not dying, and they have tents and lots of water as far as I know. It is funny though, how you are attacking Americans for "terrible" living conditions, but the Chinese's use of thumb cuffs and how they just make people disappear for disagreeing with the government escapes your attention. Yep. Gotta wonder where your loyalties lie.

Or is it simply more convenient for you to forget about the atrocities of the USA?
What atrocities exactly?

I seem to recall in an earlier post someone mentioning that you speak Afrikaans and that you spent some period of time in South Africa. Given that you were raised in a country where racism was the national pastime I`m really not surpised by this attitude.
What the **** does that have to do with anything? I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works. Am I now a racist because I speak Afrikaans?

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 23:04
What atrocities exactly?

You may have noticed I posted some links for you to click on. You obviously didn`t bother, probably too scared to be shocked out of your brainwashed view of the world.


What the **** does that have to do with anything? I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works. Am I now a racist because I speak Afrikaans?

No, I said you grew up in a country of racists, so I didn`t find you attitude surprising. I didn`t actually call *you* a racist, you chose to interpret the statement that way, perhaps I touched upon a raw nerve?

I`ve seen some of the other posts you have contributed to both this thread and others (I must admit, your anti-BBC rhetoric is alway good for having a laugh at the ill-informed), but in my opinion the word "dumb" really doesn`t start to describe the very low level of intelligence that I feel you must have.

dr wadd
14-11-2003, 23:06
everybody is biased in some way not necessarily politically even the red cross, what claims have they made?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

The story is from the BBC, I wonder how soon until Jerrek claims it is a lie?

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 23:27
No, I said you grew up in a country of racists
I did? You call spending ages 0 to 2 growing up? What the ****? Are you mad?

I didn`t actually call *you* a racist, you chose to interpret the statement that way, perhaps I touched upon a raw nerve?
Oh bull****. I don't give a **** what you meant. What you implied and what 99% of the people here perceive is what counts, and I'm sure everyone perceived what I did.

You may have noticed I posted some links for you to click on. You obviously didn`t bother, probably too scared to be shocked out of your brainwashed view of the world.
I clicked, but I saw no atrocities. Maybe some accidents, but definitely no atrocities.

but in my opinion the word "dumb" really doesn`t start to describe the very low level of intelligence that I feel you must have.
Ah yes, I build my opinions on common sense, not the so-called "intelligence" you are supposed to have. I wasn't the one that justified 9/11. I wasn't the one that said there is no difference between civilian targets and military targets. I wasn't the one that made excuses for the IRA. I wasn't the one that said Americans deserved 9/11. You keep your "intelligence."


Now the fact that the Red Cross does not blast China, or Saddam, or Mugabe means that they support what is going on there and being such a great humanitarian, Mugabe is good person, right?

downquark1
14-11-2003, 23:28
Oh, they're not dying, and they have tents and lots of water as far as I know. It is funny though, how you are attacking Americans for "terrible" living conditions, but the Chinese's use of thumb cuffs and how they just make people disappear for disagreeing with the government escapes your attention. Yep. Gotta wonder where your loyalties lie.
There's another 'we aren't as bad as someone else so be grateful'.

In that case, communist China is not as bad as nazi germany so I forgive them of all crimes.

darkangel
14-11-2003, 23:30
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

The story is from the BBC, I wonder how soon until Jerrek claims it is a lie?that still says nothing of their condition Britain has held people like this on many occasions

Jerrek
14-11-2003, 23:30
So you support communist China now and their atrocities?

Chris
14-11-2003, 23:36
Bear in mind I'm only trying to understand the terrorist mind, not agree with him. But I don't think they said 'hey let's go blow up children'. The idea is to get attention, what better than to aim a populated area in a busy period. I don't think children in particular had any part in their thinking.

Creating a moral vacuum in which to study different approaches to the world is perfectly valid, but attempting to live in that vacuum is most certainly not IMO. Some of the comments that have been posted in this thread today go way beyond trying to understand the terrorist mind. They smack of apologetics, which I find distasteful in the extreme.

homealone
15-11-2003, 00:01
Creating a moral vacuum in which to study different approaches to the world is perfectly valid, but attempting to live in that vacuum is most certainly not IMO. Some of the comments that have been posted in this thread today go way beyond trying to understand the terrorist mind. They smack of apologetics, which I find distasteful in the extreme.

and there's the rub - I hope I conveyed my support for the demise of terrorism, in my posts.

dr wadd
15-11-2003, 00:02
[b]I clicked, but I saw no atrocities. Maybe some accidents, but definitely no atrocities.

You call the bombing of Laos an "accident"? You really have had your view of the world twisted by propaganda.

I see you now resorted to swearing, even if you have censored the words. I think that amply demonstrates the level of intelligence and reasoning you are bringing to the table. Your attitude amuses me, but I now consider any attempt to engage you in debate to be an utter waste of my time.

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:03
If I nudge my glass it will fall off the table, break and stain the carpet, much much more than my little nudge. No body said that cause and affect had to be equal.

Whoose fault is the mess? Good answer, but gravity has no choice in the matter. The terrorists had a choice, they chose to murder innocent people

No not at all but people don't kill themselves likely. I can't for the life of me figure out football hulagism's motives, but they are there.Neither can I but we deplore their actions, we don't try to apologise for them.

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:06
But with this 'war' on terror, they keep the prisioners of the 'war on terror' in terrible conditions.Those are not terrible conditions, do they make them eat sh*t? do they p*ss on them? do they torture them? Try being an Iraqi captive!

dr wadd
15-11-2003, 00:08
that still says nothing of their condition Britain has held people like this on many occasions

Yes he does, he points out that the way in which the prisoners are being treated in a behavioural sense is causing them mental ill health. That is very much part of the condition.

Just because the British have behaved in such a manner before doesn`t absolve the USA of any responsibility or guilt. And before you ask, I also have a pretty dim view of the way that the British have approached the rest of the world in the past.

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:09
No pro/anti cause is worth the appalling carnage of these acts of violence, how the people who perpetrate them ever get support for what they do is beyond me?I dunno m8, ask some of the apologists on this forum:mis:

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:11
I seem to recall in an earlier post someone mentioning that you speak Afrikaans and that you spent some period of time in South Africa. Given that you were raised in a country where racism was the national pastime I`m really not surpised by this attitude.You what??? That is some presumption!

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:15
You may have noticed I posted some links for you to click on. You obviously didn`t bother, probably too scared to be shocked out of your brainwashed view of the world.




.The link you supplied about the red cross critisising 'conditions' at Guantanamo bay actually said:
Christophe Girod - the senior Red Cross official in Washington - said it was unacceptable that the 600 detainees should be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without legal safeguards. No mention of 'conditions' there, just the legal process.....

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:17
that still says nothing of their condition Britain has held people like this on many occasionsI agree. Keep chipping away m8, maby it will penetrate someday....

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:18
Some of the comments that have been posted in this thread today go way beyond trying to understand the terrorist mind. They smack of apologetics, which I find distasteful in the extreme.My thoughts exactly!

dr wadd
15-11-2003, 00:19
The link you supplied about the red cross critisising 'conditions' at Guantanamo bay actually said:
No mention of 'conditions' there, just the legal process.....

It also happened to mention

"The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the mental health of the population has become a major problem," he told the New York Times.

As I pointed out earlier, their mental health is part of their condition, and it reflects the current situation within the camp.

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:20
You call the bombing of Laos an "accident"? .Ok lets call it deliberate......listen closely children.....because you have been wrong in the past, it means you can never ever be right ever again:rolleyes:

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:32
It also happened to mention

"The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the mental health of the population has become a major problem," he told the New York Times.

As I pointed out earlier, their mental health is part of their condition, and it reflects the current situation within the camp.Oh poor diddums, they are terrorists(or at the very least they left their home countries to fight in a war, sometimes against soldiers of their own nationality-which is treason). I am sure they can deal with the stress of being held in humane conditions with medical care and a complete absence of torture.
....oh my bleeding heart.....:rolleyes:

dr wadd
15-11-2003, 00:41
Oh poor diddums, they are terrorists(or at the very least they left their home countries to fight in a war, sometimes against soldiers of their own nationality-which is treason). I am sure they can deal with the stress of being held in humane conditions with medical care and a complete absence of torture.
....oh my bleeding heart.....:rolleyes:

Actually, even the US administration doesn`t consider them to be terrorists. To do so would involve charging them with a crime, something that the Whitehouse doesn`t seem to be too keen on doing right now. Not all of those captured came from other countries, a good many of them were captured while defending their own country from a US led invasion.

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:46
Actually, even the US administration doesn`t consider them to be terrorists. To do so would involve charging them with a crime, something that the Whitehouse doesn`t seem to be too keen on doing right now. Not all of those captured came from other countries, a good many of them were captured while defending their own country from a US led invasion.So your point is?

downquark1
15-11-2003, 00:48
Neither can I but we deplore their actions, we don't try to apologise for them.
I AM NOT APPOLOGISING FOR THE TERRIORISTS. As I have said they have a reason to hate the US, whether the reason is valid depends on the point of view. The point is the US media are protraying them as pure evil with no motive. And the US refuses to accept reasons why they might be disliked.

Jerrek is prime example: instead of saying 'these are unfortunate incidents, I for one regret them', he just pumps out excuse after excuse. Myself and Doctor Wadd have provided many reasons to dislike America, and instead of excepting them you just counter argument on and on. Whether our reasons can be proven wrong or correct is immaterial, the existance of all these reasons is reason to dislike the USA, where there's no smoke there is no fire.

Granted there will always be some reasons but the ones mentioned are far too many in my opinion.

The constant argument that prisoners would have been worse off in an iraqi prison is again immaturial, America preaches justice and freedom for all (isn't this a reason for liberating iraq) yet when they can take advantage of a loop hole to punish people they don't like they do it. Where is the justice in holding people with no repusentation or rights, some people there may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but of course this might never be known. Also the issue that since they are not holding prisoners of war, they are holding foriegn citezens who have committed no crime in the US, the people's own country should be disiplinning them. I call it hipocracy.

dr wadd
15-11-2003, 00:49
So your point is?

My point is that you are factually incorrect when you call them terrorists.

Taking the case of those who were actually from Afghanistan, fighting against a force that was invading their country, do you honestly believe it is fair to take them away from their country and detain them for an indefinite amount of time without being charged or legal representation?

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 00:59
My point is that you are factually incorrect when you call them terrorists.

Taking the case of those who were actually from Afghanistan, fighting against a force that was invading their country, do you honestly believe it is fair to take them away from their country and detain them for an indefinite amount of time without being charged or legal representation?But some, if not all of them are terrorists.
As for legal representation, this is war. Did you see what happened to the CIA men in afghanistan (as they got their throats cut) where was their legal representation. Wher was the legal representation of the 9/11 victims, the Bali victims?

dr wadd
15-11-2003, 01:04
But some, if not all of them are terrorists.
As for legal representation, this is war.
Can`t have it both ways I`m afraid, if you are going to argue that this is a war then they have to be classified as prisoners of war.

Did you see what happened to the CIA men in afghanistan (as they got their throats cut) where was their legal representation.Covert agents get killed all the time, it is the nature of the job and a risk they accept. If, as you claim, this is a war, then they are casualties of war, nothing more.

downquark1
15-11-2003, 01:05
But some, if not all of them are terrorists.
As for legal representation, this is war. Did you see what happened to the CIA men in afghanistan (as they got their throats cut) where was their legal representation. Wher was the legal representation of the 9/11 victims, the Bali victims?
[holds help in pained expression] If this is a war they are prisoners of war and should be treated accordinally, if it is not a war they are citizens and should be treated accordingally. How can we critices people's disobediance of international law if we do it ourselves. We should 'set the good example' - treating the people nicely until trial isn't going to cause anymore deaths.

The whole 'innocent unitl proven guilty' rule applies here. When iraq does these things the USA is the first to cry 'foul'

danielf
15-11-2003, 01:09
I AM NOT APPOLOGISING FOR THE TERRIORISTS. As I have said they have a reason to hate the US, whether the reason is valid depends on the point of view. The point is the US media are protraying them as pure evil with no motive. And the US refuses to accept reasons why they might be disliked.

Jerrek is prime example: instead of saying 'these are unfortunate incidents, I for one regret them', he just pumps out excuse after excuse. Myself and Doctor Wadd have provided many reasons to dislike America, and instead of excepting them you just counter argument on and on. Whether our reasons can be proven wrong or correct is immaterial, the existance of all these reasons is reason to dislike the USA, where there's no smoke there is no fire.

Granted there will always be some reasons but the ones mentioned are far too many in my opinion.

The constant argument that prisoners would have been worse off in an iraqi prison is again immaturial, America preaches justice and freedom for all (isn't this a reason for liberating iraq) yet when they can take advantage of a loop hole to punish people they don't like they do it. Where is the justice in holding people with no repusentation or rights, some people there may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but of course this might never be known. Also the issue that since they are not holding prisoners of war, they are holding foriegn citezens who have committed no crime in the US, the people's own country should be disiplinning them. I call it hipocracy.

I'd improve on the spelling (sorry DQ ;)), but I couldn't agree more. I've typed three replies to this thread tonight, but opted to not post them thinking they will only be met with 'you'd be worse off in an Iraqi jail' and similar one-liners.

As far as I'm concerned: The US is in breach of the Geneva Convention with their treatment of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners when it comes to legal matters. I.e: they are not charged, can be detained indefinitely, and if it comes to trial, they have no right to appeal.

If the US are going to lecture the world on human rights, they want to set that straight. And if Human rights really is an issue, why is there the soft approach to Burma, Laos, and a few others.

Note to Dubya: Burma has oil, rubies, and a lot of heroine goes through it. Rumour has it that the government profits from the heroine.

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 01:11
I AM NOT APPOLOGISING FOR THE TERRIORISTS. As I have said they have a reason to hate the US, whether the reason is valid depends on the point of view. The point is the US media are protraying them as pure evil with no motive. And the US refuses to accept reasons why they might be disliked. So your beef is with howthe US media is portraying them???!

Jerrek is prime example: instead of saying 'these are unfortunate incidents, I for one regret them', he just pumps out excuse after excuse. Myself and Doctor Wadd have provided many reasons to dislike America,So disliking a country is enough reason to go and do 9/11? Get real!
The constant argument that prisoners would have been worse off in an iraqi prison is again immaturial, America preaches justice and freedom for all (isn't this a reason for liberating iraq) yet when they can take advantage of a loop hole to punish people they don't like they do it. Where is the justice in holding people with no repusentation or rights, some people there may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but of course this might never be known. Also the issue that since they are not holding prisoners of war, they are holding foriegn citezens who have committed no crime in the US, the people's own country should be disiplinning them. I call it hipocracy.You can preach justice and freedom for all and still want to stay alive yourself.
If the countries judicial process is not up to the job then the US has to step in.
Having said all that, I do feel that Guantanamo bay is not the best way for the US to do things. It is however a damn sight better than the living conditions that US soldiers would get if the tables were turned.

danielf
15-11-2003, 01:12
But some, if not all of them are terrorists.
As for legal representation, this is war. Did you see what happened to the CIA men in afghanistan (as they got their throats cut) where was their legal representation. Wher was the legal representation of the 9/11 victims, the Bali victims?

I'm reminded of a WW2 film here. One of the Brits suggests roughing one of the German prisoners up a bit, and the officer replies: Let's not. Isn't that what this war is about?

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 01:13
Can`t have it both ways I`m afraid, if you are going to argue that this is a war then they have to be classified as prisoners of war.

Covert agents get killed all the time, it is the nature of the job and a risk they accept. If, as you claim, this is a war, then they are casualties of war, nothing more.and the 9/11 and Bali victims....?

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 01:14
Note to Dubya: Burma has oil, rubies, and a lot of heroine goes through it. Rumour has it that the government profits from the heroine.I like it!:rofl:

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 01:15
Covert agents get killed all the time, it is the nature of the job and a risk they accept. If, as you claim, this is a war, then they are casualties of war, nothing more.So the guantanamo bay prisoners are lucky to be alive then.....they are practically living in the lap of luxury!

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 01:18
[holds help in pained expression] If this is a war they are prisoners of war and should be treated accordinally, if it is not a war they are citizens and should be treated accordingally. How can we critices people's disobediance of international law if we do it ourselves. We should 'set the good example' - treating the people nicely until trial isn't going to cause anymore deaths.

But they are treating them nicely. They are alive and have medical care and are not tortured. They are probably more comfortable than they were when they were fighting!

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 01:20
I'm off to bed. Night all!:)

downquark1
15-11-2003, 01:21
So your beef is with howthe US media is portraying them???!

Yes, but this is not the entire 'beef'. If you think that the only reason for doing bad things is because 'they are evil' then naturally you won't think anymore of it. this is the problem the US has.




So disliking a country is enough reason to go and do 9/11? Get real! I AM NOT SAYING THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED I'M SAYING THEY THOUGHT IT WAS JUSTIFIED. The terrorists sacrified their lives for this cause, they obviously believed in it - we must understand why. Would you blow yourself up over a disliking someone?
It is however a damn sight better than the living conditions that US soldiers would get if the tables were turned. I'm refusing to answer any of these type of arguements because it can amount to anything. Such as 'the US should be grateful the planes didn't hit a nuclear power plant' 'You should be grateful because at least David Blunket is trying to stop immagrants' - Why don't we just accept everything in the world? - lets face it - it could be a lot worse

I'm going to bed now as my head can't take more of this

etccarmageddon
15-11-2003, 01:31
the Geneva convention does not apply unless there is a formal declaration of war i belive


correct but it depends what you class as a formal declaration - the point is the IRA always 'considered' themselves at war therefore that is one side making a formal declaration.

danielf
15-11-2003, 01:43
I like it!:rofl:

It's not funny. Not to the people in Burma anyway...

etccarmageddon
15-11-2003, 01:45
I can vouch for the suffering of the Burma people at the hands of the (illegal) military rulers. I dont know about oil but I do know they profit a lot from tourism.

you cant call the people detained at guat. bay terrorists unless you believe in guilty until proven innocent. that last thing I heard about that place is that the yanks dont plan to put any to trial as they realise that the whole thing is a PR cockup.

as for the US having it coming... well that doesnt justify/excuse violence.

if other countries or people have been hard done by the US then fair enough if the US experiences non violent protest such as a demonstations - you can excuse that by saying 'they had it coming' but to suggest that the killing of thousands of civilians is because "they had it coming" is disgraceful.

certainly the US 'has it coming' in terms of a backlash for it's treatment of the Guat bay 'detainees' plus it's selfish environmental policy but only in terms of non violent expression - e.g. trade wars, diplomatic issues, demonstrations...

kronas
15-11-2003, 02:19
my point was that all we know is being showed by a bias media who have a vested interest in make the pictures etc show what they want


you cant trust any media these days so you have to look for info somewhere

it works both ways

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 10:26
Yes, but this is not the entire 'beef'. If you think that the only reason for doing bad things is because 'they are evil' then naturally you won't think anymore of it. this is the problem the US has.



I AM NOT SAYING THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED I'M SAYING THEY THOUGHT IT WAS JUSTIFIED. The terrorists sacrified their lives for this cause, they obviously believed in it - we must understand why. Would you blow yourself up over a disliking someone?
I see where you are coming from and I agree completely with the above.

downquark1
15-11-2003, 11:18
Good answer, but gravity has no choice in the matter. The terrorists had a choice, they chose to murder innocent people I don't think choice has a big part in it. If you take the millions of muslims who are 'mifted' at the US it only took a handful of insane ones to pull off the 9 11 attack - it's probability, sooner or later something bad would happen.

Ramrod
15-11-2003, 11:27
I don't think choice has a big part in it. If you take the millions of muslims who are 'mifted' at the US it only took a handful of insane ones to pull off the 9 11 attack - it's probability, sooner or later something bad would happen.Exactly! It's the 'handful of insane ones' that I'm on about- they are evil, normal people don't do things like that.
I completely agree that the US/UK etc need to examine why they are hated by vast swathes of the worlds population and try to remedy matters but at the same time the suicidal lunatics need to be caged or exterminated like the mad dogs that they are.
I may be wrong here but I read somewhere that part of the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that Islam is a relatively new religion compared to Cristianity and they are about 600 years behind where Cristianity is now. Think back to what Cristians were doing 600 years ago and you can see why they seem to have such a big/active 'lunatic fringe'

downquark1
15-11-2003, 11:43
I may be wrong here but I read somewhere that part of the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that Islam is a relatively new religion compared to Cristianity and they are about 600 years behind where Cristianity is now. Think back to what Cristians were doing 600 years ago and you can see why they seem to have such a big/active 'lunatic fringe' The problem is the qua'ran doesn't leave much room for interpretation. The Bible is full of metaphoric lessions that Jesus taught, you can argue they mean almost anything. The qua'ran is more like a guide book, it tells people how to live and even mentions punishments for criminal (ie. cutting their hands off). This is why Muslim fundamentalists are many and dangerous.
Exactly! It's the 'handful of insane ones' that I'm on about- they are evil, normal people don't do things like that.Yes, but it must be remembered that they were only reacting or over-reacting to the hate already there.

kronas
15-11-2003, 15:17
I may be wrong here but I read somewhere that part of the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that Islam is a relatively new religion compared to Cristianity and they are about 600 years behind where Cristianity is now. Think back to what Cristians were doing 600 years ago and you can see why they seem to have such a big/active 'lunatic fringe'

Islam never teaches you to harm anyone well the quran does not,the only exception i know of is if someone is harming your religion, but the muslim extremists feed young people's minds with false hope and promises, they only have themsleves to blame.

Stuart
15-11-2003, 17:46
Illegal under what law?
In most countries, it is illegal to hold people prisoner without charge or adequate legal representation. The Patriot Act allows the US Government to do this with certain limitations. So, it is not illegal in America. Still wrong, but not illegal.


I couldn't care less. They are terrorists.
In some of the cases of Guantanamo Bay things are not so clear cut.


It is funny though, how you are attacking Americans for "terrible" living conditions, but the Chinese's use of thumb cuffs and how they just make people disappear for disagreeing with the government escapes your attention. Yep. Gotta wonder where your loyalties lie.

What the Chinese do to their own people is terrible, and should be stopped. However, this thread is about anti-americanism.


What the **** does that have to do with anything? I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works. Am I now a racist because I speak Afrikaans?
No, but you have referred to all muslims as terrorists. That could be construed as racist.

Oh, and for an interesting read on the patriot act, go to http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/September2003/Guantanamo

But, because Amnesty don't agree with the propaganda coming from the US Government, you'll probably dismiss them as liberals..

danielf
15-11-2003, 18:49
In most countries, it is illegal to hold people prisoner without charge or adequate legal representation. The Patriot Act allows the US Government to do this with certain limitations. So, it is not illegal in America. Still wrong, but not illegal.

AFAIK it is illegal in the US. This is why the prisoners are held at Guantanamo Bay, which is Cuban Soil, so US laws don't apply. If the US were to keep the prisoners on US soil, it would be illegal.

Stuart
15-11-2003, 19:00
AFAIK it is illegal in the US. This is why the prisoners are held at Guantanamo Bay, which is Cuban Soil, so US laws don't apply. If the US were to keep the prisoners on US soil, it would be illegal.
Fair enough. Actually that law also spefically excludes US nationals, so it is racist as well.

Jerrek
15-11-2003, 20:01
No, but you have referred to all muslims as terrorists. That could be construed as racist.
HOW? Muslims are not a race. It is a religion. How can that possibly be racist??

Actually that law also spefically excludes US nationals, so it is racist as well.
And that is bad how exactly?

Stuart
15-11-2003, 20:06
No, but you have referred to all muslims as terrorists. That could be construed as racist.
HOW? Muslims are not a race. It is a religion. How can that possibly be racist??

Actually that law also spefically excludes US nationals, so it is racist as well.
And that is bad how exactly?
OK, so you are prejudiced against a religion.

As to the Patriot act being racist. That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists. Didn't one of the people involved in 9/11 have a US Nationality? If that is the case the law would not have applied to him.

danielf
15-11-2003, 20:10
OK, so you are prejudiced against a religion.

As to the Patriot act being racist. That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists. Didn't one of the people involved in 9/11 have a US Nationality? If that is the case the law would not have applied to him.

I don't know about that, but a US citizen has been captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taleban. I think his name was Walker.

Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?

Jerrek
15-11-2003, 20:11
OK, so you are prejudiced against a religion.
Of course I am! I'm prejudiced against lots of religions. Why is that bad?

If you look what is going on in countries that are predominantly Islam you'll see why I'm against that religion. Women have no rights. Men can abuse them like they are nothing. No bill of rights for most part. So yeah. You can say I think Islam is a bad influence on people.


That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists.
No it doesn't. U.S. citizens are, however, covered by the Constitution. You can't detain someone without pressing a charge if they are an American.

Jerrek
15-11-2003, 20:12
Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?
No. You don't disprove something, you prove that someone is guilty. Prove to me it is bad.

Stuart
15-11-2003, 20:19
That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists.
No it doesn't. U.S. citizens are, however, covered by the Constitution. You can't detain someone without pressing a charge if they are an American.
The Patriot act allows the US to hold foreign nationals without charge. According to Amnesty International, the US is holding 650 people without charge (for up to a year) at Guantanamo bay.

If the government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue it through the normal legal channels? Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.

danielf
15-11-2003, 20:22
Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?
No. You don't disprove something, you prove that someone is guilty. Prove to me it is bad.

Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.

I seem to recall you are religious person. Doesn't your religion have anything to say about that?

Jerrek
15-11-2003, 20:27
The Patriot act allows the US to hold foreign nationals without charge.
That is fine with me.

Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?
To protect against terrorists?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.
So the Patriot Act, passed in 2001, was a play to get re-elected in 2004? That is sound logic.

Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.
Likewise. I would have thought you would be able to substantiate your point.

I seem to recall you are religious person. Doesn't your religion have anything to say about that?
Not really. All people are equal, but if one group starts making trouble you can bet I'm going to focus on them. Just like all middle easterners are getting fingerprinted when entering the United States.

Stuart
15-11-2003, 20:40
Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?
To protect against terrorists?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.
So the Patriot Act, passed in 2001, was a play to get re-elected in 2004? That is sound logic.


How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists? Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.

Anyway, let's phrase the question another way: If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?

Maybe the Patriot Act wasn't a play to get re-elected directly, but IIRC Bush had a very slim majority when he was elected. I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.

danielf
16-11-2003, 00:21
Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.[/b]
Likewise. I would have thought you would be able to substantiate your point.


Allright, I will substantiate my point then.

The 9/11 attacks were an atrocious crime, and those that are responsible for it should be found and brought to justice. I supported the war in Afghanistan, as there was substantial proof that at least some of those responsible were hiding there being protected by the regime.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).

In this situation, I find the line that you are justified to invade another country because of their human rights issues (after being fed several lines about WMD, links to AL Qa'eda) a little rich. Especially, since so many countries that abuse human rights apparently have nothing to fear from the US.

You're right, prisoners in the US are not tortured, raped etc., but their human rights are being violated, and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances. And the line that they are terrorists doesn't cut it, as they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I understand that the war on terrorism requires special powers, but I fail to see why this requires such a violation of human rights.

As I said earlier in this thread: I am reminded of this WW2 movie, where one the soldiers suggests roughing one of the prisoners up a bit in order to get some info, and the officer replies: Isn't that what this war is about?

BTW: Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe? (As you brought up Mugabe a number of times)

kronas
16-11-2003, 01:57
excuse me for my anti bush stance for a moment but i thought i would give you all this information i have come across.......

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid and a majority branded the U.S. president a threat to world peace, opinion poll results published on Sunday showed.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031115/wl_nm/bush_britain_dc_6


The fact that people are willing to come and express themselves †” I'm going to a great country," Bush said during a brief question-and-answer session in the Oval Office.



While saying that people don't have to agree with him, Bush said, "But certainly they should agree with the goals of the United States, which is peace and freedom."

yeh right :rolleyes: peace and freedom is that the same peace that you try and impose on the iraqi people ?

the freedom ill admit you have done that by freeing them from saddam but who is going to rebuild the country ?


and the right to freedom ? i thought the US was the land of free speech so why are there designated protesting areas away from bush and i mean well away from him in the US

if the US was really wanting to be a nation that made a diffarence to the world there would be a togetherness with allies across the globe to solve the various problems such as israel zimbabwe and especially africa after all western countries were involved in the sabotaging africa with slavery

Jerrek
16-11-2003, 02:13
How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists?
Who said anything about imprisoning innocent people?

Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.
They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?
Yes, they should put them in front of military tribunals. I guess they are just waiting a bit.

I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.
And I don't think so. His approval rating was in the 80s when the act was passed.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.
Funny, but I have a different version. I was told it was about looking into the possession of WMD (as declared by the U.N.), and then investigating it.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).
So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs.

but their human rights are being violated
And my heart is pumping purple p*ss for them.

and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances.
They are not American citizens and thus not entitled to protecting by the Constitution. Or would you have us extend our Constitution to everyone in the world now? I wonder how the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, will go down with the French Government.

Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe?
No, but I've been there, and I know people that do live there. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid
At one time the majority of Britons believed in owning slaves.


So kronas, let me get this straight: You will support invasion of Zimbabwe, right?

Stuart
16-11-2003, 02:32
How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists?
Who said anything about imprisoning innocent people?

Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.
They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?
Yes, they should put them in front of military tribunals. I guess they are just waiting a bit.

I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.
And I don't think so. His approval rating was in the 80s when the act was passed.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.
Funny, but I have a different version. I was told it was about looking into the possession of WMD (as declared by the U.N.), and then investigating it.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).
So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs.
So, these guys were combatants in a situation referred to as "the war on terrorism", yet because your government tells you they are guilty (the same government that will pick the members of the tribunal which in most countries would be considered a conflict of interests) you believe them. Do your law enforcment people and military never make mistakes?

And if the United States is acting in a fair and legal way by imprisoning people without charge, why not do it on US soil?

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid
At one time the majority of Britons believed in owning slaves.
Intelligent Answer. Beliefs change. At one time, the human race believed the world was flat and the sun orbited us.

downquark1
16-11-2003, 14:18
I saw the interview on breakfast with frost and George Bush is still saying that Sadam should have disarmed,

So he demanded that they disarm
They said they have no arms
They invade because they say they do have arms
They find no arms
They say Sadam should have disarmed in the first place

What am I missing? :dozey:

danielf
16-11-2003, 14:19
Jerrek
They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

are people not allowed to defend their own country?


So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs.

No, I proved that the US used a semantic hack to avoid being in direct breach of the Geneva Convention. In spirit they still are, and I'm very interested in the verdict of the supreme court.

You may also want to take a look at this:

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 2, 7, 9 and 10 make interesting reading.

And my heart is pumping purple p*ss for them.

Yes, you seem very interested in a reasonable and rational debate

They are not American citizens and thus not entitled to protecting by the Constitution. Or would you have us extend our Constitution to everyone in the world now? I wonder how the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, will go down with the French Government.

When it comes to detaining and trying people yes, I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens. And don't be silly, you have no say over French law. I think you're smarter than that.

No, but I've been there, and I know people that do live there. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing, I was just interested.

Ramrod
16-11-2003, 17:22
it must be remembered that they were only reacting or over-reacting to the hate already there.What hate?!

Ramrod
16-11-2003, 17:23
It's not funny. Not to the people in Burma anyway...I was laughing at how I could see Bush being tempted by the booty, not at the Burmese peoples plight....:dozey:

Jerrek
16-11-2003, 17:35
are people not allowed to defend their own country?
Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story.

It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 2, 7, 9 and 10 make interesting reading.
Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document. It is a socialist's wet dream. For example,

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Wrong. I don't buy the right to life crap. You murder someone, you're gonna be executed.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Bull**** once again. If it is predominantly Middle Easterners that blow themselves up in the States, you can bet we're going to focus on them. I couldn't care less if it is disciminatory.

Everyone has the right to work
Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
This is so funny and so full of ****.

I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens.
Then let us agree to disagree.

downquark1
16-11-2003, 17:42
are people not allowed to defend their own country?
Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story. The point of the rules for prisoners of war is that they are not punished for the crimes of their country. If you are called to fight and you are captured you were merely doing your bit to defend your country and should be detained in fitting accomadation until the war is over and then returned to your country.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Wrong. I don't buy the right to life crap. You murder someone, you're gonna be executed. I believe that isn't refering to the death penalty

Ramrod
16-11-2003, 17:46
Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document. It is a socialist's wet dream.
.:rofl:

downquark1
16-11-2003, 17:47
What hate?!
The hate for america the muslim extremists have

Ramrod
16-11-2003, 17:47
I believe that isn't refering to the death penalty....the right to life?

downquark1
16-11-2003, 17:51
....the right to life?
I always thought that the right of life didn't apply to people who had been sentanced (legally) to death :shrug: But then again I'm against the death penalty :dozey:

danielf
16-11-2003, 18:08
I was laughing at how I could see Bush being tempted by the booty, not at the Burmese peoples plight....:dozey:

Yeah, sorry. I overreacted.

danielf
16-11-2003, 18:16
Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story.

It relates to them being called illegal combatants rather than POWs

Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document.
Why is that lucky for me?

Bull**** once again. If it is predominantly Middle Easterners that blow themselves up in the States, you can bet we're going to focus on them. I couldn't care less if it is disciminatory.

I don't have a problem with that, but with certain people being detained without being charged, when this is against your own law and treaties the US have ratified. Especially if the Us are going to point the finger and accuse other of human right violations.

Everyone has the right to work
Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

I agree that sounds a bit silly.

I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens.
Then let us agree to disagree

Since I don't see each other coming any nearer to each other, let's. ;)

Ramrod
16-11-2003, 18:18
I always thought that the right of life didn't apply to people who had been sentanced (legally) to death :shrug: But then again I'm against the death penalty :dozey:I really don't know, I'm in deep uncharted waters here:)

Ramrod
16-11-2003, 18:20
Yeah, sorry. I overreacted.np m8. I'm not that much of an as**hole;):) :angel:

downquark1
16-11-2003, 19:34
Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

I agree that sounds a bit silly.I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income - it happened in some communist countries. Capitolists were forbidden from work and therefore starved.

Ramrod
16-11-2003, 19:37
I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income - it happened in some communist countries. Capitolists were forbidden from work and therefore starved.Not just capitalists, the educated, the judiciary and vast swathes of the middle classes.
.....but don't get me started:disturbd:

danielf
16-11-2003, 19:46
I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income - it happened in some communist countries. Capitolists were forbidden from work and therefore starved.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Gogogo
16-11-2003, 19:51
Methinks that so much ink has been spilt in this thread so as to make into a little book.

:D

kronas
16-11-2003, 22:26
So kronas, let me get this straight: You will support invasion of Zimbabwe, right?

thats besides the point you didnt answer any of my points so i will assume the truth hurts and i was correct


seeing some of your points and replys you are not the most rational person hurling insults around sparks a great debate :rolleyes:

Jerrek
16-11-2003, 22:30
The point of the rules for prisoners of war is that they are not punished for the crimes of their country.
These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.

If you are called to fight and you are captured you were merely doing your bit to defend your country and should be detained in fitting accomadation until the war is over and then returned to your country.
Agreed. And the accomodations are more than good enough. They live better than some bums on the streets of New York.

Please take your point to Saddam though, and the other dictators.

I believe that isn't refering to the death penalty
Then it must surely refer to unborn babies. Then I completely agree with the statement. Innocent children should not be murdered, and they have a right to life. Excellent point.

I don't have a problem with that, but with certain people being detained without being charged, when this is against your own law and treaties the US have ratified. Especially if the Us are going to point the finger and accuse other of human right violations.
The people that are being detained without being charged are not American citizens[i] and [i]they are not on American soil. Hence, American law does not apply to them, unless you want to extend American laws across the world.

It is not a human rights violation, for me, to temporarily hold illegal combatants. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income
Then it should be rephrased. As it stands, I completely disagree with that statement.

i was correct
Of course. Everyone else has to be wrong because only you can be correct.

homealone
16-11-2003, 23:53
These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.


Agreed. And the accomodations are more than good enough. They live better than some bums on the streets of New York.

Please take your point to Saddam though, and the other dictators.


Then it must surely refer to unborn babies. Then I completely agree with the statement. Innocent children should not be murdered, and they have a right to life. Excellent point.


The people that are being detained without being charged are not American citizens[i] and [i]they are not on American soil. Hence, American law does not apply to them, unless you want to extend American laws across the world.

It is not a human rights violation, for me, to temporarily hold illegal combatants. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree on this point.


Then it should be rephrased. As it stands, I completely disagree with that statement.


Of course. Everyone else has to be wrong because only you can be correct.

sorry - this isn't aimed at just Jerrek, but I find this kind of "reply to selected parts of a post" 'multiquote' approach, a real pain. Just my opinion, but I feel we miss the big picture, when we reply to posts like that.? - especially when the quotes aren't referenced - is =username too hard?

-

danielf
16-11-2003, 23:58
Since I don't see each other coming any nearer to each other, let's. ;)

Unless of course, you insists on keeping up the cheap rhetoric...


These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.

Indeed, some of them are under 16:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html

The thing is, nobody knows who is there. It's a black hole, and that in itself is reason to protest.

According to this source (which you will no doubt dismiss as socialist or communist)

http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/us033103.htm

There's 6 people that were arrested in Bosnia. Not captured in war, but it's not clear they are combatants either.

It also states:

Instead, the United States decreed that no member of the Taliban s armed forces was entitled to POW status †” a decision that most independent international law experts found legally untenable. Furthermore, the United States insisted that no members of Al Qaeda deserved Geneva Conventions protection †” not even those captured while fighting for Taliban armed forces.


So, it looks like being a member of the Taliban's armed forces, pretty much excludes you from being a POW. Garb or not...

Edit: and while looking for less communist sources, there was this interesting article from CNN:

http://us.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/columns/fl.mariner.detainees.03.11/

Do note, it is a year and a half old (and at the time all GB detainees were captured in Afghanistan), but it places some question marks at whether this illegal combatants thing is lawful or desirable.

The word quagmire comes to mind...

danielf
17-11-2003, 00:45
sorry - this isn't aimed at just Jerrek, but I find this kind of "reply to selected parts of a post" 'multiquote' approach, a real pain. Just my opinion, but I feel we miss the big picture, when we reply to posts like that.? - especially when the quotes aren't referenced - is =username too hard?

-

Yes, I agree. As an active poster in this thread, I occasionally find myself reading someone's post, and looking for a reply to something I said, because I expect the poster to reply to one of my posts, but it not being clear from the quotes.

At least I know what I'm looking for. For someone who hasn't kept up with the thread, it must be virtually impossible to keep track of who said what. So yes, please include the username when replying (makes note to himself, and adjusted his last post to include a username).

Jerrek
17-11-2003, 02:36
Indeed, some of them are under 16:

And that means what exactly?

a decision that most independent international law experts found legally untenable

Read: Which Europe found untenable...

So, it looks like being a member of the Taliban's armed forces, pretty much excludes you from being a POW. Garb or not...

Excellent. This is bad, how exactly?

danielf
17-11-2003, 12:03
Read: Which Europe found untenable...

Or read: which the international community found untenable.

Excellent. This is bad, how exactly?

Because it shows that the US in this case have no regard for international law/treaties they themselves ratified, and will do as they please. Yet, when the Iraqi television showed footage of captured Americans, the US were very quick to quote the Geneva Convention. I think this attitude is one of the reasons for the bad rep that the US has around the world.

kronas
18-11-2003, 02:16
i found something else... this security operation to 'protect' bush is going to cost YOU yes you the taxpayer £5 million pounds

and bush continues to spout his rhetoric

"I understand you don't like war, and neither do I.

"But I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of 11 September 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America and war on people that love freedom."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3275907.stm

:rolleyes:

dr wadd
18-11-2003, 18:59
And yet another example of the arrogance of the USA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3281225.stm

First they refuse to accept the report from the IAEA, now they are chastising Europe for refusing to dismiss it along with them.

Gogogo
18-11-2003, 19:17
i found something else... this security operation to 'protect' bush is going to cost the taxpayer £5 million pounds and bush continues to spout his rhetoric "I understand you don't like war, and neither do I. "But I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of 11 September 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America and war on people that love freedom."

As a Council Tax payer may I suggest that the people involved in the anti-Bush rent a mob contribute some hard cash towards the policing costs for their marches, Big mouth Ken Livingstone can also donate a few thousand pounds, normally he likes giving other peoples' money away.

President Bush is entitled to say what he likes, he and the USA is our ally and loves freedom as we do in the UK.

:wavey:

dr wadd
18-11-2003, 19:37
President Bush is entitled to say what he likes, he and the USA is our ally and loves freedom as we do in the UK. I've always considered the concept that there are freedom loving people and those that are not such a trite piece of rhetoric. After all, aren`t the extremists just fighting for the freedom not to have their way of life dictated to them by the West?

Chris
18-11-2003, 19:48
I've always considered the concept that there are freedom loving people and those that are not such a trite piece of rhetoric. After all, aren`t the extremists just fighting for the freedom not to have their way of life dictated to them by the West?

What, as in Afghanistan, where until the US invasion the Taleban enjoyed the 'freedom' to deny education and liberty to half their population (i.e. the women), to deny citizens who disagreed with them the right to express that opposition or leave the country, and to thoroughly disrespect foreign cultures even when they are no threat to them, ably demonstrated by the decision to blow up a set of ancient Buddhist statues?

Gogogo
18-11-2003, 19:52
I've always considered the concept that there are freedom loving people and those that are not such a trite piece of rhetoric. After all, aren`t the extremists just fighting for the freedom not to have their way of life dictated to them by the West?

As you are an expert in trite rhetoric I leave that to you. George W. Bush is entitled to say what he likes. Extremists in this case being terrorists want to impose their form of tyrrany on us. The terrorist are just that, they don't have mass popular support. Their methods vary and homicidal murder is their favourite m.o.

Are you going to contribute some hard cash to London police to help pay for the anti-Bush rent a mob protests?


:rolleyes:

Ramrod
18-11-2003, 19:55
What, as in Afghanistan, where until the US invasion the Taleban enjoyed the 'freedom' to deny education and liberty to half their population (i.e. the women), to deny citizens who agree with them the right to express that opposition or leave the country, and to thoroughly disrespect foreign cultures even when they are no threat to them, ably demonstrated by the decision to blow up a set of ancient Buddhist statues?Yes but Towny, you arn't seeing things clearly.....it's ok for the Taleban to do those things 'cos they arn't American(or western).:rolleyes:
It seems like anything that is done to 'us' by 'them' is our own fault and we 'had it coming/deserved it' whereas anything that we do them gets the left wing liberal contingent bleating.

Ramrod
18-11-2003, 19:55
As you are an expert in trite rhetoric I leave that to you. George W. Bush is entitled to say what he likes. Extremists in this case being terrorists want to impose their form of tyrrany on us. The terrorist are just that, they don't have mass popular support. Their methods vary and homicidal murder is their favourite m.o.



:rolleyes:Well put.

Graham
19-11-2003, 00:50
What, as in Afghanistan, where until the US invasion the Taleban enjoyed the 'freedom' to deny education and liberty to half their population (i.e. the women), to deny citizens who disagreed with them the right to express that opposition or leave the country, and to thoroughly disrespect foreign cultures even when they are no threat to them, ably demonstrated by the decision to blow up a set of ancient Buddhist statues?

And now, instead of the Taliban, we have what, exactly?

Well, a country that, apart from a US installed government that, in another time and place would have the word "puppet" prefixing it and which requires constant protection.

Large areas of the country that are being ruled by "war lords" ie people with a little imagination and a lot of guns.

A resurgance of growing opium poppies for the heroin trades.

Areas which are still being controlled by Taliban sympathisers.

Frequent death threats and attacks against womens' rights supporters.

The list goes on and on. And this has been going on for longer than the current Iraqi situation and doesn't show any signs of dying out soon, let alone there being any clear "exit strategy" for either country!!

Graham
19-11-2003, 01:01
George W. Bush is entitled to say what he likes. Extremists in this case being terrorists want to impose their form of tyrrany on us.

You mean say things like "You're either with us or you're against us"?

Or how about "After praising nations like Bahrain, Morocco, and Oman for embracing reforms, the US leader scolded Iran -- which he once labelled part of 'an axis of evil' along with North Korea and Iraq -- and warned its leadership must follow suit or "lose its last claim to legitimacy."'

Or "But the president's remarks stretched beyond the Middle East, as he declared that the US "commitment to democracy is tested in Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe -- outposts of oppression in our world."

(Quotes from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/56125/1/.html )

The terrorist are just that, they don't have mass popular support.

You mean like the mass popular support that Bush had from his "Coalition of the Willing. Who were they again? Let's see:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Ah, yes. Some very notable players on the world stage there! And it's not as if any of them were offered bribes (oh, sorry, "financial support packages") to encourage them to sign up...!

Their methods vary and homicidal murder is their favourite m.o.

Hmm, is the same as using cluster bombs in civilian areas, or perhaps the bombing of water, sewerage and power infrastructure in the first Gulf War?

Are you going to contribute some hard cash to London police to help pay for the anti-Bush rent a mob protests?

Well, actually I am being *FORCED* to contribute hard cash to the London Police because a proportion of the five million pound cost is coming out of *MY* taxes!

And who exactly is "renting" this "mob" for the protests? As far as I am aware, those who are protesting are private citizens who wish to express their disagreement with the illegal policies and actions of the US (and UK) governments, not from any "anti-democratic" purpose, but *FOR* democratic purposes, something which certain people seem to have overlooked.

:rolleyes:

Graham
19-11-2003, 01:02
It seems like anything that is done to 'us' by 'them' is our own fault and we 'had it coming/deserved it' whereas anything that we do them gets the left wing liberal contingent bleating.

Ah, another example of "reasoned debate"! :rofl:

Graham
19-11-2003, 01:04
Well put.

Why didn't you put it in a private reputation message, then?

What good do mutual self-congratulatory messages like that do to help the discussion along?

yesman
19-11-2003, 01:31
As a Council Tax payer may I suggest that the people involved in the anti-Bush rent a mob contribute some hard cash towards the policing costs for their marches, Big mouth Ken Livingstone can also donate a few thousand pounds, normally he likes giving other peoples' money away.

President Bush is entitled to say what he likes, he and the USA is our ally and loves freedom as we do in the UK.

:wavey:
Being somewhat VERY Pro British, I have to admit, I was quite embarrassed to read the following, posted my an American working in this country, and I quote......


I lived in England for 16 years, returning to the US on day of all days, 9/11. I was in a public position for my years in England and had to deal with anti-American prejudice every day. There were even some encounters with the elderly that were driven by how American GIs behaved in England in WWII. Even my friends could not get past my being American when they would explain my character. It can make for a very lonely life continually checking how you behave as the perpetual "guest".
Henry Jansma, US


TBH that makes me feel very embarrassed for being a UK citizen.......

On the other hand, watching the USA inflict it's power on the rest of the world agitates me, maybe I will just sit on the fence for now

darkangel
19-11-2003, 08:44
Being somewhat VERY Pro British, I have to admit, I was quite embarrassed to read the following, posted my an American working in this country, and I quote......


TBH that makes me feel very embarrassed for being a UK citizen.......

On the other hand, watching the USA inflict it's power on the rest of the world agitates me, maybe I will just sit on the fence for nowgood point people here need to differentiate between being anti-bush administration and anti-American! unfortunately we still have have the rule Britannia ****e in our mentality and until we get over our own arrogance we should not accuse others of the same