Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:19 pm
People who think that the fault lies all with the terrorists are hoplessly nieve. They might be evil but look at the number of civilians that they have killed in the last few years and compare it to civilain casualties as a result of allied air offensives and see what you think.
Is killing somehow better or worse because suicide bombers intend to kill whereas we just don't give a shit either way? Is torture somehow more acceptable when we dress them in orange jumpsuits and keep them in pens? Or when we fly them abroad for a little torture by proxy?
If there is ever a solution to be found (and that's the mother of all ifs) it's not gonna be found by looking for more reasons why the other side is evil. That's a path that just leads to more segregation. If you want to stop the rot before it sets we need to start taking our own governments to task for their unacceptable behaviour so we can prove to the people who are still teetering on the brink of fundamentalism that maybe we are not the demons they have been told we are.
In a democracy the actions of governments are the responsibility of the people. When the government does wrong we should be the first and not the last ones to condemn them for it.
Is killing somehow better or worse because suicide bombers intend to kill whereas we just don't give a shit either way? Is torture somehow more acceptable when we dress them in orange jumpsuits and keep them in pens? Or when we fly them abroad for a little torture by proxy?
If there is ever a solution to be found (and that's the mother of all ifs) it's not gonna be found by looking for more reasons why the other side is evil. That's a path that just leads to more segregation. If you want to stop the rot before it sets we need to start taking our own governments to task for their unacceptable behaviour so we can prove to the people who are still teetering on the brink of fundamentalism that maybe we are not the demons they have been told we are.
In a democracy the actions of governments are the responsibility of the people. When the government does wrong we should be the first and not the last ones to condemn them for it.
Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:43 pm
Originally posted by SavageParrot
People who think that the fault lies all with the terrorists are hoplessly nieve. They might be evil but look at the number of civilians that they have killed in the last few years and compare it to civilain casualties as a result of allied air offensives and see what you think.
Is killing somehow better or worse because suicide bombers intend to kill whereas we just don't give a shit either way? Is torture somehow more acceptable when we dress them in orange jumpsuits and keep them in pens? Or when we fly them abroad for a little torture by proxy?
If there is ever a solution to be found (and that's the mother of all ifs) it's not gonna be found by looking for more reasons why the other side is evil. That's a path that just leads to more segregation. If you want to stop the rot before it sets we need to start taking our own governments to task for their unacceptable behaviour so we can prove to the people who are still teetering on the brink of fundamentalism that maybe we are not the demons they have been told we are.
In a democracy the actions of governments are the responsibility of the people. When the government does wrong we should be the first and not the last ones to condemn them for it.
Quoted for truth.
I could not agree more.
Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:45 pm
cause and effect and cause and effect and cause and effect....
It goes way back, let's not pin it on this president or that president (by that, I mean Clinton). There's a lot of that going around I notice.
That article starts in 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Kinda fails to mention what caused the Iranians anger and hatred toward the US. I'm not saying that those poor guys deserved to be held hostage, but trust me on this, America (and in this case, Britain) had dirty, dirty hands in the whole matter.
To make the long story short, well, slightly less long:
1920 Britain makes long term agreements and a partnership with Iran regarding oil, invests money and equipment there.
1950s Britain and Iran have a falling out over oil profits. Iranian nationalize the oil industries. Britain gets pissed blockades Iran from shipping oil. Iran's Prime Minister plays hardball, attempts to outlast the British. Iranian economy goes into the shitter. People start getting pissed at Iranian Prime Minister. He starts consolidating power.
1953 Britain asks the US for help (the US has weirdly good ties with Iran up to that point) and the CIA jumps in with both feet. CIA was kind of new, and believed that with a nip here, a tuck there, a rigged election there, they could prevent another World War from happening, the world would be at peace, blah blah.
They start using influence to stir up Iranians (who are already pretty irked) and start supporting 'The Shah'. He's like a king who no longer wields the big power any more as Iran now has a Democratic govt. The CIA works with the Shah, coordinates it's efforts (if you want to know more about those efforts, google 'Operation Ajax').
The Shah leads a military coup, thows out the PM, installs a his General as the new PM. Old PM is tried for treason. Oil flows to Britain again, under the old bargain.
Shah dismantles the democracy in Iran, makes himself absolute ruler (don't they always?).
Iranians are pissed.
1970s Over time, the whole world (including many pissed of Iranians) learn about CIA's involvment in the overthrow of the PM and the reinstatement of the Shah.
1979 Hardline Islamic revolution, students take over American embassy, blah blah blah.
I just point this out to say that the article makes it sound like the world just attacked us suddenly, out of the blue, and of course Carter (D) is to blame (decling in military), skip the 80s, Clinton is to blame (treats terrorist like 'criminals' four years before he's elected, I guess)....etc.
It's a long, tit for tat history, goes back centuries and will probably go on for centuries more.
No one president has screwed the pooch, it's actually more like a series of presidents since WWII screwing the pooch.
Want some fun reading? check out the North Korean situation. Screwed up from the get go. Actually had a light water nuclear reactor since 1966! Every president since then has passed the buck with them, although now all hear about is how everything was great and then Clinton dropped the ball.
Like I say, check these things out, you'll be amazed at how long things have been screwed up.
It goes way back, let's not pin it on this president or that president (by that, I mean Clinton). There's a lot of that going around I notice.
That article starts in 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Kinda fails to mention what caused the Iranians anger and hatred toward the US. I'm not saying that those poor guys deserved to be held hostage, but trust me on this, America (and in this case, Britain) had dirty, dirty hands in the whole matter.
To make the long story short, well, slightly less long:
1920 Britain makes long term agreements and a partnership with Iran regarding oil, invests money and equipment there.
1950s Britain and Iran have a falling out over oil profits. Iranian nationalize the oil industries. Britain gets pissed blockades Iran from shipping oil. Iran's Prime Minister plays hardball, attempts to outlast the British. Iranian economy goes into the shitter. People start getting pissed at Iranian Prime Minister. He starts consolidating power.
1953 Britain asks the US for help (the US has weirdly good ties with Iran up to that point) and the CIA jumps in with both feet. CIA was kind of new, and believed that with a nip here, a tuck there, a rigged election there, they could prevent another World War from happening, the world would be at peace, blah blah.
They start using influence to stir up Iranians (who are already pretty irked) and start supporting 'The Shah'. He's like a king who no longer wields the big power any more as Iran now has a Democratic govt. The CIA works with the Shah, coordinates it's efforts (if you want to know more about those efforts, google 'Operation Ajax').
The Shah leads a military coup, thows out the PM, installs a his General as the new PM. Old PM is tried for treason. Oil flows to Britain again, under the old bargain.
Shah dismantles the democracy in Iran, makes himself absolute ruler (don't they always?).
Iranians are pissed.
1970s Over time, the whole world (including many pissed of Iranians) learn about CIA's involvment in the overthrow of the PM and the reinstatement of the Shah.
1979 Hardline Islamic revolution, students take over American embassy, blah blah blah.
I just point this out to say that the article makes it sound like the world just attacked us suddenly, out of the blue, and of course Carter (D) is to blame (decling in military), skip the 80s, Clinton is to blame (treats terrorist like 'criminals' four years before he's elected, I guess)....etc.
It's a long, tit for tat history, goes back centuries and will probably go on for centuries more.
No one president has screwed the pooch, it's actually more like a series of presidents since WWII screwing the pooch.
Want some fun reading? check out the North Korean situation. Screwed up from the get go. Actually had a light water nuclear reactor since 1966! Every president since then has passed the buck with them, although now all hear about is how everything was great and then Clinton dropped the ball.
Like I say, check these things out, you'll be amazed at how long things have been screwed up.
Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 pm
Originally posted by Alofwar
HUH????
Is that the generals speech, or your own words?
US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Here is a copy of the speech he gave
The above-quoted piece about how Americans should have interpreted and reacted to a series of events occurring well before the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. began hitting our inbox in March 2003. It originated with a speech given by Navy Captain Dan Ouimette before the Pensacola (Florida) Civitan Club (a service organization) on 19 February 2003. (Although many versions of this speech describe Captain Ouimette as "Executive Officer of Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida," March 2005 news reports of a training crash identify him as "commander of Training Air Wing 1."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wakeup.asp
Captain Ouimette may have given this same speech in 2002 as well, but his February 2003 address to the Civitan Club appears to be the basis of the version that has been circulated via e-mail.
Originally posted by Alofwar
Some of those casualty figures must be exagerated. 241 Marines killed in 1 truck bomb?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen, a U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday. - May. 30, 2003 -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/
Originally posted by Alofwar
1000 injured in a bomb in an underground car park? Now i know thats made up.
WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING (House of Representatives - March 10, 1993)
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my pride in the people who live and work in New York City for their courageous response to the catastrophic bombing of the World trade Center, in my district, on February 26, 1993....
Madam Speaker, virtually every American household saw the dramatic television footage of the recent World Trade Center explosion. Sadly, in my district, bordering New York City, the tragedy struck close to home and claimed the life of Robert Kirkpatrick, a carpenter and locksmith, whose neighbors described as `generous to a fault.' Robert, whose office was on the second level of the parking garage, was one of the five killed in that incident. In addition, over 1,000 were injured as a result of the bomb blast.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1993_cr/h930310-terror.htm
I know you are too young to remember this, but yes these things all happened.
This is a world problem not just a United States one, as long as it keeps being ignored, it will keep getting more frequent.
Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:04 pm
I remember the hostage crisis, and marines in Beirut. I thought it was 281 marines though.
I recall they had them sitting there without ammo in their guns. The truck came up and there was nothing they could do, blew up a barracks I think.
I recall they had them sitting there without ammo in their guns. The truck came up and there was nothing they could do, blew up a barracks I think.
Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:07 pm
Yes I believe they were sleeping at the time
Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:37 pm
I heard a report on CNN where they raised the question what if....
The WMD's we didn't find in Iraq were smuggled into Syria before the US invaded, and the "tricks up our sleeves" the Hizbollah leader refers to are chemical weapons that Syria smuggled out of Iraq to them. They could then blame this on Iran and cause a shitstorm.
The WMD's we didn't find in Iraq were smuggled into Syria before the US invaded, and the "tricks up our sleeves" the Hizbollah leader refers to are chemical weapons that Syria smuggled out of Iraq to them. They could then blame this on Iran and cause a shitstorm.
Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:30 am
I'm not going to say the American governrment is perfect (Far from it, but name one country that is or was). I think all governments are corrupt to some degree, but here is where I make a distinction between our government and terrorists.
WE DON'T TARGET INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
In war, civilians die. An unfortunate side effect of war, but it happens. Lately, (say in the last 25 years), our government has made serious attempts to not kill innocent civilians. While terrorists do the opposite.
During wars it is expected that soldiers will be killed. I don't blame the terrorists for using guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare makes perfect sense if you cannot defeat your enemy using conventional warfare. I have a problem with sucide bombers targeting civilian targets. (Can you say subways and large buildings)? Go ahead and target military bases, but stay away from targeting civilians. Whether our government started the whole mess or not, does not give terrorists an excuse to attack civilians.
Let's see... it's okay to target civilians INTENTIONALLY, AS LONG AS YOU KILL LESS OF THEM, THEN BOMBING THEM UNINTENTIONALLY and killing more. Okay...
I don't know about you, but I would rather dress up in orange jumpsuits and be kept in a pen than to be ACTUALLY TORTURED and then BEHEADED! I would rather be humiliated, than beaten or electrocuted, etc. That's your call, but I would rather be a war prisioner in an American or British prison. (As opposed to a war prisioner of any terrorist organization). To each his own I guess... after all this is a war.
I don't think the other side is evil. They may think America is evil (and I agree that America has made a number of mistakes), but I personally don't think terrorists are evil. I think they may be misguided and using the wrong methods for trying to achieve their goals.
I don't have a good answer about convining terrorists that we aren't demons. Actions speak louder than words and based on our actions, I can understand why they hate us... that and we are allies with Israel. Perhaps if our soldiers rebuild Iraq and treat the citizens there with respect, we can convince them we aren't as bad as they were led to believe. I don't have the answer...
What would you have America and it's allies do; pull out of Iraq? I think the government of Iraq would crumble and another despot would be in charge, that or another terrorist organization. Should America have gone over to Iraq... too late to make that call, we're there now.
I understand what you're saying. I agree with the sentiment, but differ in the best resolution to the problem.
BACK TO THE THREAD
I don't think WW III is immient. Hezbollah attacked Israel. Israel responds. Hezbollah responds. Isreal responds again.... end of war for another few years with terrorism continuning the whole time.
WE DON'T TARGET INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
In war, civilians die. An unfortunate side effect of war, but it happens. Lately, (say in the last 25 years), our government has made serious attempts to not kill innocent civilians. While terrorists do the opposite.
During wars it is expected that soldiers will be killed. I don't blame the terrorists for using guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare makes perfect sense if you cannot defeat your enemy using conventional warfare. I have a problem with sucide bombers targeting civilian targets. (Can you say subways and large buildings)? Go ahead and target military bases, but stay away from targeting civilians. Whether our government started the whole mess or not, does not give terrorists an excuse to attack civilians.
number of civilians that they have killed in the last few years and compare it to civilain casualties as a result of allied air offensives and see what you think.
Let's see... it's okay to target civilians INTENTIONALLY, AS LONG AS YOU KILL LESS OF THEM, THEN BOMBING THEM UNINTENTIONALLY and killing more. Okay...
Is torture somehow more acceptable when we dress them in orange jumpsuits and keep them in pens? Or when we fly them abroad for a little torture by proxy?
I don't know about you, but I would rather dress up in orange jumpsuits and be kept in a pen than to be ACTUALLY TORTURED and then BEHEADED! I would rather be humiliated, than beaten or electrocuted, etc. That's your call, but I would rather be a war prisioner in an American or British prison. (As opposed to a war prisioner of any terrorist organization). To each his own I guess... after all this is a war.
it's not gonna be found by looking for more reasons why the other side is evil
I don't think the other side is evil. They may think America is evil (and I agree that America has made a number of mistakes), but I personally don't think terrorists are evil. I think they may be misguided and using the wrong methods for trying to achieve their goals.
There are actually two separate ideas in that statement; First, we must hold our governments accountable, and secondly, we must convince other nations we are not the demons they make us out to be. I agree that the people need to speak up when governments are out of control. It is sometimes difficult to know when that happens because so much of what our government does is covert. Perhaps if we could go back in time, we could correct some of the problems we have today. As cavalierlwt mentioned, "it's cause and effect". Who's to say, what started this whole mess? We are here now and must make decisions based on the world as it currently is.If you want to stop the rot before it sets we need to start taking our own governments to task for their unacceptable behaviour so we can prove to the people who are still teetering on the brink of fundamentalism that maybe we are not the demons they have been told we are.
I don't have a good answer about convining terrorists that we aren't demons. Actions speak louder than words and based on our actions, I can understand why they hate us... that and we are allies with Israel. Perhaps if our soldiers rebuild Iraq and treat the citizens there with respect, we can convince them we aren't as bad as they were led to believe. I don't have the answer...
What would you have America and it's allies do; pull out of Iraq? I think the government of Iraq would crumble and another despot would be in charge, that or another terrorist organization. Should America have gone over to Iraq... too late to make that call, we're there now.
I understand what you're saying. I agree with the sentiment, but differ in the best resolution to the problem.
BACK TO THE THREAD
I don't think WW III is immient. Hezbollah attacked Israel. Israel responds. Hezbollah responds. Isreal responds again.... end of war for another few years with terrorism continuning the whole time.
Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:36 pm
My prediction, Israel spends a few months in Lebenon, pound the crap of of hezbollah, cleans out a couple thousand rockets, and then leaves. People in the ME will be pissed, suicide bombers will cite this as the reason they do what they do, so in other words, things will go back to being the way they've always been. It's not like Israel is going to lose any 'goodwill' or anything. No one is going to jump in really. Who wants to get their clock cleaned? It's one thing for some nutjob to wear a bomb on a bus, but governments have their own reasons to hold the status quo, namely that nobody likes to be the 'The Grand Sultan Of Rubble'
Now give it a few years though, when Iran (and inevitably a few others) develop nukes. Israel is small, very small geographically. 4-5 well placed nukes could effectively annihilate them. This is what I think Iran and others are working toward, and won't risk having their plans smashed prior to then.
Now give it a few years though, when Iran (and inevitably a few others) develop nukes. Israel is small, very small geographically. 4-5 well placed nukes could effectively annihilate them. This is what I think Iran and others are working toward, and won't risk having their plans smashed prior to then.
Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:46 pm
Please, US "torture" for prisoners of war is nothing compared to real torture. Yes, it isn't pleasant but it is far from torture. Are we supposed to give these guys rooms in your local Hilton?
Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:02 am
Maybe, we're the good guys after all.
Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:14 am
Originally posted by Major SONAR
In war, civilians die. An unfortunate side effect of war, but it happens. Lately, (say in the last 25 years), our government has made serious attempts to not kill innocent civilians. While terrorists do the opposite.
Ah so that's what they were doing when they developed cluster bombs then used them over Iraq. Whether or not they were targeted upwards of 47,000 civilians in iraq have been killed by allied bombing. Considering how shit the iraqui military was I can't see that those kind of casualties are justifiable. The attitude is that it doesn't matter who dies as long as it's not an allied soldier and that attitude is plain wrong.
Originally posted by Major SONAR
Let's see... it's okay to target civilians INTENTIONALLY, AS LONG AS YOU KILL LESS OF THEM, THEN BOMBING THEM UNINTENTIONALLY and killing more. Okay...
Nope I don't think either of them, are right. I am just dog tired of having a huge media hoo haa about the one while they conveniently turn a blind eye to the other.
Originally posted by Major SONAR
I don't know about you, but I would rather dress up in orange jumpsuits and be kept in a pen than to be ACTUALLY TORTURED and then BEHEADED! I would rather be humiliated, than beaten or electrocuted, etc. That's your call, but I would rather be a war prisioner in an American or British prison. (As opposed to a war prisioner of any terrorist organization). To each his own I guess... after all this is a war.
In December 2005, Amnesty International published the account of Juma Al Dossary, a 32-year-old Bahraini national. Al Dossary says in three years he has been interrogated some 600 times, fed rotten food, beaten many times (by up to eight guards at once), made to walk on broken glass and pushed so that his face hit the glass shards, made to walk on barbed wire, and has had cigarettes put out on his body. He also reports frequent sexual assaults and other degrading treatment, similar to what has been reported from Abu Ghraib.
Ah yes no torture there. Ooh and Abu Ghraib I almost forgot about that:
http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/news_2005-05-01.html
Don't be confused by the jumpsuits. X-Ray is not an american prison those men are/have been held without trial, without legal representation and rountinely tortured at the very least using the so called 'acceptable' forms of psychologigal torture such as sleep deprivation. The last one of these your press actually used as an 'on the lighter side' story talking about prisoners being played barney the dinosaur song at full volume 24/7. It might sound funny but try staying awake for 48 hours or longer and see how funny you find it. Psychological torture is still torture...
Originally posted by Major SONAR
I think they may be misguided and using the wrong methods for trying to achieve their goals.
There we agree. I think for the most part they are misguided. Particularly the suicide bombers. I think that there is a central cadre of people that I would regard as evil and they actively engage in warping the minds of young kids essentialy to make them into pet monsters for them to use. These aren't the guys with the bombs strapped to their chests though. These fucks keep their hands clean to make up for the murkiness of their souls.
Originally posted by Major SONAR
Who's to say, what started this whole mess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
I blame the French
Originally posted by Major SONAR
answer about convining terrorists that we aren't demons. Actions speak louder than words and based on our actions, I can understand why they hate us... that and we are allies with Israel. Perhaps if our soldiers rebuild Iraq and treat the citizens there with respect, we can convince them we aren't as bad as they were led to believe. I don't have the answer...
No-one does.
Originally posted by Major SONAR
What would you have America and it's allies do; pull out of Iraq?
I'd settle for us acting like we keep telling everyone else to act. Leading from the front not getting dragged down to a lower level.
Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:17 am
Yes they are tortured at Guantanemo, plus they are held without trial for years. Both are against the constitution, and against the Geneva convention.
Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:00 am
Originally posted by Alofwar
Yes they are tortured at Guantanemo, plus they are held without trial for years. Both are against the constitution, and against the Geneva convention.
To me the detainees are not POW's they are terrorists. Therefore, the Geneva Convention should not have to apply to them.
Simple as that.
But, if you wish to call them POW's here is a little fact for you:
Under international law, POWs can be held until the armed conflict has ended. The US claims to be applying the same duration to the people it is detaining. Once the war on terrorism has ended, the U.S. is obliged to return them to their countries of origin or charge them with crimes. Since the "War on Terror" is not a declared war against a specific state, it is unknown when that would be, and leaves open the possibility of detainees being held indefinitely.
--
Boo-hoo! The terrorists are getting tortured, oh the humanity!
Fuck them.
