Judge Hades Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 As I said, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It is all relative to the cultures involved and the ocnflict.
mkreku Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Sometimes while defending itself there is some collateral damage, which is regrettable. Why do americans always refer to the killing of thousands of innocent people as "collateral damage"? Gee, 9/11 was just "collateral damage" in the war against imperialism. The real target was the Pentagon, but they missed. It is naive to think they're just defending themselves. Do you remember a few days after 9/11 when America demanded the entire world should hold a silent moment to honor the victims of the tragedy? Ok, I'm fine with that. But how many times has anyone demanded that we hold a silent moment for all the innocent bystanders that have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Americans only count american lives as being worth something. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Darth Jebus Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 Terrorism is a symptom of a much larger social malady. It can not be combated by amassing half a million troops on a border then toppling a government. In fact, that creates more terrorism, IMO. The current admininstration has a Cold War mentality, which would be great if the enemy was another super power. This enemy is not. This enemy hides within the shadows, and then strikes at men, women and children who are grocery shopping, eating lunch, touring a museum, or just going to work. Therefore, I've always believed the way to combat terrorism was a two-pronged attack. On the strategic front, you give the intelligence community and military special ops the resources and support they need to fight within those same shadows. Have those terrorists not know who to trust. Have our agents be everyone and no one at the same time. I'm not saying that's not going on, but by open armed invasion, you alienate the same nations that could help us the MOST in hunting these masterminds down. That's why, diplomatically, we should make nice with our allies if only to provide a cover for what's really going on beneath the surface. These leaders, who would otherwise be hesitant to cooperate openly with the US, would be more willing to support us in private. As it stands right now, just about every world leader that supported the war in Iraq is fighting for his political life. Including Bush.
mkreku Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 As a side note: Do you know which is the only country in the world that's been found guilty of terrorism, according to International laws, in the International Court of Justice? The US of A. In 1986 they concluded that USA was guilty of using terrorist methods against Nicaragua and ordered them to stop killing innocent people and mining Nicaraguan waters (among other things). They were also ordered to pay damages to Nicaragua. Now the good part: being too proud of admitting their errors (as I have noticed quite a few americans on this board are) they refused and used their veto in UN Security Council to stop a resolution that would have forced ALL countries to obey international laws. Quite sad, really. And after doing such a thing, the Americans later claim the UN is too weak.. Gee, I wonder why. Source: http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inusframe.htm USA has used their veto (a veto is a UN stopping power, only granted to the five biggest nations in the world: USA, Russia, China, UK and France) more times than all the other nations in the world combined. That means, they have stopped the UN from making resolutions more times than any other nation in the world. Let me quote a few examples: 1972: Hundreds of Lebanese and Syrians are killed in air attacks by Israel in response to the killing of 11 athletes at the Olympic Games. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning the air raids. 1981: The USA orchestrates a campaign of economic pressure against Tanzania, demanding persistently behind the scenes that Tanzania change its internal economic policies to suit American companies. The USA vetoes a number of United Nations resolutions: The first promoting co-operative movements in developing countries (123 to 1 votes). The second affirming the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes (126 to 1). 1982: The USA vetoes four United Nations resolutions concerning South Africa and apartheid: The ratification of the convention on the suppression and punishment of apartheid (voted by 124 to 1); Promoting international action against apartheid (141 to 1); Against apartheid in sports (138 to 1); Cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa (134 to 1). 2003: For the 12th consecutive year, the United Nations overwhelmingly votes to end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba. The USA vetos the resolution (passed by a record 179 to 3 - Israel and the Marshall Islands also voting against). The USA continues to ignore world opinion and carries on with the embargo. Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membs...to/vetosubj.htm "Even with its faults, the United Nations is not a few people in an office - it is the world community. It is the rest of the world - the 94% of the world's population that is not from the USA. By damning and ignoring the United Nations, the USA is snubbing the majority of the world's population. This will not make the USA more popular around the world." Remember that terrorism is not an action, but a reaction. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Gorth Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Terrorism is a symptom of a much larger social malady. It can not be combated by amassing half a million troops on a border then toppling a government. In fact, that creates more terrorism, IMO. The first four words in the above sentence are just about correct. Otherwise, this thread as a whole, reveals a lot of ignorance in people who should be able to be better informed. Terrorism is a symptom right. How do you remove it ? You figure out the cause and then remove the cause. And before another ignorant hillbilly suggest that the cause of terrorism is terrorist organisations, the answer is wrong answer. The most frequent cause of terrorism is hopelesness. For the last couple of thousands of years, most guerilla activity has been waged by a hopelessly outclassed side against a superior side. Spartacus burned, raped and pillaged his way through the roman empire when there was no hope of victory left. The spanish waged a brutal guerilla war against napoleonic occupation forces a few centuries ago. The afghan mujahedin waged an equally atrocious "campaign of terror" against the soviet forces (funny, nobody complained about terrorists then) and finally, the palestinians, driven from their homes and farmland, living in refugee camps with no future has no means of striking back, except using everything at hand, including their own bodies as a weapon against all representatives of a hated occupation force. The Nazis recruited people without hope, hamas recruits people without hope, a dozen south american guerillas recruit people without hope. If somebody truly wanted to stop terror, they would offer the human resources that gets recruited into such organisations a hope for a future. If people can't see that, then the "war against terror" is already lost. It's called using the brain instead of more guns (using lots of guns in the first place accomplishing absolutely nothing for world peace). <_> “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Dennis Presnell Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 The only real solution is to wipe out both people and peace will be achieved. Hmmm.. didn't you just say it makes you sick that Palestinian children are killed with US made arms. Which is it? Wipe them all out, or its wrong to kill the innocent children of Palestine? Or maybe wipe them out, just as long as its not with US made arms? Or wipe them all out, except for Palestinian kids. Once again you reveal yourself. You don't really give a crap, your just looking for excuse to dump on the US and Israel, and your not above using the imagery of dead children to do it.
Dennis Presnell Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 Sometimes while defending itself there is some collateral damage, which is regrettable. Why do americans always refer to the killing of thousands of innocent people as "collateral damage"? Gee, 9/11 was just "collateral damage" in the war against imperialism. The real target was the Pentagon, but they missed. It is naive to think they're just defending themselves. Do you remember a few days after 9/11 when America demanded the entire world should hold a silent moment to honor the victims of the tragedy? Ok, I'm fine with that. But how many times has anyone demanded that we hold a silent moment for all the innocent bystanders that have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Americans only count american lives as being worth something. I can tell your a Michael Moore fan. You just took a quote of mine about collateral damage out of context, to make a point about how Americans are garbage and they don't care about anybody's lives but there own, when in the same post I can be quoted as saying: "You can sit back and only concern yourself with American lives, which is wrong." Which was said after Hades suggested that we should only concern ourselves with the lives of our own people. Not to mention that I only got involved in the discussion after he suggested genocide. You have revealed yourself as well. I'm through with the both of you.
mkreku Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 I can tell your a Michael Moore fan. You just took a quote of mine about collateral damage out of context, to make a point about how Americans are garbage and they don't care about anybody's lives but there own, when in the same post I can be quoted as saying: "You can sit back and only concern yourself with American lives, which is wrong." Which was said after Hades suggested that we should only concern ourselves with the lives of our own people. Not to mention that I only got involved in the discussion after he suggested genocide. You have revealed yourself as well. I'm through with the both of you. You think you can tell anything about me from my posts? Well, let's see, in that case I can say you're the usual ignorant, uneducated american that's totally unaware of the world surrounding what you seem to think is the true center of the universe, America. I bet I am about as right about you as you are about me. American politics are all about the safety of american lives, not the safety of the world. You can either agree or disagree with that claim. Your post, however, did not adress any of the actual claims I made. Maybe the quote is out of context, maybe not. But if it were you should have explained how you wanted people to interpret what you wrote. I've never claimed americans are "garbage". I've claimed that american foreign policies are garbage. I think american foreign politics are garbage. I think the american people is exactly the same human species as the rest of the world, worth neither more or less than anyone else. As a side note: no, I am not a Michael Moore fan. I've seen Bowling For Columbine, which was an entertaining movie, but I haven't read any of his books or seen anything else he's made. I am, however, looking forward to seeing Fahrenheit 911 after I read that Quentin Tarantino watched that movie at Cannes and it made him cry openly. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Phosphor Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 I agree with Gorth. The current "war on terror" is lost, killing and imprisoning terrorists is not going to change a thing, new terrorists will take the place of the fallen and take up the task with even more vigour and determination. The US-led efforts to eradicate terrorism will only make it worse, which is indeed happening. Violence begets violence. The US fight on terror will become the next Israel vs Palestine, a long, bloody war in which each side continues retaliation and both sides just make it worse and worse. Like Hades said, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It will only be when nations, organisations, religions etc. no longer feel threatened from a superior power that terrorism will diminish (it'll never cease, let's be realistic about that).
Dennis Presnell Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 I say you're the usual ignorant, uneducated american that's totally unaware of the world surrounding what you seem to think is the true center of the universe, America. I bet I am right about you. American politics are all about the safety of american lives, not the safety of the world. I've claimed americans are "garbage". I've claimed that american foreign policies are garbage. Dude that's pretty rough... Man I never insulted you or your country men, or your goverment. "Maybe the quote is out of context, maybe not". Or how about yes I absolutly took a quote out of context to make you look like a jerk.
mkreku Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 I say you're the usual ignorant, uneducated american that's totally unaware of the world surrounding what you seem to think is the true center of the universe, America. I bet I am right about you. American politics are all about the safety of american lives, not the safety of the world. I've claimed americans are "garbage". I've claimed that american foreign policies are garbage. Dude that's pretty rough... Man I never insulted you or your country men, or your goverment. "Maybe the quote is out of context, maybe not". Or how about yes I absolutly took a quote out of context to make you look like a jerk. I honestly hope your artistic levels far exceeds your maturity level. You write some moronic crap yourself and claim to quote me? That's not taking something out of context, that's forgery. No facts, no arguments, no nothing except lies. Great job. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Judge Hades Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 The only real solution is to wipe out both people and peace will be achieved. Hmmm.. didn't you just say it makes you sick that Palestinian children are killed with US made arms. Which is it? Wipe them all out, or its wrong to kill the innocent children of Palestine? Or maybe wipe them out, just as long as its not with US made arms? Or wipe them all out, except for Palestinian kids. Once again you reveal yourself. You don't really give a crap, your just looking for excuse to dump on the US and Israel, and your not above using the imagery of dead children to do it. Yes it makes me sick to see children die but that the only way I can see peace happening in that region. Whenever humans get involved over something, may it be resources or religion, conflict, pain, and death is the end result. The human species is very self destructive and why we won't last as a viable force on this planet much beyond this century.
Nartwak Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 American politics are all about the safety of american lives, not the safety of the world.Damn, those dirty motherf***ers, looking out for themselves first. Gee, 9/11 was just "collateral damage" in the war against imperialism. The real target was the Pentagon, but they missed.Oh, thats real cute.
Judge Hades Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 American politics are all about the safety of american lives, not the safety of the world.Damn, those dirty motherf***ers, looking out for themselves first. Gee, 9/11 was just "collateral damage" in the war against imperialism. The real target was the Pentagon, but they missed.Oh, thats real cute. But very true.
Nartwak Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 It's not true retard, the Sears Towers were intentional targets.
Judge Hades Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 World Trade Center, not the Sears Tower. IF I remember right the Sears Tower is in Chicago. WTC were targets, but secondary targets. I think the primaries would be the Pentagon and the White House. There was civilian casualties and that in of itself abhorrent, regardless they were intentional or not. That goes for US's Israeli's tactics as well.
mkreku Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 American politics are all about the safety of american lives, not the safety of the world.Damn, those dirty motherf***ers, looking out for themselves first. Gee, 9/11 was just "collateral damage" in the war against imperialism. The real target was the Pentagon, but they missed.Oh, thats real cute. The level of the discussion on this board is horribly low. In fact it's not worthy of being called a discussion. Name-calling, false quoting, lying.. it's all there. The only thing missing are the "we can bomb you to the stone-age" remarks.. If you're trying to hurt me it would be smarter to use facts to challenge my statements. This childish behaviour doesn't quite work (to say the least) and only increases the doubts I have about the american school system. "It's not true retard, the Sears Towers were intentional targets." - Nartwak Got to love this last quote! Hahaha! It's like when Bush thought the Talibans were a rock group.. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Judge Hades Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 I have doubts about the American School System and I actually seen it first hand.
Nartwak Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 World Trade Center Yeah, that's right, thanks Hade_One. I'm fevered, I can't think straight. WTC were targets, but secondary targets. That has no bearing. They were intentionally killed. regardless they were intentional or not. What? Intention has no bearing on the matter at all?
Nartwak Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 The level of the discussion on this board is horribly low. In fact it's not worthy of being called a discussion. Name-calling, false quoting, lying.. it's all there. The only thing missing are the "we can bomb you to the stone-age" remarks.. If I were discussing anything with you, I'd be civil. I'm here to call you names asswipe.
mkreku Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 If I were discussing anything with you, I'd be civil. I'm here to call you names asswipe. Well, we all do what we're capable of, I guess. Keep it up, you're doing a great job! Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Judge Hades Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 Intention has no bearing, only the results. Such as Israeli use a high explosive rocket to kill a Hammas leader, but in that process killed and maimed a lot of innocent lives. Israel should be held full accountable for each person harmed and killed. The same goes for the Al Queda and the Taliban who killed thousands on the WTC attack. One had not the intention and the otherone did, but both are equally guilty and both should be equally punished.
Nartwak Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 Intention has no bearing, only the results. I do not think so. Should a person who accidently kills someone be charged with murder? What of manslaughter? One had not the intention and the otherone did, but both are equally guilty and both should be equally punished. That seems unjust to me.
Judge Hades Posted June 17, 2004 Posted June 17, 2004 Unjust as it might sound tell that to the victims of Israeli attacks such as that.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now