Al Queida leader

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding
Oh those poor Iraqi civilians! How your heart must bleed! We must liberate them and let them set-up a democratic, self-determined Arab state!

[/b]
Yes, I dont see anything wrong with that actually...do you?

A Collection of Musings on the Humanitarian Plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli-Palestinian Troubles, By Hortlund:

[/b]
Yes? Some of those quotes are really taken out of context, but ignoring that...So I dont like terrorists...point being?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes? Some of those quotes are really taken out of context, but ignoring that...So I dont like terrorists...point being?

point being if your act or your thoughs are identical how are you different ?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by straffo
point being if your act or your thoughs are identical how are you different ?

Pardon? (meaning I dont understand what you are saying)

[straffo]

If you use the same dialectic where is the difference ?

You don't like terrorist (I don't like them either)
But if you use almost the same wording and hate I'll likely fail to see how you differ from the terrorists.

you or anyone it's  a general comment.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by straffo
If you use the same dialectic where is the difference ?

You don't like terrorist (I don't like them either)
But if you use almost the same wording and hate I'll likely fail to see how you differ from the terrorists.
 

Im still not sure I understand. Are you saying that because I hate terrorists, I am just as bad as the terrorists?

[straffo]

No you're worst ( I'm kidding this time )

I say : you should not act(*) like them.


(*) or speak.

[StSanta]

Ripsnort wrote:
Special circumstances prevail, StSanta. This is one of them. ripsnort

Ah yes, I am quite sure the kidnappers and murderers of Pearl thought the same. And it was under special circumstances terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. My point being; a civilized society cannot afford to have exceptions when it comes to torture.

torture? what torture? you want to see torture, you have to go talk to saddam. but , it's ok if saddam tortures and murders iraq people because we are going to "contain" him for 30-40 years.

MY point being that our societies aren't like Saddam's, and I'd very much like them to stay that way. And it is logically erroneous to argue 'B is morally unjust and does X. Therefore it is morally just for A to do X'.

John9001 wote:
i wonder how many iraqis saddam will torture and murder in 30-40 years, maybe the UN knows , maybe france knows.

Irrelevant as to whether civilized states should condone torture.

AKWabbit wrote:
Sub-human pieces of filth have no human rights.

I've heard the term üntermenschen before. The nazis didn't consider Jews humans and thus in their eyes they weren't comitting crimes against humanity. When we arbitrarily can single out a group of people and remove their humanity on a whim, we're on a very dangerous slope. It goes against everything milliions died defending in WWII, and I'd hate to see it go due to the uneducated rages and emotions of, pardon the expression, couch potatoes.Wabbit, that remark sn't directed at you, just so you know it There's a certain ignorance springing from statements where humanity is denied to a human.

They should systematically and methodically work on him with lead pipes, blow torches and belt sanders for as long as it takes.

Perhaps a mob would do that. An objective justice system described as fair would not be that if it allowed what you just mentioned to happen. You prefer mob rule and lynchings to the Rule of Law?

Can understand yer emotions AKWabbit, but Justice is without remorse, guilt, emotions and bias. We pride ourselves on being civilized - on respecting human rights. A man can in your country be sentenced to die, but not sentenced to be tortured.

One either respects human rights or one doesn't. One cannot pick and choose when or why.

So how do you recommend he be treated? Would it be OK to torture him so long as we don't condone it? Or is torture out of the question?

I recommend he be treated according to the laws of the land. He is not a threat to anyone dead, and that punishment is possible. As to information extraction - torture has been widespread in Europe, and it is unquestionably unreliable - that was part of the reason as to why it was disbanded as a method of interrogation. So no torture - there are other methods of making people talk. Of course there is a fussy line where interrogation stops and torture starts. so I'd advise anyone to walk on that line if information is of the utmost importance.

What do our western nations stand for, anyway? This is messy business, no one keeps their hands clean unless they are uninvolved, in which case they should stfu. ra

We stand for freedom, democracy, respect of human rights and so forth. Or we will, until we start pissing on human rights and resort to the methods of those below us. Again sayng it is a mess and therefore we're allowed to do whatever is a logical fallacy. The SS thought the eastern war a mess - yet they were still punished for the atrocities committed there. The US by and large did not participate in atrocities, despite being involved in probably the most messy war of all times.

What I am saying, gentlemen, is that it is easy to hold on to human rights when nothing happens - just as it is easy to be a patriot in a time of peace and prosperity. Or be a good friend to someone rich. But dumping that someone when he gets into financial difficulties isn't the marks of a good person. And dumping human rights because it is in the way is equally disgusting.


Geesh, some of you should feel ashamed. You talk highly of freedom and the honest intent of the US one second, only to laugh and cry with excitement as people are blown to pieces or tortured.

Are you ready to give up what your forefathers, grandfathers etc have fought so hard to attain  - just for conveniency? Seriously, I believe your Founding Fathers would want to smack you on top of the head if they read what you've said here. Get it together - you're AMERICANS. You're not some psycho blood thirsty fanatical bunch of ragheads. AMERICANS, not idiots.

So act like you are.

>

GRUNHERZ I'd kindly ask you to lay off the Euro-trashing, as you have enough brains to do proper arguments. I expect it of stupid, not intelligent, people. It's getting a buit old, and I¨'d hate to go back to USA-bashing again just to even things up. So a friendly request: treat yer friends and allies as just that  - friends and allies. DK is in Europe and has backed the US totally since 9/11, with the exception of a Carte Blacnhe for military action in Iraq - and that is only because giving such a one would be political suicide in a country where the vast majority ov voters are against a war. Our current govt has pissed off a lot of voters by their US support. They risk it next election on behalf of the US. So perhaps give them some credit instead of calling 'em Eurorutabagas?

[StSanta]

Hortlund wrote:
I get the impression that you, Blitz, Duedel, see this as some sort of amusing debate-game where you score points on trying to pick apart the reasons for war, or whatever. Meanwhile the civilians keep on dying in Iraq, and the terrorists keep on working on new ways to attack us.

What I think they are trying to convey is the hypocricy of the US stance -  Iraq supports terrorism and is an opressive regime, therefore it must go. Saudi Arabia and other nations also have opressive regimes, but they get support.

It's the 'he is a son of a squeak, but he is OUR son of a squeak' argument. Unquestionably, there are more US blood on Saudi born terrorists than on Iraqi terrorists, the latter being almost unheard of.

And Saudis funnel more money into extremist groups than does Iraq, since Iraq is a much more secular country.

I agree that Saddam needs to go. What I want however, is an offocial recognition of the fact that other regimes around Iraq are only little better. But those are our pals.

[ra]

"Again sayng it is a mess and therefore we're allowed to do whatever is a logical fallacy."


Santa,

Idealism comes after you win the war.  Our hairy friend has chosen to play a game in which there are no limits or rules.  He has lost, and now he suffers whatever the consequences may be.  There is no civilized way to deal with these kinds of crimes.  To allow him to keep silent about his plans for mass murder would be to essentially allow him to commit mass murder.   If uncivilized methods can save thousands upon thousands of lives, then let's let someone go mideval on his ass.  Then later we can condemn those methods as uncivilized.

ra

[Furious]

Originally posted by StSanta
...I've heard the term üntermenschen before. The nazis didn't consider Jews humans and thus in their eyes they weren't comitting crimes against humanity. When we arbitrarily can single out a group of people and remove their humanity on a whim, we're on a very dangerous slope...

Don't overstate this point.  This has nothing to with singling out "a group of people" as sub-human.  

Individual persons are quite capable of such anti-social behaviour that they are rightly labled and treated as sub-human.

For me, in this case, it means, a vigorous interragation (more productive than torture), a fair trail, and a speedy death.


F.

[Batz]

What I think they are trying to convey is the hypocricy of the US stance - Iraq supports terrorism and is an opressive regime, therefore it must go. Saudi Arabia and other nations also have opressive regimes, but they get support.

This is another one of those nonsensical Euro arguements.

We are not going after Suddam because we think the Iraqi citizens maybe involved in terrorism. We didnt invade afghanistan because we thought afghanis were all terrorists.

The government of Saudi Arabi are our friends. As a state they are less likely to sponsor terrorism then Suddam. But Suddam, if you believe the hawks, is many times more likely to use the resourse of the nation of Iraq to support terrorists acts against the US then the Saudis.  A good portion of Saudi wealth comes from their relationship with the US. They are far less likely as a state to sponsor attacks against us.

The US isnt entertaining the invasion of Iraq because Suddam is a mean guy. He is a mean guy and if allowed to develope wmd and then pass these wmd on to terrorists then he threatens the security of the US.

The reason for the US position is not because Suddam is mean. The US under Bush decided that a shift in policy from containment to prevention is the best way to ensure what happened on 9/11 doesnt happen again. They feel they cant afford to sit back and wait. They feel  its better to go ahead and eliminate the threat before it materializes.

Not only that but it then shows to those other Nations, inparticular those in Bush's axis of evil, that a real shift has occurred in US policy. The shift has been termed the "Bush Doctrine". In most of Bush's speeches you hear the same theme come through. That the US will not sit by and wait to be attacked. That no terrorist org or government can hide. The US will act unilaterally ifn necessary, and preventively to elimate threats.

Theres no "hypocracy" in the US position. You can disagree over whether Suddams a threat. But the arguement that inevitably comes from Europe about other "mean leaders" is irrelevant. Just like the "war for oil" bs. Just being mean isnt enough, the hawks feel Suddam is a real threat. Maybe not immediatly but they feel he should dealt with now before hes allowed to develope wmd.

Now dont even bring up NK. These are different situations. NK has a history of sabre rattling in an attempt to get a better deal from the US. The US is in position to work through China to bring pressure on NK. Its a completely different situation then Iraq.

Do a search on the Bush Doctrine, I think if you goto to pbs.org you can find a good bit of info from the program "Frontline".

I am anti-war but these nutty arguements that some put up to support their anti-war stance is just alot of non-sense.

[StSanta]

This is another one of those nonsensical Euro arguements.

The irony is that this is an official  US lie - not one fabricated by me. The current administration has tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda on several different times and officials have used it to justify a war.

The government of Saudi Arabi are our friends. As a state they are less likely to sponsor terrorism then Suddam.[/i

And they are much more likely to help promote extremist religious views, as long as it is in support of them. From this comes individuals that splinter off and go fly planes into buildings. And it's a country where women are treated like little loved pets and immigrants don't have any human rights. It is an opressive regime, period

But Suddam, if you believe the hawks, is many times more likely to use the resourse of the nation of Iraq to support terrorists acts against the US then the Saudis.

Tell me again how many Iraqis vs Saudis were in those four planes? The Saudi government indirectly supports terrorism by condoning and encouraging the formation of various religious groups, from which it is easy to recruit terrorists.

The US isnt entertaining the invasion of Iraq because Suddam is a mean guy. He is a mean guy and if allowed to develope wmd and then pass these wmd on to terrorists then he threatens the security of the US.

The US gave him VMDs in the 80's. He's had plenty of time to give them to terrorists. So far he knows that if he does it, Iraq will be a glowing glass parking lot. But if he thinks he's going to die anyhow, that the war is about to be lost. Well, am sure he has contigency plans.

reason for the US position is not because Suddam is mean. The US under Bush decided that a shift in policy from containment to prevention is the best way to ensure what happened on 9/11 doesnt happen again. They feel they cant afford to sit back and wait. They feel its better to go ahead and eliminate the threat before it materializes.

Pre emptive strike approach is dangerous. I want to attack you? I say it is a pre-emptive attack. I do not believe the US is wise to go against the world community and attack without a UN resolution. But they will.

Why should other nations go through the UN when the US won't? And why should they listen to the US when they say tat they must? Military might and tnks matter little to leftist guerillas killing villagers.


Theres no "hypocracy" in the US position. You can disagree over whether Suddams a threat. But the arguement that inevitably comes from Europe about other "mean leaders" is irrelevant. Just like the "war for oil" bs. Just being mean isnt enough, the hawks feel Suddam is a real threat. Maybe not immediatly but they feel he should dealt with now before hes allowed to develope wmd.

The hypocricy isn't there in RealPolitik; i.e how things are really done. Always been done like that; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The hypocricy is in their outwards appearance; we do this to free the opressed people of Iraq. Well, that is ONE of their arguments, anyhow.

m anti-war but these nutty arguements that some put up to support their anti-war stance is just alot of non-sense.

I'm not even putting them up to oppose the war. Am just bringing up some points worth mentioning.




__________________

[Dune]

Bill DeOre from the NYTimes

[Dune]

At what point does the needs and protection of the many outweigh the rights of the few.  Or the one in this case.

If you can show that by putting the wood to this guy you can save the lives of tens or hundreds or thousands of people, what that be enough?  In the Bible, God put off the destruction of a city because one good man lived there.  Would it then be acceptable to us to destroy one bad man to save a city?

In my estimation, yes.  But not just based upon those facts.  This man has already given up the rights that would protect him through his actions.  Can someone who actively tries to destroy a state now be protected by it?  No.  This is not the same as being magnominious in victory over a defeated foe.  Or even treating prisoners a certain way (especially considering the fact that they have your own as prisoners).  

He did not commit a crime against one person, or even many.  He committed a crime against humanity as a whole.  In my eyes, his actions have put himself outside the protection our Constitution provides not only our citizens, but foreign nationals as well.

When you put these two ideas together, I come up with this:  There are people, who, because of the sheer heinousness of their crimes reduce their weight afforded their rights to less than that of the common good.

That being said, we should not be eager to get our pound of flesh from him.  We need information.  And we should use whatever technique that is most effective.

[Ping]

I would like to once again remind people of what a Prince(one of the ruling party) from Saudi Arabia tried to incorporate into a donation to NYC after the WTC attacks.