Is Bin Laden a tool for the US election?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 19:27
VIEWED: 12002
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Terrorists are terrorists, whether they are Muslim, Israeli, Serbian, Russian or American.
Anyone who targets a civilian population for death or injury or who destroys basic civilian infrastructure is a terrorist. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I care about the justification, whether it's as noble as "freedom" or as trivial as "He started it".
The massacre of Colombian civilians in a church, the massacre of East Timorese, Sudanese, Beslan children and parents in a school, or workers in the Twin Towers ALL deserve our outrage. One is not more deserving than another, and one action is not more culpable than another. If you are going to be anti-terrorist, just make sure you spread the blame WHEREVER it belongs.
I would generally agree with this. Actively trageting civilians for intimidation purposes should not be acceptable. In some cases infrastructure which has both military and civilian uses, such as bridges, electrical grids or transportation networks, could be considered a legitimate target of war.
Also, unfortunately, some military or para-military forces have no compunction about hiding within and firing from civilian areas, knowing that any response will cause civilian casualties.
Loss of military ethics has always been a particular problem when major powers fight proxy wars, since control over the proxies actions can never be as tight as over one's own forces.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Anyone who is Pro-Democracy, Pro-Freedom, Pro-America, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Capitalism and Anti-terrorist, Anti Islamafascist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Big Government, Anti-Dumbass ---- Is a Neo-Nazi Fascist Bigot and All-around Evil.
Well, I can't subscribe to being particularly Pro-Israel. I think they've pretty much screwed the pooch with their repressive policies towards the Palestinians.
What really interests me, though, is the tendency of some folk here to think that just because you disagree with them on some things, you disagree on everything.
For example, if I don't believe all these 'Missle hit the Pentagon', 'We're just in it for the oil/cheap labor/power', 'Bush lied about WMD just so we could invade Iraq' conspiracy theories, I must be pro-Bush. But that's not it at all. I don't believe them because they're pure bull.
No one ever mentions Bush's pandering to the religious right on abortion rights or gender issues. No one mentions stem-cell research or cloning. No one mentions health care. I have a stand on those issues, and it's not pro-Bush. I guess they'd rather live in their 'evil empire' fantasies than deal with what I consider real issues.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Anyone who is Pro-Democracy, Pro-Freedom, Pro-America, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Capitalism and Anti-terrorist, Anti Islamafascist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Big Government, Anti-Dumbass ---- Is a Neo-Nazi Fascist Bigot and All-around Evil.
Well, I can't subscribe to being particularly Pro-Israel. I think they've pretty much screwed the pooch with their repressive policies towards the Palestinians.
What really interests me, though, is the tendency of some folk here to think that just because you disagree with them on some things, you disagree on everything.
For example, if I don't believe all these 'Missle hit the Pentagon', 'We're just in it for the oil/cheap labor/power', 'Bush lied about WMD just so we could invade Iraq' conspiracy theories, I must be pro-Bush. But that's not it at all. I don't believe them because they're pure bull.
No one ever mentions Bush's pandering to the religious right on abortion rights or gender issues. No one mentions stem-cell research or cloning. No one mentions health care. I have a stand on those issues, and it's not pro-Bush. I guess they'd rather live in their 'evil empire' fantasies than deal with what I consider real issues.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Well, I agree with you almost 100%, there is one area I don't, but thats healthy IMHO. It's a damn big job being the leader of the Greatest Country in the world (I'm biased..deal with it), I still think National Security is the #1 issue at the moment. All the other things will fall into place once we have achieved that for real.
There are some things I agree with in Bush's new agenda and some I don't. I personally think that the healthcare and retirement savings plan is a good idea. Is it perfect..no. There are still a number of issues regarding it that need to be sorted out, but its a start. I disagree with his stance on Same-Sex unions, or abortion rights (though I think terminating a pregnancy after the first tri-mester for any other reason then the health of the mother is wrong, there are thousands of families waiting to adopt). Stem cell research ban is still beyond me, that one I can't figure out. Cloning Ban --also beyond me LOL.
Pro-America, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Freedom, Pro-Capitalism. Anti-Terrorist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Dumbass
"Let Freedom Reign, death to Islamafascism"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
I'm still suprised at this following but here it goes.
The US has passed a law in wich the parlament (or is it senate?) gives permission to invade The Netherlands should we (I'm Dutch) hold American soldiers there in the International Criminal Court. We are a NATO allie in fact and the US has legalised plans to invade us. Poeple might say 'duh you are holding our poeple.' but they would't be there without reason and if they can't be prooven guilty they will not be sentenced.
What suprises me the most is that no where on the internet or in any other country any mention of this law wich makes this claim kinda dubious. The best I could find was a newsgroup quote, but ask any Dutch person who follows the news. It at least was all over our news.
They're probably talking about either HR 1154 or HR 2050; two pieces of proposed legislation that address specifically the International Criminal Court and courts of universal jurisdiction in general. Both have been sitting in the House Committee on International Relations for over a year with no action. To see them go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ enter HR1154 or HR2050 in the "Bill Number" box and click "Search".
Then there is one law "22 USC Sec. 262-1" that prohibits extradition of a US citizen to the International Criminal Court, but there's nothing about declaring war. I think this link'll work.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+7
01+0++%28%27international%20criminal%20court%27%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I suspect that the old cold warriors who originated these policies 30 or 40 years ago went in with eyes open but holding their noses, because they understood there was no real win available. They probably considered right-wing dictators over Communist dictators the lesser of two evils.
Considering that the places where the leftist guerillas won, Cuba and Vietnam, are not exactly hotbeds of freedom either, I'm not sure those old commie fighters weren't correct. Since we're trading anicdotal stories... One of my co-workers is originally from Vietnam. In 1975 his father was put in a "re-education" camp for 8 years by the communist regime and was one of the lucky few to get out alive. It wasn't until '94 that they were able to get out of the country and come here.
And so we have two nations-
Colombia, where they didn't have elections until recently, and most of the population is dirt-poor and illiterate, with no runnning water, no medical service, and where people are gunned down, disappeared, or tortured to death in jail...
...and Cuba, where they don't have free elections but most people have an decent standard of living despite a US embargo, a 90% literacy rate, running water, and medical service * ... and people are disappeared. (I haven't heard of much torture in Cuban jails, have you?) (*Please see your UN rankings on human development for the statistics)
Hmmm... which to choose? Tough choice, I'll admit that!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There is little doubt that the US could have opposed all the dictatorships that existed in the world since 1950.
It would be better if if the USA had simply not PROMOTED so many dictatorships!
Quote:
Cuba, now over 50 years in the grip of Communist slavery
With a living standard better than most other Latin Americna countries.
Quote:
Nicaraugua, which saw a fight to freedom in the '80s result in free elections in the '90s
And a dire rise in hunger, homelessness, infant mortality, and illiteracy once the country became safe for capitalism.
Quote:
Poland, South Korea, Czech Republic, Salvakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Estonia, Kuwait, Egypt, Nicaraugua, Chile, Afganistan, Japan, Germany (East and West), France, Mexico, Pakistan, Phillipines, South Africa, Guana, Panama, and Free Iraq...as you say: "the list goes on". These are a few of the nations and a few of the billions of people who have benefited from American policy since 1945.
I can't say much about the other countries, but I have realtives in Poland AND in Hungary, and while they like free elections they are not so happy with capitalism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Terrorists are terrorists, whether they are Muslim, Israeli, Serbian, Russian or American.
Anyone who targets a civilian population for death or injury or who destroys basic civilian infrastructure is a terrorist. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I care about the justification, whether it's as noble as "freedom" or as trivial as "He started it".
The massacre of Colombian civilians in a church, the massacre of East Timorese, Sudanese, Beslan children and parents in a school, or workers in the Twin Towers ALL deserve our outrage. One is not more deserving than another, and one action is not more culpable than another. If you are going to be anti-terrorist, just make sure you spread the blame WHEREVER it belongs.
I would generally agree with this. Actively trageting civilians for intimidation purposes should not be acceptable. In some cases infrastructure which has both military and civilian uses, such as bridges, electrical grids or transportation networks, could be considered a legitimate target of war.
I agree with SignyM, it's bad to target innocent civilians in principle. That raises the question, was it wrong to firebomb and nuke enemy cities in WWII? Lot's of our targets weren't infastructure, just the houses of workers, the rationale being that they'd be to demoralized to make weapons. Do you guys think that was right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?
And since we charge Osama bin Laden with terrorism because he inspires and funds terrorists (although he hasn't actually blown himself up yet) then individuals or groups that inspire and fund OTHERS to target civilians are also terrorists?
I just want to mkae sure that I have this PERFECTLY clear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We haven't had Americans in the ICC so there would be no reason for it to be working.
It didnt exactly say declaring war, just occupying the space where the ICC is and take the prisoner out. No matter how you turn it it's still a breach of soverenty of a NATO allie. Even Tony Blair was said to have been dead set against it.
Personally I don't quite care about it (other then that they have plans to invade my country wich my poeple went to war for over 80 years for(long story wich is irrelevant)) but what strikes me the most is that the US media and most media totally ignores it. I don't think that is right and the poeple who determine who will lead them ought to know what they do, this is actually the first time I met a person online who knew what I was talking about and didn't just dismis it because I coudlt come up with an internet link (thanks for that btw).
But about the terrorist/hero thing. Hitler for example spoke of a train sabotage done by the Dutch resistance an act of terrorism. Nelson Mandela was also called a terrorist by the apartheid regime. But reckonizing them as actual terrorists would be falling for the ploy Hitler and the apartheid government set up.
They are not terrorists, poeple like Bin Laden en Hamas have no intention of trying to kill as few as possible poeple to get their goal, they want to kill as many heithens as possible. The ANC tried to reach their goal peacefully for 48 years before they even remotely used violence. Hitler had europe in a almost totaletarian lock where you would be caught and arrested if you did the slightest thing against the nazi occupation (my grandfather was sent to a concentrationcamp for looking at some motorcycles.. he escaped though).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
China was building its worker paradise on the backs of its billion slaves.
Quote:
We freed China from the thrall of the Comintern and divided our enemies against themselves.
Just so you know, they're still selling Mao statues and busts and revering his tomb over there. They also have an authoritarian, corrupt government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME