Your view on Politics

[kirottu]

Actually Meshugger is the one to get drafted since he lives in finland and finland has mandatory drafting system.

That's tough luck, man. Come live in America. It's not mandatory here yet. (But really, Finland has an army? )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, finland has an army. They fought against russia three times and succeeded in keeping our borders and independency.

[B5C]

Yes, finland has an army. They fought against russia three times and succeeded in keeping our borders and independency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Really? You got your arse kicked during the Winter War and you had to join the Nazis in 41 to regaign all the land you lost from the Winter War.

[kirottu]

Yes, finland has an army. They fought against russia three times and succeeded in keeping our borders and independency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really? You got your arse kicked during the Winter War and you had to join the Nazis in 41 to regaign all the land you lost from the Winter War.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps I

[213374U]

<long post>

It's nice of you to be so partial. I see nothing in all of those articles but supposed abuses. Nothing has been proven so far. As for the violations of human rights, all I see is luxury deprivation, but no actual physical abuses. Extracted the following from one of your articles:

 

His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

 

They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth.

Sorry, but terrorists and POWs aren't afforded luxuries. It's bad enough that common prisoners are. But terrorists? Don't make me freaking laugh.

 

I'm sure there are innocent people being held in Guantanamo, and it's unfortunate. But don't forget that the majority of them are probably not and were locked up for a good reason. It's unfair, but life isn't fair. There are lots of innocent people being held up in regular jails too because of a flawed system but I don't hear anyone complain.

What's the alternative, releasing them? I'd rather not have that.

 

There's a common misconception that war has to be "legal" and "humane". Do you realize the hypocrisy in "legalizing" the mass murder of people?

War is a crude and unlawful thing. Welcome to the real world.

 

Oh, and yes. The French resistance during WWII was a terrorist organization, too. It doesn't matter that they only terrorized the nazis, or that they had a good reason for doing so. It doesn't change what they were. What are you trying to prove?

[Lucius]

Yes, finland has an army. They fought against russia three times and succeeded in keeping our borders and independency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Really? You got your arse kicked during the Winter War and you had to join the Nazis in 41 to regaign all the land you lost from the Winter War.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course they have an army, what did you expect? Besides, they fought against impossible odds in WW2 and could probably only have lasted a few months when they gained German support, you know what they say; the enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?

Really, the only ones getting their asses kicked here are the Russians, considering their vastly superior numbers.

[Aishur-Rim-Nisheshu]

The Finns have all rights to be proud of their stand in the Finnish-Russo War. Manneheim's "do more with less" doctrine is one of the elective reading for the SAF SCSC.

[SteveThaiBinh]

They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

Sorry, but terrorists and POWs aren't afforded luxuries. It's bad enough that common prisoners are. But terrorists? Don't make me freaking laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see the luxuries in this list, with the possible exception of food sent from outside. In addition, these are men who are being detained supposedly for public safety reasons; they are not being punished for crimes, because they haven't been convicted of crimes. Because there's no evidence against them, only 'intelligence'.

 

I'm sure there are innocent people being held in Guantanamo, and it's unfortunate. But don't forget that the majority of them are probably not and were locked up for a good reason. It's unfair, but life isn't fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From an extreme point of view, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that means everyone in Guantanamo is innocent. Perhaps a more reasoned response is to criticise the Guantanamo detentions because they were made on the basis of intelligence, not evidence. A lot of people don't really understand what 'intelligence' means in this context, in part because the issue is deliberately confused by governments. When a UK report about intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was published, we learned that intelligence is essentially what some drunk bloke overheard at a party, but written down on official headed notepaper. That anyone could be imprisoned at all on the basis of such rubbish is astonishing. Intelligence has only one function - it is a guide to investigators to help them know where to look for evidence. To use it as though it were evidence is criminal, in my view.

 

There are lots of innocent people being held up in regular jails too because of a flawed system but I don't hear anyone complain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you're not listening very hard. Lots of people complain, unfortunately we're not listened to. That's part of society's response to crime - degrade the prisoners, dehumanise them, and ridicule anyone who expresses concern for their welfare. No wonder ex-prisoners find it so hard to reintegrate into society when they're released, and no wonder the rate of reoffending is so high.

 

There's a common misconception that war has to be "legal" and "humane". Do you realize the hypocrisy in "legalizing" the mass murder of people?

War is a crude and unlawful thing. Welcome to the real world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

War cannot really be legal or humane, no. But there is a difference between a war fought for self-defense and a war of aggression and conquest, even though the difference can sometimes be hard to see.

 

The conduct of individuals during war can be humane or not, I think. This is a big debate in the UK now, over the suicides or murders of several recruits at an army camp. Is it possible to teach soldiers to use brute force without brutalising them as people? I don't think we've discovered the best way yet, as shown by the human rights abuses committed by UK and US troops in Iraq. But as war probably isn't going to go away, we need to make the effort.

[WITHTEETH]

Yes, finland has an army. They fought against russia three times and succeeded in keeping our borders and independency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Really? You got your arse kicked during the Winter War and you had to join the Nazis in 41 to regaign all the land you lost from the Winter War.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course they have an army, what did you expect? Besides, they fought against impossible odds in WW2 and could probably only have lasted a few months when they gained German support, you know what they say; the enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?

Really, the only ones getting their asses kicked here are the Russians, considering their vastly superior numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Xomeon guys, they lost 1/3 of their population to that war, lets not talk about who wopn our lost. <_<

[kirottu]

Yes, finland has an army. They fought against russia three times and succeeded in keeping our borders and independency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Really? You got your arse kicked during the Winter War and you had to join the Nazis in 41 to regaign all the land you lost from the Winter War.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course they have an army, what did you expect? Besides, they fought against impossible odds in WW2 and could probably only have lasted a few months when they gained German support, you know what they say; the enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?

Really, the only ones getting their asses kicked here are the Russians, considering their vastly superior numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Xomeon guys, they lost 1/3 of their population to that war, lets not talk about who wopn our lost. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1/3? No country in ww2 had that kind of death retes.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Xomeon guys, they lost 1/3 of their population to that war, lets not talk about who wopn our lost."

 

Who lost one third of their population? We lost some 22 000 in Winter War and 60 000 in the Continuation War. That is/was not one third of Finland's population.

[213374U]

I don't see the luxuries in this list, with the possible exception of food sent from outside.  In addition, these are men who are being detained supposedly for public safety reasons; they are not being punished for crimes, because they haven't been convicted of crimes.  Because there's no evidence against them, only 'intelligence'.

As a luxury I understand anything that isn't necessary for survival. Canteens, the text of the Geneva Convention, and anything related to religion are luxuries under that definition. They aren't going to die or suffer permanent damage in a physical or psychical way due to deprivation of these things.

 

Plus, while they have not been granted the official POW status, they are de facto POWs, many of which are suspected of terrorism. Granted, they are not doing things by the book. I already admitted that. But again, would you rather have them released? There just isn't an easy way out of this situation and the solution dictated by ethics or law is against common sense.

 

 

From an extreme point of view, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that means everyone in Guantanamo is innocent.  Perhaps a more reasoned response is to criticise the Guantanamo detentions because they were made on the basis of intelligence, not evidence.  A lot of people don't really understand what 'intelligence' means in this context, in part because the issue is deliberately confused by governments.  When a UK report about intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was published, we learned that intelligence is essentially what some drunk bloke overheard at a party, but written down on official headed notepaper.  That anyone could be imprisoned at all on the basis of such rubbish is astonishing.  Intelligence has only one function - it is a guide to investigators to help them know where to look for evidence.  To use it as though it were evidence is criminal, in my view.

For starters, people are detained on the basis of "intelligence" everyday. They become suspects, they are interrogated, and if further evidence or indications of evidence isn't found, they are released. But anyway.

 

Obviously, the easy way to solve this is to have a 100% legalistic approach to the matter. But I find it funny that the only part of the western culture those people seem to accept is the part that supposedly would protect them from this situation. They don't even have that kind of laws in their countries, and they sure as hell wouldn't respect the so vaunted Geneva Convention if they captured any soldiers. They don't really believe in all of that. Draw your own conclusions.

 

 

Well, you're not listening very hard.  Lots of people complain, unfortunately we're not listened to.  That's part of society's response to crime - degrade the prisoners, dehumanise them, and ridicule anyone who expresses concern for their welfare.  No wonder ex-prisoners find it so hard to reintegrate into society when they're released, and no wonder the rate of reoffending is so high.

Now, now. Are you trying to say that the same amount of popular action against a flawed justice is being taken against the situation in Guantanamo? Please.

 

And sorry, but a children rapist and murderer deserves nothing except for perhaps constant whippings. I am tired of seeing murderers, wife beaters, rapists, and other assorted scum get away with sentences of five years. So don't tell me that prisoners are degraded and their welfare is being threatened when all they have to do in prison is sit back, watch TV, have warm and nice meals and let society fund it all.

 

And as for the last part of the paragraph, yeah. I guess it really isn't the prisoners' fault. Nope. It's society's for not paying them accomodations in the Ritz Hotel so they aren't stigmatized. The current penal and justice systems are full of flaws, but being too hard on the prisoners isn't one of them.

 

 

War cannot really be legal or humane, no.  But there is a difference between a war fought for self-defense and a war of aggression and conquest, even though the difference can sometimes be hard to see.

A fictional difference. Is there a reason with enough moral strength to warrant mass murder? Even national sovereignty? The only reason I can think of that could justify taking another life would be self-defense. But seldom any wars are fought with mass annihilation as a goal. And If taking lives for any other reason is wrong, the only ethically acceptable option is unconditional surrender, to avoid both own and enemy casualties.

 

War can't be justified through morality. That is a contradiction. Economic, social, political, or territorial reasons are the only things that can explain (not justify since that has moral implications) a war. One can only hope that the risks outweigh the gains.

 

 

Is it possible to teach soldiers to use brute force without brutalising them as people?  I don't think we've discovered the best way yet, as shown by the human rights abuses committed by UK and US troops in Iraq.  But as war probably isn't going to go away, we need to make the effort.

No, I don't think it's possible to do that. Violence is something that changes the mindset of both who exercises it and who suffers it. No amount of training can, in my opinion, make every soldier impervious to the effects of both using violence as an instrument and being the target of the same thing. But I agree, that shouldn't stop us from trying to minimize the effects.

[Revan_2005]

I am a BIG conservative. i belive that that homosexuality is wrong and gross.however being a christian i will show no hate or rejection toward homosexuals.i beleive abortion is wrong and it is no better than murder. i also refuse to accept the evolution theroy and i dont think humans are animals. i belive that bush is doing great and i urge my friends to pray for him.i also pray for liberals and john kerry so they might realize the truth.

[Revan_2005]

i'm a liberal. i think people should do be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others. other than that i believe in free speach; even if it hurt others...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

even if it means defying our constitution and causing a huge uproar? whats with u liberals why do yall hate the god who loves u so much?

[Lucius]

Why should they believe in a God at all? It's up to the individual person to chose what they believe in.

 

Me, I'm my own master, I pray to noone except perhaps in a very drunken state, I can't really account for everything that goes on there. ^_^

[SteveThaiBinh]

As a luxury I understand anything that isn't necessary for survival. Canteens, the text of the Geneva Convention, and anything related to religion are luxuries under that definition. They aren't going to die or suffer permanent damage in a physical or psychical way due to deprivation of these things.

 

Plus, while they have not been granted the official POW status, they are de facto POWs, many of which are suspected of terrorism. Granted, they are not doing things by the book. I already admitted that. But again, would you rather have them released? There just isn't an easy way out of this situation and the solution dictated by ethics or law is against common sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, if there is no evidence against them that will stand up in a court of law, I would rather have them released. I am not afraid of these people, however much Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair would like me to be. My common sense tells me that injustice breeds injustice, and 'not doing things by the book' is a lovely euphemism for injustice. What's happening in Guantanamo Bay is that the US government is trying to sell the world a version of reality in which there are certain people who are not people, who have no rights or dignity, and are covered by no laws. I reject this outright.

 

As for canteens, what lies underneath this is human dignity. Expressing your religious beliefs, if you have any, contact with other human beings, perhaps even earning privileges with your own efforts, these are the things that make people human in their own eyes and the eyes of others. If you are proved to have commited a crime, it is right and reasonable that you be denied freedom to be part of wider society. But attempting to deny prisoners everything that makes them human looks a lot like petty spite to me, and it dishonours the US government and people that they allow it to continue.

[SteveThaiBinh]

For starters, people are detained on the basis of "intelligence" everyday. They become suspects, they are interrogated, and if further evidence or indications of evidence isn't found, they are released. But anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Detaining people temporarily while investigations are pursued is a reasonable compromise between protecting individual human rights and protecting wider society. Detaining people permanently without access to legal redress is not.

 

Obviously, the easy way to solve this is to have a 100% legalistic approach to the matter. But I find it funny that the only part of the western culture those people seem to accept is the part that supposedly would protect them from this situation. They don't even have that kind of laws in their countries, and they sure as hell wouldn't respect the so vaunted Geneva Convention if they captured any soldiers. They don't really believe in all of that. Draw your own conclusions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Human rights are universal, as are the Geneva Conventions. They were inspired by Western culture, but not Western culture alone, and they no longer belong to the West in any sense. Citizens of all countries struggle to force their governments to respect human rights, some with more success than others.

 

I'm not sure which countries you are referring to, so perhaps you could specify. However, many countries do respect the Geneva Conventions, or at least can be pressured to do so. By ignoring the conventions, the US has severely weakened its own ability to pressure other governments to respect human rights, yet another sad and unnecessary outcome of the Guantanamo Bay fiasco.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I am a BIG conservative. i belive that that homosexuality is wrong and gross.however  being a christian i will show no hate or rejection toward homosexuals.i beleive abortion is wrong and it is no better than murder. i also refuse to accept the evolution theroy and i dont think humans are animals. i belive that bush is doing great and i urge my friends to pray for him.i also pray for liberals and john kerry so they might realize the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fully support your right not to be a homosexual, not to have an abortion, and not to believe in evolution. I hope you will never attempt to deny others the right to be homosexual, to have an abortion, or to believe in evolution.

[Baley]

. i belive that bush is doing great and i urge my friends to pray for him.i also pray for liberals and john kerry so they might realize the truth.

 

Doesn't your bible say: Thou shall not kill?

 

Since the american army is killing terorists and civilians alike doesn't that make them unholly <_<

 

PS: I like Steve's avatar so this is a different version:

[SteveThaiBinh]

PS: I like Steve's avatar so this is a different version:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very psychedelic. :D

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Just a little something...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I guess this man is a freedom fighter right?

 

 

and this was a legal attack agaist a enemy?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm... How to deal with criminal acts... Hmmm... Let's see now, I'm not an American citizen, and so if I were to commit a crime in the United States, not only would I have no rights, neither would anyone in my home country who knows me. Sounds about right. And hey, if my crime was big enough, bomb my country! Bomb Canada! And you know what? I once spent a week in Spain, so for good measure bomb them too!

Terrorism is a criminal act, and the proper response is to treat it as one and to try suspect in criminal court. That said, I have few issues with going into Afghanistan because the government at the time had strong connections to Al Quaeda and was likely hiding bin Laden. However, the US government then essentially abandoned the country to the warlords by leaving a very small force behind to then go into Iraq, which had a government with no ties to Al Quaeda and was no threat to American security. Never mind the fact that most of the Sept. 11 highjackers were Saudis, a country that is America's ally.

But that's wandering off the subject of Guantanamo and terrorists. No matter how many people they kill, terrorists are murderers. A criminal offense. By giving them a different status, you are making them more than just criminals.

Another thing... Nice appeal to emotion with that picture of the WTC being hit. Out of curiosity, how many people in Guantanamo were involved with that? When Afghanistan was invaded, how many of the "enemy combatants" were just Afghanis fighting back as best they could against a much stronger force?

[kirottu]

whats with u liberals why do yall hate the god who loves u so much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That deservers a quote:

 

You have no proof!

[213374U]

Yes, if there is no evidence against them that will stand up in a court of law, I would rather have them released.  I am not afraid of these people, however much Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair would like me to be.  My common sense tells me that injustice breeds injustice, and  'not doing things by the book' is a lovely euphemism for injustice.  What's happening in Guantanamo Bay is that the US government is trying to sell the world a version of reality in which there are certain people who are not people, who have no rights or dignity, and are covered by no laws.  I reject this outright.

My bad. I didn't mean to word it in such a manner that it would sound euphemistic. I don't support what's happening in Guantanamo. But I don't condemn it, either. As I said before, there's no easy solution to that.

 

And while it's your choice not to be afraid of those people and you are quite right that the situation there is only a breeding camp for even more terrorism and hate of the US, it's safer to have some of those people locked up.

 

 

As for canteens, what lies underneath this is human dignity.  Expressing your religious beliefs, if you have any, contact with other human beings, perhaps even earning privileges with your own efforts, these are the things that make people human in their own eyes and the eyes of others.

No. Luxuries and the right to religious practice have nothing to do with dignity. I could say that driving around in a Ferrari makes me human in my eyes. Since most people can't afford a Ferrari (myself included), I could argue that this society is violating the dignity of the majority, because it's the system that prevents everyone from having one.

 

 

Citizens of all countries struggle to force their governments to respect human rights, some with more success than others.

That statement is true from a literal standpoint. However, that doesn't mean that in some countries, the majority does as you say. And that is what I was referring to.

 

 

Human rights are universal, as are the Geneva Conventions. They were inspired by Western culture, but not Western culture alone, and they no longer belong to the West in any sense. Citizens of all countries struggle to force their governments to respect human rights, some with more success than others.

I'm not quite so sure. Granted, everyone's a supporter of the concept of innate human rights when it's oneself that's being sent to Guantanamo. But before that, were they? And if they were not, why should they be given a different treatment that what they would give us?

 

 

I'm not sure which countries you are referring to, so perhaps you could specify.  However, many countries do respect the Geneva Conventions, or at least can be pressured to do so.

Um, yeah. While all nations are supposed to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, not all respect them when the time comes. Iraq before the new government was installed is an example of that. I'm not sure what would they do to captured US soldiers in North Korea in the event of a war, either. I'm sure you can find more examples yourself.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

i belive that that homosexuality is wrong and gross.however  being a christian i will show no hate or rejection toward homosexuals... i also refuse to accept the evolution theroy and i dont think humans are animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that Christianity is wrong and gross, but I don't hate or reject Christians. There is nothing contradictory in that sentence.

I refuse to accept gravitational theory and believe the only reason we can't float is because leprechauns are holding us down. I also refuse to accept aerodynamic theories and believe the only reason airplanes fly is a placebo effect, and once everyone accepts the truth all airplanes will crash to the ground.

The evidence in favour of evolution is so absolutely overwhelming that the only reason not to accept it is willful ignorance. The concepts of a flat Earth and the universe revolving around our planet were biblical, but they have very few adherents left today. Those that do still believe in a flat Earth with the universe revolving around us are rightly scoffed at for willfully disregarding all evidence.

I know a large part of the rejection of evolution comes from a need to people to somehow feel more "special" than they already are, "special creations of God", as if a god that rushes through things is more special than a god who takes its time.

I don't know why so many Christians have no problem accepting the concept of their deity being immortal and powerful enough to create the universe and all its inhabitants in six days, but have issues with the concept that maybe that same deity might have the patience to take billions of years to do it.

Not only that, I wonder why they don't have issues with God doing such shoddy work, what with leaving us fairly useless appendices and spines that are poorly suited for bipedal walking.

[kirottu]

I refuse to accept gravitational theory and believe the only reason we can't float is because leprechauns are holding us down. I also refuse to accept aerodynamic theories and believe the only reason airplanes fly is a placebo effect, and once everyone accepts the truth all airplanes will crash to the ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bloody leprechauns. :D

[B5C]

Hmmm... How to deal with criminal acts... Hmmm... Let's see now, I'm not an American citizen, and so if I were to commit a crime in the United States, not only would I have no rights, neither would anyone in my home country who knows me. Sounds about right. And hey, if my crime was big enough, bomb my country! Bomb Canada! And you know what? I once spent a week in Spain, so for good measure bomb them too!

Terrorism is a criminal act, and the proper response is to treat it as one and to try suspect in criminal court. That said, I have few issues with going into Afghanistan because the government at the time had strong connections to Al Quaeda and was likely hiding bin Laden. However, the US government then essentially abandoned the country to the warlords by leaving a very small force behind to then go into Iraq, which had a government with no ties to Al Quaeda and was no threat to American security. Never mind the fact that most of the Sept. 11 highjackers were Saudis, a country that is America's ally.

But that's wandering off the subject of Guantanamo and terrorists. No matter how many people they kill, terrorists are murderers. A criminal offense. By giving them a different status, you are making them more than just criminals.

Another thing... Nice appeal to emotion with that picture of the WTC being hit. Out of curiosity, how many people in Guantanamo were involved with that? When Afghanistan was invaded, how many of the "enemy combatants" were just Afghanis fighting back as best they could against a much stronger force?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The 9/11 attacks was an ACT OF WAR and not a crime. You never saw the planes live on TV hit the towers. You never saw people jumping off buildings. You never saw the fires burning the Pentagon and WTC. You never saw the tower fall.

 

WTC attack was a act of war and not a crime. Killing three thousand people for allah is not a crime, but a war crime.

 

The invasion of Afganistian was justifed. Because wanted Osama's head! We told them give Osama to us or die. Well they chose to die.