It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Claims World Is Safer Because War On Terror

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Why was communism so important to stop that it justified all that suffering?


Well, the Soviet Union and the United States were the only superpowers in the world at that time. During the Cold War it was important for American to counter any spreading of Soviet influence anywhere in the world, but most importantly near the U.S. (i.e. South America).

At that time it was highly possible that the U.S. and the Soviet Union might go to war, and the U.S. could not take any chances...


I want to know why it was ok to sacrafice the stability of several nations and allow the suffering of countless thousands in order to stop it.


If there had been war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, would you have wanted a Soviet ally in South America? That would have been horrible for the U.S.!

-- Boat




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Any spread of Soviet influence, huh? You do know that this policy led directly to the illegal bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country, by B52s, right?

War. Right. But if the police arrest you and sling you in lock-up because they "can't take any chances" you immediately scream about your civil rights, right? Well what happened to the right of self-determination for peoples and their nations?
Try Googling "Lon Nol", "Sirik Matak", "Operation Menu"...

War again, this time with bases in South America...which would have been non-existant. Salvador Allende's government would have imploded just as his nation's economy was as a direct result of his policies, even without CIA manipulation. There was no need for a military coup, at the next election a right-wing democratist would have been elected in the left-wing socialist's place.

None of what you said answers the question as to why it is okay for the US to support the overthrow of a democratically-elected president and then offer real and moral support to a dictator who tortures his people.

If the US hadn't recognised the coup-installed government of Lon Nol there ultimately would have been no Khmer Rouge and no Cambodian genocide.

If the US hadn't extended support to Pinochet there would have been less torture and less mothers who had to "dance alone". Without US support Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait. The US refused to actively get involved in the mess between its allies the UK and Argentina, despite the UK being the US' most constant ally (I guess that was payback for VN). The US transferred recognition from Taipei to Beijing and now that Taiwan has a genuinely elected government has painted itself into a corner where it tells the world that it should have democracy but kowtows to China over Taiwanese independence. All the while bombing Serbia to stop repression in Kosovo, an action that will lead to Kosovar independence within the next 18 months.

If you couldn't make the world safe for democracy by supporting democracy, how can you make the world safe from terrorism?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by Souljah
So - who is the No.1 World Terrorist Sponsor?


I believe it's Iran right now...

-- Boat

And why is that?
Look at the past 25 years of "Terrorist" Activity by Iran, and the past 25 of TERRORIST activity by USA. How many regimes has Iran crumbeled? How many countries has Iran invaded? How many foreign leaders has Iran assassinated? How many foreign Death Squads has Iran established?


A Brief History of Terrorism by the USA
  • In the 1950s, we are also involved in covert operations, overthrowing the governments of Iran and Guatemala. And almost as soon as we get involved in Vietnam, we are sending military troops into the Dominican Republic. In that period, we are also giving enormous amounts of aid to the government of Indonesia, helping the dictator Suharto carry on an internal war against the opposition, in the course of which several hundred thousand people are killed. Then the U.S. government, starting in 1975, provides critical support to Indonesia's brutal campaign to subdue the people of East Timor, in which hundreds of thousands of people are killed.

  • In the 1980s, when Reagan comes into office, we begin a covert war throughout Central America, in El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and especially in Nicaragua, creating the counterrevolutionary force, the Contras, whom Reagan called "freedom fighters."

  • If you put up photos of the graduating classes of the School of the Americas on the wall, you would have a rogues' gallery of terrorism. I think of the El Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson; of the graduates who took part in the massacre of 811 people in El Mozote in December 1981; of the many generals and dictators who went through the School of the Americas. In fact, some of the manuals used in the School of the Americas give advice on how to carry out what amount to terrorist acts.

  • In 1978, even before the Russians were in Afghanistan, we are covertly sending arms to the rebel forces in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen. Some of these people turned out later to be the Taliban, the people who suddenly are our enemy. The national security adviser to Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, boasted that he knew U.S. aid would "induce a Soviet military intervention" in Afghanistan. In fact, this happened, provoking a war that lasted ten years. The war was devastating to the people of Afghanistan and left the country in ruins. The moment it was over, the United States immediately moved out. The people that we supported, the fundamentalists, took power in Afghanistan and established their regime.

  • Almost as soon as George Bush Sr. came into office, in 1989, he launched a war against Panama, which left perhaps several thousand dead. Two years later, we were at war in the Gulf, using the invasion of Kuwait as an excuse to intensify our military presence in that area and to station troops in Saudi Arabia, which then became one of the major offenses for Osama bin Laden and other Saudi Arabian nationalists. Then in the Clinton administration we were bombing Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq again.

    In fact, it is safe to say that since World War II, there has not been a more warlike nation in the world than the United States.

    The United States has consistently opposed the creation of an international war crimes tribunal because it could be used against people in the U.S. government and military. They are very explicit about it. In effect, the government is saying, "Yes, we have people who could be accused of having committed war crimes." The United States wants to find other people who have committed war crimes, but an American by definition cannot commit a war crime

As you can clearly see and read, whatever the US goverment does, it is not EVER considered a War Crime, even if that actions is a clear violation of the International Laws and Conventions.

And that violations did not happen just Once, or Twice - those ViolationS, have happened numerous times on all parts of this globe: in Indo-China, in Middle East, in South America in Africa - almost on every single Continent of this Planet.

But, when perferomed by United States, that Violations are called "Democracy, Liberty and Justice for All". Yesterday we just had to fight those damn Communists - and today, we just have to fight those damn "Terrorists" (whoever they are).

As I have stated many times before - Terrorism is a WEAPON OF THE STRONG, not the Weapons of the WEAK!




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Howard Zinn oversimplifies all the issues when he writes his anti-American grabage. Nice try, but everything the United States did was to help it own interests in the world.

The United States must look out for the United States. That is the correct thing to do.

-- Boat



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Howard Zinn oversimplifies all the issues...

The United States must look out for the United States. That is the correct thing to do.

-- Boat



Now who is oversimplifying?

Why must the US look out for the US by invading soveriegn countries or denying non-US citizens the rights enshrined in the US constitution?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Now who is oversimplifying?


I am. A bit...I don't have hours to spend on this, Howard Zinn had years and years to write his books...


Why must the US look out for the US by invading soveriegn countries


Because nations control world power.


or denying non-US citizens the rights enshrined in the US constitution?


Only U.S. citizens need to be affored the rights under the Constitution.

-- Boat

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Howard Zinn oversimplifies all the issues when he writes his anti-American grabage. Nice try, but everything the United States did was to help it own interests in the world.

What do you mean by "Anti-American Garbage"?

Are you trying to say, that any of those events mentione did NOT happen in past 50 years?

You want to go ask people of Nicaragua, that those massacres, sponsored by the CIA did not happen to them?



The United States must look out for the United States.

By ANY MEANS NECESSARY?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Only U.S. citizens need to be affored the rights under the Constitution.


That's odd. Some rights in practicaly every constitution (at least in Western ones) are universal like presumption of innocence, right to legal representation, due process etc.

But there are a portion of rights reserved for the citizens of certain country like right to vote, to be elected in office, employement in goverment agencies, etc.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I'd have to side with Souljah on this one. The world isn't safer. Mr. Bush single-handedly failed at foreign policy. Simply because he went against the UN and invaded into Iraq without just cause, he has failed in more ways to that people think.

I wonder what countries think about us now that we are being the "oppressor". If you even think about it, Mr. Bush is similar to Mr. Saddam. Instead of the Kuwait being invaded, it is Iraq being occupied, taken over and decimated.

And because of that action, I wonder if we're being thought of as a "rogue nation".



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why must the US look out for the US by invading soveriegn countries


Because nations control world power. [/quote

Chile?!? controls world power? Grenada controls world power? Cambodia?

Let's take a quick look at where the US has flexed its muscles and foreign policy in my living memory. Libya, Iran (didn't work out so well), Lebanon (likewise), Kuwait, Panama (why don't you watch the Oscar-winning, but banned in the US, documentary?), Nicaragua, Kosovo, Afghanistan (twice), Somalia (how not to conduct an exit-strategy), East Timor (wow, actual democracy and independence being defended!). Iraq ("they'll greet us with flowers in our rifle barrels!").

Now, which of these nations controls world power? Somalia? Lebanon? Panama? East timor?

At least Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Libya have oil, but that's all they have (except for the sand), and ETimor will have oil.

Where didn't they go? Rwanda (nearly 1,000,000 dead in 100 days of genocide), Bosnia (now we have a new term: ethnic-cleansing) Croatia, Serbia, Congo (ever!), Chechnya (let's give it to the Islamists!), Sudan.

Now, which of these countries don't have oil and/or are Muslim or African?


or denying non-US citizens the rights enshrined in the US constitution?


Only U.S. citizens need to be affored the rights under the Constitution.

-- Boat


Wrong. Everyone on your soil must be afforded the rights guaranteed by your constitution.

But that is beside the point. Why are Americans so willing to see US troops deny other people the rights they demand?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wrong. Everyone on your soil must be afforded the rights guaranteed by your constitution.

Would you like terrorists to have the right to own firearms ? THats a right too.


Why are Americans so willing to see US troops deny other people the rights they demand?

Claiming that the terrorists in Guantanomo are in fact "people" is almost funny were it not so tragic.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wrong. Everyone on your soil must be afforded the rights guaranteed by your constitution.

Would you like terrorists to have the right to own firearms ? THats a right too.


Why are Americans so willing to see US troops deny other people the rights they demand?

Claiming that the terrorists in Guantanomo are in fact "people" is almost funny were it not so tragic.


Wow, IAF has just re-written the encyclopedia. David Hicks is not a person, he is some new species...Islamistes Guantanomos Iafious, perhaps? Homo Guantanomus?

Yes, owning firearms is a right. One I happen to think proves that stupid is as stupid does, but that's beside the piont. It's a constitutionally guaranteed right. One Timothy McVeigh exercised.

Given that one of those incarcerated at Guantanomo is an Australian whom you chose to regard as non-human, I find the tragedy to be your attitude to your own laws and their basis, let alone international law. I find the tragedy to be your utter lack of understanding.

Why do Muslims hate America and Americans? Because your government sends Marines into Beirut and then supports them by having the Missouri shell the Druze living on their ancestral lands. But given the bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country, by B52s, as precedent, what can one expect?

Your nation styles its head of state "Leader of the Free World" but then includes military dictators who use kidnapping, torture and murder in the club. Ask a Chilean what significance September 11 has.

And I wasn't talking about Guantanomo. I was talking about Vietnam, Panama, Iraq...



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wow, IAF has just re-written the encyclopedia. David Hicks is not a person, he is some new species...Islamistes Guantanomos Iafious, perhaps? Homo Guantanomus?

Lol well firstly it wouldnt be encyclopedia it would be more like Anthropology 101 and second David Hicks ?? Come on!! Hes a terrorist and a dangerous one at that. Al-Qaeda, Lashkar Toiba, KLA, Taliban.....the list goes on! You still beleive that this terrorist, who is out to rid the world of "Western-Jewish" control and return to the old order of the "islamic way", can be seen as a normal "person"?


It's a constitutionally guaranteed right. One Timothy McVeigh exercised.

Are you trying to teach me the laws of my land ?? Thats ludicrous! Citizens of the United States of America have the right to "bear arms" not aquire, make and detonate explosives in the vicinity of children and Federal offices !
There is a subtle difference which I am sure most people can catch!
Is this really an argument ?:shk:



Given that one of those incarcerated at Guantanomo is an Australian whom you chose to regard as non-human, I find the tragedy to be your attitude to your own laws and their basis, let alone international law. I find the tragedy to be your utter lack of understanding.

Well you claim to have "found" many things but one that you have surely missed is the fact that this Australian "gentile" is a hard core terrorist, ready to carry out acts of terrorism against innocent citizens on command by his master Osama Bin Laden.
Such a terrorist who remains till today a firm supporter of a diabolical organisation that seeks to destroy the institution of freedom, liberty and justice in the free world by carring out craven attacks against its citizens is but a sure sign of his monsterous disposition.
The Laws of the USA are meant for the citizens of the USA and its permanent residents and those legally allowed into the USA. Illegals, detainees and others are not entitled to any protection under US laws. Moreover being an illegal combatant this Australian terrorist is not protected under the Geneva conventions. The provisions under the human rights convention are subject to the recognition of this terrorist as a human by his captors and due to the extreem largess by his captors he has been granted the rights and provisions that he now observes.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Why dont you read up what the "LAW" is all about ?



Your nation styles its head of state "Leader of the Free World" but then includes military dictators who use kidnapping, torture and murder in the club. Ask a Chilean what significance September 11 has.

That is not a formal title but merely a convention used to reflect the geopolitical position of the USA in the world and everybody knows this. There are no "military dictators" that can be considered as members of the free world and the USA makes no such claim for any dictator. Considering the nature of the USA and its interests often it does have to interact with nations run by dictators, this in no way makes them free nations. Any reasonable person would understand this. Bringing up the date for the fall of Chilean democracy has little to do with the topic.

And if you are going to throw up arcana to compensate for a lack of points to continue your fustian verbiage you have lost already. For as we say in the US: "Its a swing and a miss! "



[edit on 14-6-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
"hello everyone this is IAF101 and he is an example of what happens as a result of nationalism and propaganda"

you just called a human being less then a person, I think the nationalistic propaganda is working on you. I mean that with all respect, if you truely believe that one of those terrorist are not human beings then I seriously think you are a product of the system. Nazis did the EXACT same thing to the jews. The dehumanized them, just like you are doing right now.

that needed to be said because that attitude is the single most dangerous attitude I have read in the past month at least.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wow, IAF has just re-written the encyclopedia. David Hicks is not a person, he is some new species...Islamistes Guantanomos Iafious, perhaps? Homo Guantanomus?

Lol well firstly it wouldnt be encyclopedia it would be more like Anthropology 101


Anthropology 101 is a course, the encyclopedia is a reference which classifies.


and second David Hicks ?? Come on!! Hes a terrorist and a dangerous one at that. Al-Qaeda, Lashkar Toiba, KLA, Taliban.....the list goes on!


Then why did NATO bomb Serbia and why is Kosovo under UN administration? Don't quote what you don't understand.


You still beleive that this terrorist, who is out to rid the world of "Western-Jewish" control and return to the old order of the "islamic way", can be seen as a normal "person"?


Waiting for proof that Hicks is out to rid the world of anything. You know what makes me superior to the terrorists? The fact that I will guarantee their rights under the law. That is also what makes me superior to you. Only a fool stoops to his enemy's level.




It's a constitutionally guaranteed right. One Timothy McVeigh exercised.

Are you trying to teach me the laws of my land ?? Thats ludicrous! Citizens of the United States of America have the right to "bear arms" not aquire, make and detonate explosives in the vicinity of children and Federal offices !
There is a subtle difference which I am sure most people can catch!
Is this really an argument ?:shk:


The constitution says "arms". If I want I can ride my horse down the street in full plate armour carrying my lance under that definition. There is no restriction on the word "arms". But under your explanation Timothy McVeigh owned no "firearms", this after you told me that terrorists could exploit said right and that's why the US constitution should not be extended to all people on US soil.




Given that one of those incarcerated at Guantanomo is an Australian whom you chose to regard as non-human...

Well ... the fact that this Australian "gentile" is a hard core terrorist, ready to carry out acts of terrorism against innocent citizens on command by his master Osama Bin Laden.


Proof please, of the kind that will stand up in court.

David Hicks was captured with Taliban, not Al Qaeda, that means his leader was Mullah Omar and his mission was nothing more than guaranteeeing Allah's vision in Afghanistan.

Oh, and this Australian "gentile" is a hardcore democratist. What the hell has his non-Jewishness, or mine, got to do with anything?




Your nation styles its head of state "Leader of the Free World" but then includes military dictators who use kidnapping, torture and murder in the club. Ask a Chilean what significance September 11 has.

That is not a formal title but merely a convention used to reflect the geopolitical position of the USA in the world and everybody knows this. There are no "military dictators" that can be considered as members of the free world


So who was Pinochet, then? What was happening in Nicuragua?


and the USA makes no such claim for any dictator.


Not for about a decade, no.


Considering the nature of the USA and its interests often it does have to interact with nations run by dictators, this in no way makes them free nations. Any reasonable person would understand this.


Any reasonable person would ask why the US gives and/or sells them arms and protects them at the UN.


And if you are going to throw up arcana to compensate for a lack of points to continue your fustian verbiage you have lost already. For as we say in the US: "Its a swing and a miss! "


"Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it."

If you cannot understand why you failed to protect the developing world from communism, how can you expect to protect the developed world from terrorism?

I'd rather know the arcana than class people as untermencshen, but hey, that's what my job requires...

Oh, and why use a long word when an exiguous one will do...



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
you just called a human being less then a person, I think the nationalistic propaganda is working on you. I mean that with all respect,

I am a nationalist, there is no need for any propaganda! And I do realize how I refer to them. Though my view might be considered as a "product of the system", it is in fact based more on my experience than any government "propaganda" .

I will not expatitate on this but would like to point you to Article 1 on the Universal declaration of human rights;
All human beings .....are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one....



Nazis did the EXACT same thing to the jews. The dehumanized them, just like you are doing right now.

I dont remember any Jews crashing a planes into a buildings or beheading Nazis on TV do you ? Even the Reichstag was said to have been gutted by the Communists!

To compare the Jews to these "detainees", is ridiculous to say the least.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Anthropology 101 is a course, the encyclopedia is a reference which classifies.

Sheesh...Do you know what Anthropology is ?? Hello...Phsyical anthropology ?
Nevermind, you wont get it!


Then why did NATO bomb Serbia and why is Kosovo under UN administration? Don't quote what you don't understand.

Your statement is non sequitur. If you are talking about Operation allied force and what followed, then google will help answer your questions. Everybody knows the answers but I dont see how your statement has anything to do with the topic at hand.



Waiting for proof that Hicks is out to rid the world of anything. You know what makes me superior to the terrorists? The fact that I will guarantee their rights under the law. That is also what makes me superior to you.....

You histrionics and illusions of grandeur aside, there is ample proof of David Hicks and his association with terrorists and terrorist organizations. In fact in a letter to his father he openly confesses about his involvement and also claims to have a closely interacted with Bin Laden. He is treated like any other illegal combatant in Guantanomo and he is entitled to nothing other than what the US military feels that he deserves.

He was meant to be tried by a military commission but apparently some technicalities prevented this from happening. In any case he will eventually be tried in a court of law and he will receive what he is due. Personally, I hope he is kept in Guantanomo or a similar prison till the end of his days.


The constitution says "arms". If I want I can ride my horse down the street in full plate armour carrying my lance under that definition. There is no restriction on the word "arms". But under your explanation Timothy McVeigh owned no "firearms", this after you told me that terrorists could exploit said right and that's why the US constitution should not be extended to all people on US soil.

The utter naivity of these statements reflects a trend that your posts often tend to carry. Apparently a desperately scavenge for some facts or the other to put up a "front" for a non-issue. Anyways, I will indulge myself here;

First, incase you missed it the last time, the Second ammendment is meant solely for American citizens and permanent residents. Nobody else, not tourists, terrorists or illegals.
Second, the Second Ammendment is but the start of the many THOUSANDS of gun laws in the USA. There are both State and Federal Laws for possesion and purchase of weapons. There also numerous other acts that control the use and type of "arms" that are available to people.
Third, the term "arms" and the Second Ammendement, which I seriously doubt that you have ever read, states that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Arms here are considered those that are of military nature generaly. The classification of what is and isnt allowed is long and extensive and depends from state to state.
Fourth, high explosives are in no way allowed for personal use in the USA. They are only granted for special purposes and even possesion of such devices is illegal everywhere in the US.
Fifth, even to get a gun in the US there are a lot of checks and documents that need to be presented to obtain a weapon. The DoJ is responsible for granting permission for obtaining weapons in most states. Though it is gauranteed by the second amendment, by no means is it easy to obtain weapons legally.

Lastly, about the horse and lance, you cant do that without a license for the horse, for riding the horse on the street and the lance would have to be also approved by the govt before you can even posses it.


Proof please, of the kind that will stand up in court.

The Proof is with those who need it to present the case. I dont have to provide anything to you. The burden of finding any proof is your own, look and you will see!

Moreover, Hicks has himself confessed of abetting terrorism and being a memeber of Al-Qaeda. I think there is a program called Four Corners that interviewed Hicks where he confessed his role.


Oh, and this Australian "gentile" is a hardcore democratist. What the hell has his non-Jewishness, or mine, got to do with anything?

Democratist or choir boy, that is irrelevant! A Terrorist is a terrorist above all.

You know Gentile...Christian(muslim in this case!)... Its sarcasm...you dont get it.



So who was Pinochet, then? What was happening in Nicuragua?
......
Any reasonable person would ask why the US gives and/or sells them arms and protects them at the UN.

This has firstly nothing to do with the topic. All these are separate issues that the US has dealt with in a way that was best for the US and the free world . Giving them arms or supporting them in the UN is upto the US's discretion and depends on the circumstances that necessitate the approach. The US does what needs to be done and what you interpret to be the truth or your take on the events now is irrelevant, for the US has done "what needs to be done" . Remember the naivity I was talking about earlier!


If you cannot understand why you failed to protect the developing world from communism, how can you expect to protect the developed world from terrorism?

I dont know what "trip" you are on but we broke up the USSR, toppled communisms greatest stronghold and even china now has resorted to liberalize. Most of the developing world is democratic though to different degrees. Today most of the world is under democratic governments thanks to the US and the free world.
I dont know how you can call this anything but a sweeping victory but apparently you are not as initiated.


I'd rather know the arcana than class people as untermencshen, but hey, that's what my job requires...

Who is to say that I consider these "Geschopf" as "Mensch" in the first place ? Whether Unter or Uber is a different matter!

Oh, and why use a long word when an exiguous one will do...

I have noticed that you have a problem with English, so I will tone down the "exiguous words". If you have a problem just say so.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
I am a nationalist, there is no need for any propaganda! And I do realize how I refer to them. Though my view might be considered as a "product of the system", it is in fact based more on my experience than any government "propaganda" .


OK that is a bit chilling. Nationalism is by far the most dangerous thing I can think of when trying to start a regime like hitlers. Your playing right into the game, but worse you know it. You believe the US is better then everyone else, creating a dangerous mentality like you are the saviors of the planet...your not.



I will not expatitate on this but would like to point you to Article 1 on the Universal declaration of human rights;
All human beings .....are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one....


agreed so I suggest you think it over, because it seems like your forgetting it. That nationalism pride isnt your conscience speaking, thats your emotions. Reason and emotions are pretty much the exact opposite, and nationalism is derived from stong emotional attachment to ones country, not by reason. so use that reason and conscience you have been given.



I dont remember any Jews crashing a planes into a buildings or beheading Nazis on TV do you ? Even the Reichstag was said to have been gutted by the Communists!


If a couple jews HAD crashed a plane into a building, does that make anything after that right? No it doesn't. One wrong doesn't justify another wrong...didnt you learn anything as a kid? But anyway stop looking at them as jews and arabs and muslims, try looking at them as human beings...unless of course your so wrapped up in the nationalism you dont think they are human....then its too late for you.



To compare the Jews to these "detainees", is ridiculous to say the least.


everything starts somewhere. You just look at it on an everyday basis saying ah thats just a couple dead, worth the cause. Next day, just a couple dead- worth the cause. Yet I wonder if you ever look in hind sight. over 100,000 dead iraqis...still worth the cause? Do around 3000 american lives justify all the death?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Waay off topic, but I had to...


Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Anthropology 101 is a course, the encyclopedia is a reference which classifies.

Sheesh...Do you know what Anthropology is ?? Hello...Phsyical anthropology ?
Nevermind, you wont get it!


Oh, and why use a long word when an exiguous one will do...

I have noticed that you have a problem with English, so I will tone down the "exiguous words". If you have a problem just say so.


I'm laughing so hard it's difficult to type at the moment, IAF. But when put together like this, your quotes are just too damn funny.

First, you fail to understand why your original reply was wrong and then you try to tell me I have a problem with the English language. I'm a trained and certificated English teacher, dipstick.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Then why did NATO bomb Serbia and why is Kosovo under UN administration? Don't quote what you don't understand.

Your statement is non sequitur. If you are talking about Operation allied force and what followed, then google will help answer your questions. Everybody knows the answers but I dont see how your statement has anything to do with the topic at hand.


Hmm, perhaps if you re-read your post you will notice these three letters: "KLA".

Once again, I ask you, "Why did NATO bomb Serbia" if the KLA were terrorists?




Waiting for proof that Hicks is out to rid the world of anything.

He is treated like any other illegal combatant in Guantanomo and he is entitled to nothing other than what the US military feels that he deserves.


Despite that handy universal declaration you quoted. Despite the Geneva Convention and despite your own constitutional guarantee to a speedy and fair trial.


He was meant to be tried by a military commission but apparently some technicalities prevented this from happening.


Like the US constitution.


In any case he will eventually be tried in a court of law and he will receive what he is due.


Really, then why were all the Brits being held at Camp X-ray released?




The constitution says "arms". If I want I can ride my horse down the street in full plate armour carrying my lance under that definition. There is no restriction on the word "arms". But under your explanation Timothy McVeigh owned no "firearms", this after you told me that terrorists could exploit said right and that's why the US constitution should not be extended to all people on US soil.

The utter naivity of these statements reflects a trend that your posts often tend to carry. Apparently a desperately scavenge for some facts or the other to put up a "front" for a non-issue. Anyways, I will indulge myself here;


What is this discussion except for self-indulgence? But, please, be my guest.


First, incase you missed it the last time, the Second ammendment is meant solely for American citizens and permanent residents. Nobody else, not tourists, terrorists or illegals.


Uh-huh, so far I'm not being blinded by insight, but I will point out the language used says "people", not "citizens".


Second, the Second Ammendment is but the start of the many THOUSANDS of gun laws in the USA.


Which any number of NRA gun-nuts on this site say are constitutionally illegal because the Second Amendment has no restrictions.


There are both State and Federal Laws for possesion and purchase of weapons. There also numerous other acts that control the use and type of "arms" that are available to people.


Not discussing statutes, discussing the Constitution.



Third, the term "arms" and the Second Ammendement, which I seriously doubt that you have ever read,


Doubt away, far be it for me to rain on your parade.


states that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Which is the crux of my anti-second amendment rights argument, but that's for a different thread.


Arms here are considered those that are of military nature generaly.


All arms are of a military nature, generally. Geeze, if you can't tell that then you're in deep, deep trouble. David used a sling to defeat Goliath. Alexander's "Peltists" used them at Gaugamela. Edaward, the Black Prince and Henry V used bows and arrows to defeat the French, something the Indians would do to early colonists in present-day USA. My .22 hunting rifle exists because 600 years ago some European nobles thought bombards were a damn good idea.


The classification of what is and isnt allowed is long and extensive and depends from state to state.


Care to show me which part of the Second Amendment makes that legal? I once again point you to the language: "...shall not be infringed." You just described a whole host of infringements.


Fourth, high explosives are in no way allowed for personal use in the USA. They are only granted for special purposes and even possesion of such devices is illegal everywhere in the US.


HE contained in a hand grenade is "arms". HE contained in a 250kg bomb is "arms". HE contained on the tip of a phoenix, sparrow, sidewinder, hammerhead, hellfire, stinger, TOW or shillelagh is "arms".


Fifth, even to get a gun in the US there are a lot of checks and documents that need to be presented to obtain a weapon. The DoJ is responsible for granting permission for obtaining weapons in most states. Though it is gauranteed by the second amendment, by no means is it easy to obtain weapons legally.


...shall not be infringed.


and the lance would have to be also approved by the govt before you can even posses it.


...shall not be infringed.




Proof please, of the kind that will stand up in court.

The Proof is with those who need it to present the case. I dont have to provide anything to you. The burden of finding any proof is your own, look and you will see!


Wrong. Under the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by the US constitution, the burden of proof is with the prosecution.




Oh, and this Australian "gentile" is a hardcore democratist. What the hell has his non-Jewishness, or mine, got to do with anything?

Democratist or choir boy, that is irrelevant! A Terrorist is a terrorist above all.


This Australian "gentile", as in the one typing. Good grief...


You know Gentile...Christian(muslim in this case!)... Its sarcasm...you dont get it.


Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. When you make it to wry I'll be interested, but even sardonic would show effort.




So who was Pinochet, then? What was happening in Nicuragua?
......
Any reasonable person would ask why the US gives and/or sells them arms and protects them at the UN.

This has firstly nothing to do with the topic.


This has everything to do with the topic, it goes to background (to quote every US legal drama I've ever seen) and demonstrates US myopia.


All these are separate issues that the US has dealt with in a way that was best for the US and the free world.


It was best for the free world for the democratically-elected government of Chile to be replaced in a coup by a military dictatorship that kidnapped, tortured and murdered its own citizens?


Giving them arms or supporting them in the UN...


Well, given the previous statement I think we can predict what will come next, so let's skip ahead...




If you cannot understand why you failed to protect the developing world from communism, how can you expect to protect the developed world from terrorism?

I dont know what "trip" you are on but we broke up the USSR, toppled communisms greatest stronghold...


Who said anything about the USSR? Remember that bit about the developing world? Where you propped up all those dictators because you were protecting the people from communism? To (mis)quote Pinter from memory, when talking about Turkey.

"The people don't need their rights "protected from communism", they need them exercised.

As I said, if you couldn't, and can't, understand this, how can you defeat terrorism when you are following the same false strategy.

The US has singularly failed to understand the terrorists and so will continue to fight them in the most inappropriate way possible.

(bold mine)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join