DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> London, Terrorism and the World
Pages:  
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 292, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/11/2005 01:45:53 PM · #201
Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by Riponlady:

These attacks take a long time to plan.


You know, I keep hearing this but, if I were so inclined I believe I could impliment one in a day or two. There is just no way to stop these attacks IMO. Evil will find a way.


Sorry to disagree but the attacks in NY and London were months in the planning- the training of pilots for 9/11 and the timing of the attacks (within seconds of each other then the bus to "mop up") in London to say nothing of aquiring the commercial or military explosive used ( and possibly the recruitment of bombers and getting them into the country and in place). They are also planned to coincide with events that will bring notice ( Elections, G8)
Yes any group could build something fast and hit one target perhaps but to bring about the devastation/publicity they want and not get apprehended takes a lot longer.

This is why mostly the intelligence agencies are usually aware of the danger of attacks at least before they occur and in britain why quite a few have been stopped before they happened.

Unfortunately I agree there is no way to stop these attacks - except remove the reasons for them.

P
07/11/2005 01:51:34 PM · #202
I believe these attacks were planned in advance for the purpose of (one of the reasons, anyway) to embarrass Tony Blair and George Bush in front of the other world leaders at the G8 Summit meetings being held just a short 500 miles north of London. For all their talk on the war on terror, these attacks show they can not sto them even when right under their noses. Also, the attacks took place for Great Britain being involved in the Iraq war with the US under false pretenses and for the involvement of British officers involved at the Abu Ghraib prison. Tit for tat...if the US and British are going to be mistreating and killing innocent civilians, then the Islamist extremists will be doing the same is their thinking. Unfortunately, the Bush/Blair project will play right into the hands of the terrorists and take even more of our freedoms away, such as they want to do with expanding the USA Patriot Act.

Message edited by author 2005-07-11 13:55:01.
07/11/2005 02:09:04 PM · #203
Originally posted by RonBeam:

Many a courtroom case has been lost by a barrister who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they didn't know when to rest their case.


darn...

Originally posted by RonBeam:

LeagleBeagle, I propose your last post spoke more of yours and an inherent British view of "aid" to other nations (and the monarchy's resultant enrichment) than the reality of the view held by a vast majority of Americans. Aid resulting in profiteering by American corporations (and thus their employees) is a red herring, ...The U.S. will NEVER recover the monies already invested in Iraq or Afganistan, let alone the loss of life (to an American, priceless) and yet Mr. Bush was endorsed (albeit narrowly) by the majority of Americans through their votes
...
As to your swipe at capitalism in your first paragraph quoted; I find it hard to believe that their are no Coca Cola bottling plants in Great Britain where one would find a large number of native employees making good salaries (in pounds, not dollars) most of whom are quite glad you drank that Coke. Perhaps even MORE glad than a Coca-Cola stockholder, many of whom are of citizens of countries other than America.

Thoughout history, no one has EVER found success in any field of endeavor through which others were not enriched and opportunity escalated as well. Nor was ever a pioneer left unscathed by protestations by those disdaining individual success, which portends only shared misery. Outward movement and growth of a positive product, in fact, has always been a commendable activity.


More of a generalist comment - I was idling away some thoughts. We don't like to be criticised when we think we are doing good - even if others do not apprecioate the aid. As for Coke US , it is the ultimate beneficiary of profits (even if jobs etc are in the UK) and Coke US pays taxes to USA. Merely pointing out that there is a payment going both ways.

On profits - I am not suggesting it always works out. Bush had no plan for occupying Iraq, only invading it (hence the confusion following the victory). No long term plans, no plans for ongoing death of US soldiers. And (IMO) it was supported at least in part by the public because it was part of his being seen to be strong on terrorism (IMO- wrongly, because it had little to do with terrorism). So the plan was not to spend so much money, even if it has gone wrong. Bush had non-financial compensation in his re-election needs, as well as the support of the oil companies and the promise of reconstruction contracts.

As for capitalism - I am an advocate, not taking a swipe. Merely reflecting on some possible causes for resentment. And reasons why some people get upset when they get criticised, as they think that they are making a gift, when the gift is unwittingly a double edged blade.

On the monarchy's enrichment - you are about 400 years out of date! No such luck for her.

Originally posted by Oluyzi:

This argument of lack of appreciation by the world for all the good the US has done lacks merit when one considers the history of the past 50 years.


Hey - don't keep all the blame to yourself, we had a hand in some of those examples...

07/11/2005 04:09:21 PM · #204
Originally posted by "srdanz":

It is unbelievable, theSaj, the fervor with which you spread hatred.


Hatred, or simply do not accede to political correctness when it fails to address the needs of the matter?

Originally posted by "srdanz":

Why do you expect anyone sharing the same background (racial, religious, etc.) with the terrorists to first stand up and denounce terrorism.


The same reason I denounce white supremacy. And I do not support the abuse done to blacks in the United States. Same reason I believe the hauling in of blacks into Mississippi jail cells and beating them and imprisoning them without warrants is wrong. There is no excuse for it. It is intolerable and unjust.

Now, we can discuss other racial issues. And I can list a fair number of grievances I've suffered at the hands of various black individuals. But that doesn't mean I am going to support the "wrong" actions of people of my ethnicity.

"And what was that about anti-Semites? Someone criticizes Israel, and you call them anti-Semites? You bash 25% (give or take few percent) of the world population, and there is nothing wrong with it?"

I asked for clarification on a statement which I could not linguistically make sense of. And yes, the way it was phrased did seem anti-semitic. Secondly, I have not said "ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL TERRORISTS". Nor will I allow the denial of the problems in the Islamic nations for mere political correctness.

"For example, you have never addressed my question about relating war in Yugoslavian republics and Islam? How does that relate?"

I've addressed this on several occasions but I will simply say the atrocities were atrocious. And although there are many complex issues none of them justify such actions. They were intolerable and immoral.

(note, I have much more to say on Yugoslavia and we can discuss that issue at some point. but as I believe your focus was on the atrocities committed by christians in Yugoslavia against Muslims...I addressed that such behavior was inexcusable.)

"And do not expect others that you put in the same classification as terrorists to prefix every statement they make"

I have never, not once, put every muslim nor every arab into a category. I have referenced that their is a problem in the socio-political interaction of much of the muslim world when it encounters non-muslim cultures. That does not say all. Nor does it say every muslim is a terrorist. But, I guess we could always graph the ethnicities of terrorists and see where Muslim extremists rank as opposed to christian (I.R.A., etc.) and environmental (E.L.F., etc)

But I imagine you fall into the category that assumes if someone says there is currently a problem in the muslim world that they hate all muslims. (Not true, otherwise, one would say that islam was the problem.) And I imagine you also believe America is only over in the middle east killing people and probably care nothing to the existence of the schools being built in Afghanistan and Iraq. *shrug*

Originally posted by "ristyz":


I will have to say after reading the entire thread that I have NOT gotten the feeling of expressed HATRED from any of the posts by theSaj or others.


Thank you, because my heart is not toward hatred. I actually have Muslim friends and acquaintances, as do I have Hindu. I have friends who are Palestinian. My heart is in fact to see peace for the common man to live and prosper his family. But there are problems to be addressed.

The Palestinians could revolutionize their cause if they focused their efforts on only military targets. Sure, it would not have as much affect on the immediacy. But Israel would lose support both in the world and at home. If families felt only the military was in danger they would not have as stringent policies. It may surprise people that I was not so offended by the bombing of the Pentagon. Sure I was like "let's go get them !@#$%" but it was a military target. And, IMHO, an acceptable target of intent.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

What on earth are you saying here - that my last few posts condemning extremism is somehow a reference to Chrisitianity??? You have blamed "a large chunk of Islam" for terrorism. Your blame is direct.


My point was to address how many times you have commented against christians and the christian right in America. Times your statements have insinuated the actions, the war in Iraq, etc. is due to the christian right policies. And that these are extremists. Do you even know who constitutes most of the christian right? Most of them are hard working laborers, farmers, factory workers, etc. Most of them are the ones that are simply family men and women trying to support their families. You make them out to be some fanatical group.

Furthermore, I do believe I can blame a large chunk of Islam at this point in time, at least blame a large chunk of the Islamic leadership. And I have repeatedly in multitudes of threads addressed that often it is just 5% - 10% - 20% of the populace that cause conflicts. Most Jews and most Palestinians want peace and an opportunity to pursue benefit for their family. Sadly, a large chunk of both 5%-10% want more....mostly revenge.

"You have suggested that the twisted version of Islam practiced by a tiny percentage of people (infinitessimal)"
Please show me this infinitessimal? Because, it sure seems like it's more than that. You have to have a fairly large pool just to find a single suicide bomber. You have large populations indoctrinated with hatred courtesy of Iran's printing rooms. You have conflicts throughout numerous regions. Conflicts require manpower. The manpower to engage in conflicts in the Middle East, Israel, America, Spain, England, Holland, India, Philipines, Indonesia, etc. takes a crap load of manpower. You CANNOT tell me it's infinitessimal. I'm sorry...I know longer buy and not a single decent strategist would either.

And that is my point....

"I am reacting very strongly against this religious hatred that you are inspiring on a deeply twisted understanding of the world. I do regard your actions as inspiring religious hatred."

Likewise, I commented that I see your actions of an equivalent. I addressed them. But that is of no consequence because right now attacking the christian communties is politically acceptable. So your point....???

"I have not heard anyone criticising the invasion of Afghanistan with the purpose of removing a government that supported and harboured the terrorists."

Well Sir, I've heard plenty of criticism for that action. As well as tons for removing a despot and trying to establish a second democracy on the opposite side of Iran. One of the leading nationstates for production of extremist materials.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"The twisted version of Islam practiced by the Taliban was inhumane and intolerable to our standards. It was right to eradicate it."


Legalbeagle, you're a hypocrite. If it was intolerable and right to eradicate it. Then explain to me how Saddam's extremely abusive state modelled after Stalin's controlling machine was not worthy of eradication?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"I reserve the right to criticise the US foreign policy before 9-11 and after it, and in particular the war in Iraq"

And that's totally fine with me. I support your right to do so. In fact, I am a very strong advocate of expressive freedoms and have made statements in support of expression even against my views. I condemned Yale University in closing a cafe because it had too much strong leftist political material on it's windows. I disagreed with most all of those flyers but I supported their right to express. But don't expect me not to express against your viewpoints... ;)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"The decision of the US president to campaign on areas of religious significance, or to appease a religious majority, or religious pressure group, and to offer aid based on religiously inspired conditions involves a threat to the efficacy of democracy."


What is your religion? (by that I mean your belief set) You make your decisions based upon that. You could be an atheist. But your belief set leads you to a decision. Evolutionists once put a man in a zoo (pygmy african) as an example of evolution. It was a poor action based on their belief set. Religion is not necessary for a belief set. And often, religion is just a labelling of a group of individuals who share a common belief set. To deny said group their right to involvement based on their beliefs is to cast democracy aside and establish a caste based aristocracy.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"I am extremely concerned at you inaccurate and misinformed views on Islam as a faith (long viewed as a sect of Christianity - the precepts are not far removed from Christianity or Judaism). If something is "un-Christian", it is probably 9 times out of 10 against the teachings of Islam, and where Islam differs to modern Christianity in its teachings, it is largely down to a different focus/interpretation of the same words."


First off, please stop making coments "your inaccurate/misformed/etc unless you're going to address those" And I've already addressed that the conservative christian right tends to agree on many issues that Osama pointed out but they do not believe such methods are correct nor the motive behind them.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

you lump together in your generic and critical damnation of "Islam" and "way too many muslims"


Because I'm tired of the protectionism that keeps being given. I remember how certain mosques and Islamic leaders were investigated and how the media retorted "Islam is a peace loving religion" and how it was only a few extremists and there was no justification for said investigations. (Even though many of those investigated turned out later to be funnelling money to extremists and protecting terrorists.) And yet there are "way too many", there were "way too many Irish terrorists as well".

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

There is an example of one nation never achieving peace because it cannot take a body blow without fighting back and hitting back harder, fanning the flames.


I've watched Israel repeatedly take numerous body blows in hopes of peace and go months without retaliation. The problem is both sides need forgiveness. I on the otherhand, can understand Israel's methods much more than I can the method of strapping bombs onto my own children to kill others.

Palestinians need a leader, they need a Ghandi, and they need one now. If Palestinians could cease all bombings for 2 yrs I believe they have their own state. Both the external and internal pressures would cave Israel's current policies. Many Jews hate the policies implemented. They are too reminiscent of WWII.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Your comments on Gitmo prisoners make my point: you have judged them, without charge or trial, to be of less value than you, deserving of none of the constitutional rights that you have, and indeed, with no human rights as determined by worldwide accord. They are less than you, and do not deserve the same protection. Judge a nation by its treatment of its prisoners. Judge a nation by its treatment of its prisoners.


You assume too much about me. No, I do not have problem keeping said individuals imprisoned. Yes, I do have a problem with mistreatment of said prisoners. I was extremely disturbed by what went on in Abu Graib. There was no excuse for crap like that and I believe said soldiers shamed themselves, their units, and their country. I believe they should be punished.

However, I have not heard of such misconduct occurring in Gitmo. I've heard a few rumors stated and recounted by media as having no basis. I've also heard several soldiers from Gitmo makes accounts. And in truth, my government doesn't provide me with a Bible, a prayer mat and a horn call to daily prayers. Such does not seem like torture.

As for charging them - if America did charge them and pronounced sentence. Would that satisfy you? And if they were all handed life-time prison sentences....what then?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I preach tolerance and understanding. I preach understand a religion, before you condemn every adherent.
I have never condemned every member of a religion (except for Christianity in which I have stated in public every Christian is a hypocrite). But I do not see tolerance from you. I see tolerance for you views...and intolerance to anyone you see as intolerant. And yet, you wonder why those same people find your views intolerent. It's a circle...bro.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

preach blame for the acts of nations on most muslims. You tell us that the US should not be criticised, because it is established righteously, without ever analysing whether its actions accord with the principles by which it was founded.


YOU MISQUOTE OFTEN!!!

a) I have never said you can't critise America (I myself criticize the U.S. )....but I'll be damned if I don't speak out in counter to your views especially the ones that are ignorant and uninformed.

b) actually, I believe I was referring to the Islamic nations. And yes, there are nations which are "Islamic Nations" it is both their national religion and their belief that it is an establishment of Islam. If you do not believe such, please refer back to Osama's letter.

"An extremist view opposite to yours would be to support the terrorists. I am not such a man. You are at one extreme, the terrorists at the other. I am in the middle - the opposite of an extremist."

c) you are a prideful man to see yourself so in the middle, yes you are, of your own circle. As I am of my own circle. I see the terrorists to my right and you to my left. ;)

"I condemn extremism. I condemn reactionary politics. I condemn religiously motivated politics. I condemn religious extremism."

So... should I condemn secular extremism which wants tolerance for anything that's currently pop/socially acceptable and wants to throw into prison anything that doesn't fit their mold? so you want tolerance...but you won't tolerate those you find intolerant. That is not tolerance...that is the enforcing of your own views. Every man thinks himself tolerant. Only a dead man cares not who walks over him.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Amagine this! We let one detainee go due to pressure of the left. He inturn participates in a major terrorist attack. Who is to blame? People who want the detainees to have trials? The pressure of the left?


Actually happened, a muslim man suspected of involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing happened to later be working at Boston-Logan airport in the food division and suspected of involvement. He has since disappeared. He was originally detained for the Oklahoma bombing but not enough evidence was available to press charges thus he was released. Quite possibly to play a part in 9-11.

Enough evidence will be gathered to either "release" said prisoners and/or "charge/sentence". But for now, the time is not yet right. Meanwhile, they should not be harmed...but I don't have an issue with pressure.

Originally posted by "Makka":

"How long do you want to hold them for with no trial?"

Until we can either be assured that we are safe from them and/or have evidence to convict them.

Perhaps we should throw them all in an insane asylum. You don't need a criminal charge for that in the U.S.

Bcoble makes a good point. Would you allow us to release them all in your neighborhood?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

How do you know they are terrorists?

I read reports that stated the vast majority remaining in Gitmo (many have been released) were the ones actively engaged in hostilities abroad. The problem, if this were to go before a world court they'd all be freed. Men like you LB, would simply say "where's your evidence" and then claim the testimony of witnesses didn't count. And it was their word against ours. The only solutions would be to provide video tapes of each individual engaged in hostilities. Such would be non-existant. Thus a far left judge like you LB would release them back into the world.

Actually, a number of those that were released were later killed in armed conflict with U.S. forces.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

IMO, there is no "war" - it is termed a war, but there is no enemy to strike at. When you are at "war" with a group of individuals, not a nation state, you are effecting law enforcement.


A foolish interpretation. Especially from a Britian. Or maybe understandable. You probably considered the American Revolution a police action...but to Americans - it was a war! Those men akin to Osama believe in an Islamic state. This state is not contained by boundaries but rather is to eventually encompass the entire world. To them....you are a member of that Islamic state and thus governed by it's law. If you cannot realize that Al-quaeda's purpose is to extend the Islamic rule and in a single unified state then you need to re-read provided letter.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

If you think that there is a "war", then there are rules on prisoners of war


Yup, and they dictate that if you take off your uniform you forfiet your protections. And in fact, (I just watched Hell's Angels from 1929. The basis being that because they were flying a German marked plain they were akin to spies and not soldiers. And do not receive the same benefits as marked foreign soldiers.

I believe that they can be kept until the "war" conflict is over. I do not believe they receive soldiers benefits. But I do not believe they should be tortured or treated inhumanely.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

what is the cost of every American and English life where foreign combatants in any future war feel that the conventions on warfare no longer need to be respected, and that they may copy us in torturing and disregarding the lives of prisoners.


I believe we've already reached that point. Somalia, Middle-east, etc.

So LB, how long can a suspect be detained?

Originally posted by "Olyuzi":

"How many terrorists have they found by detaining Muslim men in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, wisked off the streets where they lived for no suspicion of terrorist activity or crime"

Actually, I've heard quite a bit of pertinent info has been collected from Gitmo. And even so, we'd probably wouldn't hear of it. The general policy of foiled terrorism acts is to keep it silent. Several acts have probably already been foiled.

"Should we be arresting all men we find connected with Christian Identity groups? Anti-abortion groups? Anti-semetic groups? Militia groups? Vigilante groups"
No.... but any from those groups that are captured in armed and open conflict with U.S. soldiers. Sure...arrest them!

"What if it was found out that Bush did in fact lie about reasons for war with Iraq?"
So far, no evidence to that intent has been found. All the reports, studies, etc. have shown that there was a sincere belief in the existence of said weapons.

"That they intended to invade Iraq all along?"
Funny, I remember hearing discussions of lifting the sanctions. If you are referring to the strategic documents. That's like stating that America had planned to invade China. Well, of course we have a strategic plan for engaging China. Doesn't mean that was the planned course of action.

"What if it was found out that torture was systematic and sanctioned by the highest offices of the Bush administration?"
Define torture...are you referring to air conditioners? conditioning treatment? mind-games? or flat out cruel torture and permanent harm to the physical body?

"I thought most of these fellows were captured on the battlefield in afghanistan? That doesn't make them terrorists! It makes them prisoners of war!"

What nation's colors were they flying? Most of this was post Taliban surrender as well I believe. Thus, they were independents. They are prisoners of armed conflict.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

"without humanitarian care"
Were is this coming from? they're being provided house, three square meals, korans, prayer mats, calls to Islamic prayer.


"Did you condemn the terrorists who held American and UK citizens hostage in the MiddleEast many years ago ,people like Terry Waite? America is holding its hostages in Guantanamo Bay."

Wasn't around then really. But if they were in armed conflict no. But if they were innoncent passer-bys (which these were not) than yes.

"The fight against terrorism will not be over in 10, 20, 30 years - there have always been terrorists"

Just because there has always been something doesn't mean you tolerate it.

"Would it be OK for the US and UK soldiers who were arrested for inhumane treatment of prisoners to be left to rot in jail without trial? If they had been arrested by Iraqi government, in your view that is what could have happened."

Were they wearing US colors? if so, then they must be treated as prisoners of war. If not, and they were in armed conflict in Iraq outside of national association - then yes.

"So if those released back to UK were anything to do with the London bombings, I would regret the deaths no more no less and blame the individuals in the same way."

BULLCRAP - if they were freed Gitmo prisoners there will be accusations left and right about why they were released and how Bush is that and America is this...etc.

You know how I know? because of all those who made the same complaints when we held a few planes in france in pursuit of individuals known to be terrorists. Sorry don't buy the politically correct rhetoric.

Originally posted by "deapee":

General Comments


I believe they have the right to criticize all they want. They just will receive whatever retort in response. What they don't have is the right to vote in America. But they can vote in Britain or whatever nation they are citizenry of if they live in a free state.

LB, I support your right to speak and criticise...just don't expect me to remain silent to your criticisms.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The equivalent of the viewpoint taken by theSaj, with which I disagree so vehemently, is to say that most black people are muggers.

Legalbeagle...please....

I did not say that. Nor would I. I might say that "blacks in the U.S. are convicted at higher rates than their racial demographics" Just as I might say Arabs constitute an abnormally high level of terrorists. There is a BIG difference there. And both of those are open to the "why" question.

On the flip side, and this is what you don't understand and keep misquoting me on to the point of annoyance and loss of respect for you.

If a black man mugged someone....I don't care if he was poor, or black, or rich....I want it said that mugging was wrong. And the man committed a crime. I don't want him released simply because he was in some racial or social demographic. On the flip side, I do believe that there is an issue in many regions of minorities being pursued and prosecuted more aggressively. Or as my Sensei says "pulled over for DWB" - this needs to stop. (And it happens both ways. I have a friend who got a ticket and watched a black judge waive it for 8 blacks in front of him and he was the only one forced to pay. Both are wrong.

DWB = Driving While Black

ANyways, LB, you're a lefty and you always pre-supposed a person's heart. If they're on the right....they're racist so we twist what they say to say something they didn't to accuse them.

Example: Tren Lott, only said to Thurmand we'd have been better off if you had been elected. Now, perhaps he was just pandering an old man. And if he said such to Ronald Reagan nothing would have become of it. But the media took it to be a racial issue.

Where as we have Democrat Senator Byrd (sp?) who was a member of the KKK in the past but is absolved by the left because he's a Democrat.

I get tired of the twisting wordplay.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Suggestions are made that "in time" Saddam might have sponsored terrorism, and/or developed more WMDs


- suspected links to the first WTC and Oklahoma City bombing and Iraq exist
- Saddam Hussein often pledge money in support of suicide bombers
- Iraq DID have materials for the making WMDs and/or the intent to re-start programs as soon as inspectors were gone. This was stated in the reports.
- that much pesticide in an arid desert in camoflauged army bunkers was there for only one purpose - the creation of concentrated nerve toxins.
- Sure, I'd love to know what all the trucks that moved out of Iraq while France (Iraqi ally) held things up in the U.N. contained (and the reports did not exclude such possibility, they simply stated they could not obtain the evidence to confirm such)
- even more, I'd liked to know what you LB would say if we were to find WMDs or proof they had been moved. Would you now exclaim that it was a legal war? probably not.... but I'd like to hear you then.

"Terrorism is not limited to the Middle East. Think of the Nailbomber in London (English), Unabomber (American), Washington Sniper (American), 20 years of terrorism on mainland Britain (Irish), Moscow school siege (Chechnyan), Phillipines ferry bombing (Phillipines), Shoebomber (English)."
Don't recall anyone saying it was. But might I add the following:

- Washington Sniper (American) - Muslim
- Moscow school siege (Chechnyan) - Muslim
- Phillipines ferry bombing (Phillipines) - Muslim
- Shoebomber (English) - wasn't he a convert to extremist islam as well?

But you are absolutely correct. We've had several terrorist activities by E.L.F. (Environmental Liberation Front). And I imagine that they were mostly middle-class white anglo-saxons.

No one is saying it is exclusive....just that it is a too commonly accepted practice.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"I acknowledge and admit that a majority of recent terrorist incidents have been carried out in the name of a twisted form of Islam, but it is not true that Islamic sponsored terrorism is limited to the Middle East. Nor is it true that all people practising Islam are terrorists, nor that any country that terrorists have come from necessarily sponsor terrorism."


Absolutely true... and I've stated such myself. Not that you'd ever probably notice. The question many are addressing is specific. It concerns the "majority" issue.

"It is highly unlikely that Iraq was chosen as a target because at that time it was the greatest threat to the US and something had to be done."
You're right...much of the purpose of Iraq was to apply pressure on what is deemed one of the biggest threats to the U.S. - Iran. The producer of most of the extremist propaganda material. But a much tougher nut to crack via invasion. The idea, establish two democracies on either side. Iran has a large pro-West populace. Especially the older citizens from before the revolution and many of the younger populace as well. The hope, and internal revolution or democratic coup and a formation of a third democracy. Estimate within 5 yrs after successful establishment of Demcoracy in Iraq. (Afghanistan lacked the economic potential for a "success model", where as Iraq has the necessary aspects. Educated people and natural resources.) It's actually a fairly intelligent strategy but not one prone to short term leftist thought for instant gratification.

Originally posted by "Flash":

Good post...no...I kept reading...superb post

You forgot the Russian/Asian/Indian immigrants too...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

the ultimate value is not received in my country

Welcome to the Global Economy...

I think the issue is that America exports "image". For example: you drink that Coca-Cola. Good chance it's made and manufactured in Europe. That Big Mac....is usually locally grown regional beef. Our GM and Ford vehicles...often made with parts from Europe and Asia.

We used to have a campaign "Made in the U.S.A." tags on clothes, etc. You no longer see it. Not really enough manufacturers anymore.

And I will bet you a $100 in 10 yrs the Iraqi economy will be way beyond what it was in 2000.

Originally posted by "muckpond":

so, if i read this correctly, you're saying that by putting the military in iraq we've created decoys for the terrorists to play with, thereby leaving us alone on our home soil with no fear of attacks to come?

Oh, there is still fear of attacks...but it is reduced. Both U.S. and British governments have alluded to foiled terrorist plots. And I for one am not so sure we've not been hit in the U.S. (anyone notice how many "refinery" operations have mysteriously gone up in flames - and that would be a target of mine if I felt America was taking my people's oil resources as Osama stated). Anyways, the result is a smaller inroad of attempts. If 90% of the terrorist attempts occur in Iraq. That means less attempts in our borders. Thus, it makes it easier to monitor.

Also, realize that a lot goes on behind the scenes - 1984 arrived in 2004. Trust me... We have video cameras on every new highway entrance where I live. I know that cell phone conversations are monitored for keywords. I've had mine trigger-tapped twice. Yes, sadly that required for safety is also very near to that which is required for control. The removal of guns to make people safer leads to the ability to control an unarmed populace.

Originally posted by "srdanz":

It is not the concessions, it is doing the little things that show to the world that it matters what the west is doing. Instead of making concessions, we need to do enough to help the Osama's audience say "This is moronic!


Much agreed, I've wanted a national "rebuilding" fund that Americans could contribute to the re-building of Iraq. Heck, let me check off a box to keep a percentage of my tax-return. Rather do that then for the presidential election fund.

Originally posted by "MadMordegon":

This is the part of American history that is not shown in any main stream arena. The US government has supported tyrants and helped removed democratically elected presidents in other countries when it serves the US interests.


I truly believe this is the reason for 9-11. We watched injustice and tolerated it, and blessed it's perpetrators in order to defeat the U.S.S.R. The result, we compromised our ideals and are suffering what we've sewn.

It is why I support the establishment of democracies that protect civil rights. And believe we will spend 50 yrs working on this cause.

Sincerely,
The Saj

PS - The Saj supports the true forgiveness of Africa's debts. Furthermore, the Saj believes that if we were to send 100 mobile oil drilling units to dig irrigation wells. Send over 10,000 John-Deere (harvesters, plows, etc.) along with re-establish a much more active peace corp (perhaps 2 yr national service commitment to the military or peace corp) we could revive an entire continent.
07/11/2005 04:48:45 PM · #205
jason: aren't you glad there wasn't a power outage about 5 seconds before you hit the "post" button?

jeez! i thought i typed a lot...
07/11/2005 05:05:03 PM · #206
Originally posted by theSaj:

BULLCRAP - if they were freed Gitmo prisoners there will be accusations left and right about why they were released and how Bush is that and America is this...etc.

You know how I know? because of all those who made the same complaints when we held a few planes in france in pursuit of individuals known to be terrorists. Sorry don't buy the politically correct rhetoric.


Saj - I will just respond to your views on my post - Legalbeagle and Srdanz can answer their own responses 100% better than I ever could!

You quoted part of my post and I will put it in full here now. I was asked how I would feel if one of the detainees returned to England and released later turned out to be one of the London bombers. My response was:-
So if those released back to UK were anything to do with the London bombings, I would regret the deaths no more no less and blame the individuals in the same way . Of course I would want to see that the Government had thoroughly checked them out before releasing them else they would have failed to protect us BUT if the US showed proof that the prisoners they have are terrorists individually not as a group, then I would accept their detaining them. The only way to do this is through the legal system.

For a moment just reverse the situation. Saddam is still in power and arrests and detains 100 Americans after a fight and says they are terrorists. He will not release them, put them on trial nor allow legal help. There are rumours that they are being tortured.

Your son is one of those detainees. How do you feel?
End of my original post

I replied to how I would feel and object to you saying it is BULLCRAP! Actually with the codicil that you didn't quote, this is exactly how I feel and expect to feel if this becomes reality. Don't call me a liar! I would not be questioning the US government but the UK government as they were the ones who decided there was not a reason to detain them after they had been investigated. I still would agree with the US detaining them if they used due legal process and proved the detainees were terrorists. Why should they do this publically? - to show they are not only a superpower but one with the strong moral highground that others should follow, not criticise.

You haven't responded to my hypothetical question. And to add to that, what do you think the US would do?

Pauline
07/11/2005 05:18:43 PM · #207
What a sad state earth is in (and I guess always has been). I wonder if the higher power ever thought "Whoa, big mistake creating humans!" We're probably nothing anyway compared to what else is out there in the rest of the universe, so maybe we've been given up on as hopeless ...

I like life, I like to have fun, I feel bad for others, and it's just the luck of birth to be living where I do, but sometimes I do feel guilty about it and what we do and what others do to humanity.

Even you guys get angry at one another - how sad!

Message edited by author 2005-07-11 17:20:57.
07/11/2005 05:30:34 PM · #208
Originally posted by woohoopepper:



Even you guys get angry at one another - how sad!


Actually, Wendy, there is only one person who I am angry with out of all the people who have taken part in this long and interesting thread, and that is the person who sent me a rude private message following one of my posts! Everyone else is tremendous because they are all involved and they CARE! So I find this thread not sad but really hopeful.

Don't feel guilty about being happy and lucky and carry on having fun !

Pauline

07/11/2005 06:29:02 PM · #209
Originally posted by muckpond:

jason: aren't you glad there wasn't a power outage about 5 seconds before you hit the "post" button?

jeez! i thought i typed a lot...


Uh...had that happen once. Have lost a lot more posts to Internet downage experiences so I type my replies in a notepad

Originally posted by "riponlady":

Of course I would want to see that the Government had thoroughly checked them out before releasing them


Right, exactly, and a lot of this checking out requires long investigation. Said individual reveals something. It may take several months investigating (abroad) collecting intelligence to determine. So what do you do in the meantime?

a) Let them go? (just dumb)
b) Try them when you have evidence shortage - result...they go free (extremely dangerous)
c) Detain them until evidence one way or the other (what we're doing now)
d) Torture it out of them (improper)
d) Execute them (unfair)

Originally posted by "riponlady":

BUT if the US showed proof that the prisoners they have are terrorists individually not as a group, then I would accept their detaining them. The only way to do this is through the legal system.

What about the ones they captured in the armed skirmishes at Osama's tunnels. Do they need to go thru the legal system? Cause you may hate my opinion - but if those went thru the legal system and were freed by court order (and you see, we've had murderers freed because their lawyers exclaim the prisons are too free, we have many people freed on legal technicalities - example, not read their miranda rights during arrest. they often say a good lawyer can free any guilty man in the U.S. courts) so frankly, there are many who do not trust our courts to handle these matters safely.

I would support a trial in military courts. As I believe such detainees fall under the military's cause of defense of the nation.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

I replied to how I would feel and object to you saying it is BULLCRAP!


You may feel that way....although I do wonder if you would if it happened...but let's just say you did. Well, you're one person. And most of the people outside (on both sides of the Atlantic) would not feel as you do. I observed that by the hub-bub over the halting of airlines in France. You see, everyone told me GWB should of done something like ground the airplanes. And I always asked "and what if he had...people would be up in arms - wouldn't they?" and they said "I wouldn't...I'd understand". Then even after 9-11, when GWB did in deed hold a mere handful of airlines on the ground it became an incredulous issue. Eventually forcing the governments involved to admit they had been pursuing individuals who since had eluded them largely thanks to the media outburst forcing them to show their hand. So that's why I say it's bullshit. Even if you feel as you do - it's NOT a viable answer.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

Why should they do this publically? - to show they are not only a superpower but one with the strong moral highground that others should follow, not criticise.


Has anyone even thought of the fact that the terrorists might not be aware of everyone who has been captured? and that they might not know what plans have been compromised? and the strategic value and safety in that?

Originally posted by "riponlady":

You haven't responded to my hypothetical question. And to add to that, what do you think the US would do?

Sorry, I must have missed the question can you repost please?

As for what America would do in such a situation. I know exactly what would happen. Our left wing would be blasting across newspapers "What GWB know and when did he know it?" or more so... "How could they have let this man free when we had him in our hands?"

Originally posted by "riponlady":

and that is the person who sent me a rude private message following one of my posts!


Hope that wasn't me...if so, please let me know as I must apologize...I do get heated. And sometimes I say thinks foot-in-mouth future.

(((HUGS)))

Anyways, thanks cause this is a great lead in for my next post...
07/11/2005 06:48:25 PM · #210
Originally posted by theSaj:


Originally posted by "riponlady":

Of course I would want to see that the Government had thoroughly checked them out before releasing them


Right, exactly, and a lot of this checking out requires long investigation. Said individual reveals something. It may take several months investigating (abroad) collecting intelligence to determine. So what do you do in the meantime?

a) Let them go? (just dumb)
b) Try them when you have evidence shortage - result...they go free (extremely dangerous)
c) Detain them until evidence one way or the other (what we're doing now)
d) Torture it out of them (improper)
d) Execute them (unfair)

Originally posted by "riponlady":

BUT if the US showed proof that the prisoners they have are terrorists individually not as a group, then I would accept their detaining them. The only way to do this is through the legal system.

What about the ones they captured in the armed skirmishes at Osama's tunnels. Do they need to go thru the legal system? Cause you may hate my opinion - but if those went thru the legal system and were freed by court order (and you see, we've had murderers freed because their lawyers exclaim the prisons are too free, we have many people freed on legal technicalities - example, not read their miranda rights during arrest. they often say a good lawyer can free any guilty man in the U.S. courts) so frankly, there are many who do not trust our courts to handle these matters safely.

I would support a trial in military courts. As I believe such detainees fall under the military's cause of defense of the nation.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

I replied to how I would feel and object to you saying it is BULLCRAP!


You may feel that way....although I do wonder if you would if it happened...but let's just say you did. Well, you're one person. And most of the people outside (on both sides of the Atlantic) would not feel as you do. I observed that by the hub-bub over the halting of airlines in France. You see, everyone told me GWB should of done something like ground the airplanes. And I always asked "and what if he had...people would be up in arms - wouldn't they?" and they said "I wouldn't...I'd understand". Then even after 9-11, when GWB did in deed hold a mere handful of airlines on the ground it became an incredulous issue. Eventually forcing the governments involved to admit they had been pursuing individuals who since had eluded them largely thanks to the media outburst forcing them to show their hand. So that's why I say it's bullshit. Even if you feel as you do - it's NOT a viable answer.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

Why should they do this publically? - to show they are not only a superpower but one with the strong moral highground that others should follow, not criticise.


Has anyone even thought of the fact that the terrorists might not be aware of everyone who has been captured? and that they might not know what plans have been compromised? and the strategic value and safety in that?

Sorry, I must have missed the question can you repost please?

Originally posted by "riponlady":

and that is the person who sent me a rude private message following one of my posts!


Hope that wasn't me...if so, please let me know as I must apologize...I do get heated. And sometimes I say thinks foot-in-mouth future.

(((HUGS)))

Anyways, thanks cause this is a great lead in for my next post...


Last point first - no it certainly wasn't you - I have total respect for you even if I do not always agree with you!
(((HUGS))) back across the pond!

my question was-

For a moment just reverse the situation. Saddam is still in power and arrests and detains 100 Americans after a fight and says they are terrorists. He will not release them, put them on trial nor allow legal help. There are rumours that they are being tortured.

Your son is one of those detainees. How do you feel? and what would the US do?

I think the terrorists will be VERYaware of exactly who is held after this length of time. Any intelligence they have is probably way out of date by now.

Yes any investigation would take months but we are talking years by now - long enough I think!

I think I probablly trust our legal system more than you trust yours!

Looking forward to your next post - don't get RSI !

:)
P
07/11/2005 06:48:28 PM · #211
oops!
Too toired have to go to bed!
Goodnight
Sweet dreams everyone
Zzzzzzz

Message edited by author 2005-07-11 18:51:57.
07/11/2005 07:01:41 PM · #212
"For a moment just reverse the situation. Saddam is still in power and arrests and detains 100 Americans after a fight and says they are terrorists. He will not release them, put them on trial nor allow legal help. There are rumours that they are being tortured."

Well, as many of our current detainees were taken while in armed conflict at or near Al-quaeda operations or people with known involvement - it's a bit of a different scenario.

a) as there is a regime, Saddam for which to negotiate with, I would pursue negotiation.

b) first off, I'd like a general statement of the terrorists - I mean at least we've stated most were for the reasons I said above

c) if it was completely clear there was no reason, than yes I'd demand action. However, if recently an American plane that landed and when the passengers came out the ransacked the city. I would understand their reaction and plead on a personal level to Saddam for my son or daughter.

d) But if the plane landed and was detained and the detainees were all armed with M-16s and mortars. Then I'd hope for my son's well-being and endeavor to communicate. And pray....

And although, I see where you're going. I don't think it's quite the same correlation. But I've tried to cover the bases above.

Message edited by author 2005-07-11 19:08:15.
07/11/2005 07:08:00 PM · #213
Okay, I was thinking this afternoon and realized I need more than the negativity and accusations over current and past failings. I crave something more positive. So instead of being problem pointers...let's be idea people!

How can we fix or improve (global) matters? And I don't mean general statements like "such and such should provide more $$$" or "remove so&so from office" those are really negative or accusational. I mean ideas!!!!

(SUGGESTED GUIDELINES: Please, try not come out against anyone's suggestion as "stupid", endeavor to make your comments "positive" - ie: seeing someone's idea and elaborating on how it may be improved or a pitfall removed.)

Example of some things I think would improve the world global situations:

- purchase of oil drilling rigs for Africa, utilize them to drill for water and irrigation. This has already been done to great success with a single machine. What could a 100+ units or more accomplish for Africa?

- establish co-operative farms - provide tractors, farm equipment, etc. Modified to run on "bio-diesel". These would be used to take advantage of the irrigation wells to help produce foodstuffs.

- I'd like to see my own country establish a mandatory 2-yr service program. However, I understand that many are conscientious and do not want to serve in the military. (And that's exactly what I'm hoping for.) These would given the option of joining a re-vitalized Peacecorp. This corp would be operated akin to a military. With the idea being that the best defense is the one you never need to use. They would literally be sent out to train and be trained. (Many Americans needs some discipline and self-respect.) In conjunction with trained farmers, and engineers they would help to establish agricultural and industrial co-operative (sorta like capitalistic communes) enterprises in impoverished regions. They would also teach basic education. I believe that is of the utmost importance.

- College Ambassadors, these would be individuals from each village area who would sign a 10 yr agreement. They would be allowed to attend an American state college and receive a master's education. In exchange, they would help facilitate the advancement of their area and the leadership, education and advancement of populace. If after 10 yrs of service (and working in conjunction with the peace corp as a representative, translator, etc.) then we'd waive their education costs. If they leave their area in order to be more prosperous than they become liable for their education costs as any one else.

- Yes, I am willing to see my government forgive the debt of the African nations. And carry that burden

- Add option to tax form to earmark a portion of individual's choosing to go toward re-building of Iraq for a period of 5-10 yrs as seen fit.

- Add a similar option to "support" the peace corp.

- Increase funding for space exploration, particularly in reference to colonization of other celestrial bodies such as Mars. I believe such creates a vast amount of innovation as well as pushes the limits of efficiency. The result, smaller, lighter, more efficient products for our use here at home.

- Hybrids, fuel cells, and alternative clean vehicles receive a "toll" waiver. (No pay EZ-pass with purchase until 10% of new cars meet such levels.) Promote free parking nationwide at "coin meters" for said vehicles.

- raise deposit on cans to a dime and bottles to a quarter. Not so much for recycling (though it'd help) but because such helps to support our lowest class. Those who although on the bottom of society are willing to labor for themselves (and thus have my respect). Seems silly, but I believe this will allow those individuals a chance to get back on their feet if they're willing.

- Allow for more immigration, however, distribute immigration. Example: most of the southern states are flooded with Mexicans. Instead, establish points of entry (akin to Ellis Island). Then relocate said individuals to various regions. Midwest, Northwest, and a $1,000 signing bonus for Alaska...*lol*, etc. This should help lesson the feel of a "flood" and reduce tensions.

- I actually liked GWB's short term work VISA for Mexicans who work the crop season. Most only want to come to the U.S. for 3-6 months. They work, send the money back home and go home after the season (costs too much to be here otherwise). Such a VISA would allow us to track their entry for security reasons. It would also not require minimum wage (as no one is going to pay $7 for a cabbage picker cause you or I are not going to pay $12 a head of lettuce.)

- establish a new global entity to supersede the U.N., this entity would allow any nation to participate however, it's charter would define certain requirements for voting members. Mainly, a basic level of protections of civil rights for it's citizens and at least limited constitutional democratic principles. (ie: you might have a monarchy but the ability for the people to elect a prime minister or people representative and constitutional protections to prevent a blood-stained tyrant from recieving control)

These are just a few ideas...I am sure there are more that I will have. But I'd love to hear some of yours.

- Jason "The Saj"

Message edited by author 2005-07-13 16:11:36.
07/11/2005 09:55:41 PM · #214
By Riponlady <<"Unfortunately I agree there is no way to stop these attacks - except remove the reasons for them. ">>

How can one remove something which does not exist?
07/12/2005 12:22:08 AM · #215
theSaj,

thank you for the wonderful posting. I'll take some time tomorrow to respond (as you said, not by bashing, but to try to polish up some of your ideas and add mine). There are only so many nights I can skip sleep in a row.

frychikn: please rethink your question. Why did you post it? Did you have a reason for posting such a question?
07/12/2005 03:46:00 AM · #216
Saj - great twist to this thread- hope I can add to it but must go to work!
P
07/12/2005 04:48:18 AM · #217
Out of interest, why do you want to replace the UN with a new UN-like structure?
07/12/2005 07:52:24 AM · #218
Originally posted by theSaj:


(RULES: Please, do not come out against anyone's suggestion as "stupid", the only comments should be "positive" - ie: seeing someone's idea and elaborating on how it may be improved or a pitfall removed.)


Hey - hijacker!!

I will take the opportunity to respond to a couple of points from earlier first (limited due to time).

Left/Right Wing, Liberal & Extremism

You started off saying things like

Originally posted by theSaj:



the vast majority of conflicts in the world are with Islam

...

I'll wager that Islam kills more women in a day than the American Colonial Colonies did in their entire existance

...

That is not the case with Islam, as most muslims defend the actions of such terrorists or try to conditionalize it

...

are you ready to accept their terms? To wipe away homosexuality, banking, sexual promiscuitity, gambling, the stock market and more?

...

Because I'm tired of the protectionism that keeps being given.


I also give you some words taken from an English policital party open letter to the Muslim leader of Britian last week:

Originally posted by Nick Hood:



"How could it be anything else, when Islam divides the world into two, and only two, parts – the Zone of Submission and the Zone of War?"

"There is no point whatsoever them wringing their hands and condemning “extremist” terrorism, if they will not get to grips with the intolerance within their religion that causes that extremism and ‘justifies’ that terrorism."

Banks lending money at interest (bang, there goes the City); homosexuality (bang, there goes Scotland Yard, thanks to the absurd Paddick creature, who clearly can’t distinguish between his unread copy of the Koran and his well-thumbed copy of Gay Times); pretty girls in short-sleeved summer tops (bang, there go the restaurants and clubs); people presuming to make and impose laws on the basis of humanity and reason, rather than on the often contradictory recommendations of the Koran and the Hadiths (bang, there go the Houses of Parliament and our democracy); Muslims obeying those man-made laws (bang, there go Blair’s lapdogs in the MCB, unless they get remission under the verse which allows outnumbered Muslims to “shorten the prayers” and so lull the Infidels into a false sense of security).


Pretty similar, and I cannot find anything on treatment of women at a glance, but I am pretty sure that they have made similar statements. There are many other similarities between yours and their statements. The party? The British National Party (BNP).

Your comments appear to me, to be in line with those of that party. There is no other English political party making any comments in the same vein.

You are probably not aware of who the BNP are. It is the most right wing of British parties. It is fascist and extremely insular. It's membership used to be largely composed of neo-nazi skinheads, and its leaders have been imprisoned for inciting racial hatred, but it is campaigning for respectability as a party that speaks out for the "voice of [white] freedom".

By way of an example, to see the kind of party that you appear to be aligned with in certain policy respects (I am not suggesting all), its objectives include:

Originally posted by Wikipedia:

The repatriation of all illegal immigrants.

The introduction of a system of voluntary, financially-aided repatriation for existing, legally-settled immigrants.

The abolition of reverse discrimination.

Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.

The restoration of corporal punishment for "petty criminals and vandals" and the restoration of capital punishment for "paedophiles, terrorists and murderers".

The reintroduction of national service and the requirement of people completing national service to maintain an assault rifle in their home


They have been dexcribed by the leader of our opposition party as "a bunch of thugs dressed up as a political party".

The statements you made at the start of this thread are ultra-right wing. They are at an extreme end of the political spectrum. It is not a standpoint that I would prevent you making it, nor have I ever sought to suggest it, but I do disagree with it vehemently.

I am not a "lefty" in mainstream politics, but a liberal (centrist in the UK). I do not subscribe to any religion. Tolerance and understanding is not a "left wing" policy, but a liberal policy.

Incitement of Racial Hatred

To incite racial hatred, you do not need to feel "hatred" as an emotion. Your words need merely to be cast in such a way as to incite prejudice against an group of people that you identify by arbitrary means: here, because they belong to one religion.

My comments about the extremist Christianity were directed at extremism, with Christianity as the example. Nothing to do with the fact that they are Christians (I directed the same criticisms at extremist Jews and Muslims - the connection being a criticism of extremism, not based on an arbitrary identifier such as race, colour, ethnicity, sexual preference or religion).

Guantanamo Bay

On Guantanamo Bay, even if we were to conclude that the unusual nature of the terrorist conflict gave us the moral authority to disregard fundamental human rights, or the need to presume innocence until found guilty, and to disregard the normal checks that prevent miscarriages of justice, there is a significant body of evidence that torture, or actions tantamount to torture, are being carried out:

Freed Prisoners:

Originally posted by Wikipedia:


Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, freed in January, 2005, after nearly three years in captivity, has accused his American captors of torturing him and other detainees arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[3] Mr Begg, in his first broadcast interview since his release, claimed he "witnessed two people get beaten so badly that I believe it caused their deaths".


Non-Governmental Organisations:

Originally posted by Wikipedia:

The [International Committee of the Red Cross] reports of several activities which, it said, were "tantamount to torture": exposure to loud noise or music, prolonged extreme temperatures, or beatings. It also reported that a behavior science team (BSCT), also called 'Biscuit', and military physicians communicated confidential medical information to the interrogation teams (weaknesses, phobias, etc.), resulting in the prisoners losing confidence in their medical care.


The US Government

Originally posted by Wikipedia:

US Vice President Dick Cheney suggested detainees were treated better than they would be "by virtually any other government on the face of the earth."


It is a question of who to believe: the captors, the captives, or the third party investigators. I find it hard to disregard the opinions of the ICRC.

As an answer to the questions asked, I would rather have a person who could not be found guilty of terrorist actions freed in my neighbourhood than to live in a country that imprisoned men without regard to whether they were guilty or innocent. As for the "obviously a terrorist" suggestions: if it is so "obvious", why not try them. As for "technicalities", there are rules on how someone is to be dealt with for a reason: all those rules are there for a reason, to reduce the risk of miscarriages of justice.

Afghanistan

I have no problem with the action taken in Afghanistan: sanctioned, legal, direct response, proportionate. Continued occupation does cause resentment, has been disastrous in other areas (drugs control, civil order), and the implementation of "democracy" is hugely problematic, but I think that it was proportionate to a genuine and intolerable threat. The illegal war in Iraq was, IMO, none of these.

Democracy

On the threat of religion to efficient demnocracy: a country must be governed by some principle. You have referred to it as a "belief set". I would avoid the use of the word "belief", as that implies an arbitrary decision. The US Constitution is an excellent example. A set of non-religous principles, by which the country is run.

The problem arrives when a "belief" that is a religious belief is implemented as policy: fundamentally, it is an arbitrary and unreasoned belief. Its moral force comes from a religious book of instruction, rather than reasoning and philosophical treatment.

For example, condoms, abstention and aid: teaching abstention follows from a strict Christian belief in the sanctity of marriage, and God's laws against sex before marriage. Best medical practice is to use a condom if you are going to have sex, before or outside a monogamous relationship, but they are outlawed in Catholicism on "life" principles. So: require compliance with a strict interpretation of the Christian God's law, or apply best medical practice?

If the majority of people have the religious belief in marriage, then do they have the right to withhold condoms from the minority that do not have the same religious beliefs, or practice them so strictly? That is how our version of democracy works, and it is a recognised democratic deficit. We must guard against it.

Misquoting

Originally posted by theSaj:

YOU MISQUOTE OFTEN!!!

Originally posted by legalbeagle:



Amagine this! ....


I did not say that, bcoble did! ; )

As for the "misquote", you have reacted very strongly against criticism of the US in other threads (along the lines of why does the US get criticised and not thanked?). As for your analysis of me, politically I am confident that I am largely centrist, with some left-leanings. In terms of degree of extremism, I consider myself to be very liberal and very tolerant. I identify in you a very non-liberal attitude (ie reasonably extreme), very right wing, with some fascist leanings, on the subject of religious tolerance.

Tolerance

As for suggesting that I should be tolerant of people with intolerent views: I am tolerant as regards race, religion, sexual preference, ethnicity and nationality. That does not mean that I should be tolerant of people who express extreme and arbitrary views on the same subjects. Practising tolerance of different races, does not require me to be tolerant of racists. In the same way, being tolerant towards religion does not require me to be tolerant of those people who are stirring up prejudice against one particular religion.

Message edited by author 2005-07-12 08:20:23.
07/12/2005 08:13:06 AM · #219
Jason --- ever think about joining project dolphin ;)

Okay, that was lame... continue, my friends!
07/12/2005 08:39:52 AM · #220
I can't wait until China is a superpower to hear what kind of weird hypocrisy comes out of all the America-superpowe-hater's mouths. you guys have no idea how good the world has it right now
07/12/2005 09:13:25 AM · #221
Originally posted by achiral:

I can't wait until China is a superpower to hear what kind of weird hypocrisy comes out of all the America-superpowe-hater's mouths. you guys have no idea how good the world has it right now


Achiral - you misunderstand the different between criticism and hatred: I can be pretty vitriolic about China too. And very critical of my own government.

Flash put it well in his post a little earlier in this thread.
07/12/2005 11:32:20 AM · #222


Originally posted by "ganders":

Out of interest, why do you want to replace the UN with a new UN-like structure?"


The U.N. works as a body of international discussion but not as a governing agency, which it is trying more and more to become. The reason being, that in the U.N. a single dictator has equal say to all the members of Australia's democracy. That dictator, does not represent the rights of his people but rather himself. Furthermore, a nation like Sudan who does not maintain even a bare minimal level of rights and protections for it's citizens should not be eligable to sit on a human rights board. These are flaws in the U.N. charter. My proposition is for an entity that embodies nationstates that protect and represent it's people.

You see, I am an American. I can never allow the submission of my nation's soveriegnty to an entity (U.N.) that has no standards or protections for it's members. That would be a severe step backwards for us, and I believe most of Europe.

Any nation would be allowed to voice their opinion, akin to the United Nations. But only those who have met the basic minimum standard to become members would be allowed to vote.

Hope that makes some sense?

-----------------------------

I replied privately to Legalbeagle's post...in hopes of pushing for solutions instead of accusations. I think it's much easier for us to point and condemn one another. But in what ways can we put our heads together to create solutions. (Saying "well, why can't we just all get along" is not a solution but rather a principle. A solution is something to enable a principle.

I will address LB's comment on the mandatory service (and his likening me to his NAZI party)...here is my reasoning.

I believe that a mandatory service in the U.S. peace corp would be a good thing. (And I believe most would choose it over military service.) Yes, I think Americans take for granted the lifestyle we live. I think if most young Americans were to go to Africa and spend a year helping that region that upon coming back after seeing such poverty and lifestyles they would be more inclined to see those world problems ended. More inclined to set that new fangled digital camera back on the shelf and use that money for other's needs. No, I do not advocate the keep of machine guns as insinuated by LB. (Mind you though, the system you've described I believe in actively implemented in Switzerland....that of a period of military service and the keeping of arms.) The purpose is for peace, the benefit of mankind, the helping of our lesser brethren and most importantly for America - the molding of a good and responsible character in young American men and women.

- The Saj

"So anyone have ideas for solutions?"


Message edited by author 2005-07-12 11:39:24.
07/12/2005 12:39:10 PM · #223
Back from work, had a cup of tea and a shower and ready to go.

My ideas:, reduce or abolish the many subsidies by countries, so that the market on cotton, steel, farming, etc is free and will allow some lesser enonomical countries to trade on a level basis. I heard the other day that if the US (not picking on them, only using as an example. England equally protects its trade) took away the subsidy on cotton farming it would improve the trade of African cotton growers by 12%. That is a huge amount and I wonder what effect it would have on the USA? Obviously those cotton growers in the US woulkd be upset but can't that land be used for other crops that are economically viable?

I know nothing about cotton farming so shoot me down if you wish but it is just an example of how rich countries control the trades that smaller countries depend on. Cotton can't be a major US export, can it?

Fair trade goods ought to be the norm not the rarity they are at present.

P

07/12/2005 12:43:24 PM · #224
Major developments in investigation of bombing in London

Scotland Yard statement appears to say the bombers were 4 English born and bred men, all of whom died in the attacks. At least three from Leeds in Yorkshire. All 4 travelled to London on thursday morning. Seen at Kings Cross station. Three bodies found, fourth probably still to be uncovered at Kings Cross.

Looks like first suicide bombers in England.

:((((
P
07/12/2005 12:46:22 PM · #225
Originally posted by Riponlady:

Major developments in investigation of bombing in London

Scotland Yard statement appears to say the bombers were 4 English born and bred men, all of whom died in the attacks. At least three from Leeds in Yorkshire. All 4 travelled to London on thursday morning. Seen at Kings Cross station. Three bodies found, fourth probably still to be uncovered at Kings Cross.

Looks like first suicide bombers in England.

:((((
P


CNN is now saying that they've arrested someone in connection to this.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 02:17:32 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 02:17:32 PM EDT.