Author Topic: Human shield gets Fined? (Read 4373 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #45 on:** August 12, 2003, 01:53:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu

Lets see.. if Finland clearly violates some human right laws, I'm not going to defend it by saying "they're terrorists!" (...something which isn't even proven yet)
If Finland starts a war in some nobody-knows-nothing-about-country, and has no real base for the reasons of war, I'm not going to defend the war with "hey, its an evil dictator and we'll free the people from oppression, so who could care!"
etc. etc.

What human rights laws were broken?

12 years of failure to comply with a UN resolution isn't reason for military action? Providing a harbor for terrorists to train isn't a reason for military action? Either one would work in my book. I don't file that under hypocrisy OR arrogance.

Fishu · « **Reply #46 on:** August 12, 2003, 03:18:16 PM »

You fail to see the point what I've meant with the hypocricy/arrogance/ignorance here - it is the replies from some people when something bad is claimed of US, not the thing itself.

Some people here do really have hard times chewing down opinions from the other people, which crosses with their beliefs, without some silly remarks.. like saying the guy is an anti-american and/or similar.
They simply try to ignore the issue and flame down the person.
Totally inobjective behaviour, which falls to somewhere in hypocrisy/arrogance/ignorance depending on the case & reply.

Thats what I've meant for most parts.

Like the case why the war began..
the reasons primarly used to start the war have not been found to be true so far and several experts have found it to be hardly likely for any kind of WMD to be found or even existing in first place.

If someone says this, some people here might react to it in a certain manner: they might call the person anti-american or saying the person is thinking US as the great satan.. which both are quite far fetched comments as anything but a bad joke.
Then they can also resort to note off the war with "well saddam was a bad guy and we'll free the oppressed people of Iraq".

What ticks off most people about the war, is that the reasons to start the war (aka get people to back it up) are not found to be true yet and the freedom speeches from the goverment are found to be just hypocritic backup plan B if the plan A fails.
There was hardly any terrorists either, so those things doesnt get much attention either.

This is mostly because of three things: a) theres plentiful of dictators around and nowhere was it used as the primary reason to invade iraq, b) there wasnt much terrorists to talk of, and c) theres a bunch of countries where from the terrorist funding and training for most parts originates, yet hardly a word about them.

so when you combine the answers to negative issues of US from some people over here, you don't have to go far to find a level of arrogance, ignorance and/or hypocrisy from the replies.
None of them uses time to make up their replies, they rather resort to oldish ignorance.

Martlet · « **Reply #47 on:** August 12, 2003, 03:25:33 PM »

You didn't answer my questions.

Fishu · « **Reply #48 on:** August 12, 2003, 03:55:49 PM »

martlet,

well, that was just one example thing of the laws broken..
You can look at the guantamo or whatever place, that place alone breaks a few.

There are some other law violations from other areas if we'd be accurate about those.. however I don't bother keeping a book of those.
Not a heart issue to me.

Martlet · « **Reply #49 on:** August 12, 2003, 04:07:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
martlet,

well, that was just one example thing of the laws broken..
You can look at the guantamo or whatever place, that place alone breaks a few.

There are some other law violations from other areas if we'd be accurate about those.. however I don't bother keeping a book of those.
Not a heart issue to me.

Again, you didn't answer my questions.

Fishu · « **Reply #50 on:** August 12, 2003, 04:24:07 PM »

Martlet,

about the complied and terrorist thing?

Obviously theres been no WMD found so far, so the biggest discompliance reason isn't yet valid.
Supposedly some oil has been smuggled out as well, but so are diamonds from some african countries.
some discussion was caused by the rockets which had little bit extended range over the sanction rules - but inspectors did some argumentation about this themselves too, whether it was a big deal - iraqis complied after while and began destroying those.

What comes to terrorist, I'm sure you'd find those from almost every country in the middle east and I doubt Iraq would be high on the list.

What comes to complying with some rules regulations laws or whatever, I'm sure you'd find many countries that hasn't complied with certain things, including the western countries.
US for one isn't anywhere near a saint with its international policies.
So someones should really look up to their own goverment as well, if they start talking about every little detail where Iraq didn't comply with.

Here is govermental hypocrisy and might as well be hypocrisy of people who takes it up with extreme detail to make right for the Iraq war, but neverminding or downplay faults of their own country - sure their country might not be under sanctions, but there are many other rules, regulations, laws, etc. which can be violated.

Saddam can be a dictator, but hes not stupid.
He wanted to be in power, so he definately must have known the WMD would seal his fate in the instant when discovered and even if he would have produced WMD, what could he have done with those?

"I have alot of scary WMD, but if I use it, they'll instantly bust my bellybutton for that" - makes sense dont you think?

Sure he planned onto smuggling oil as well, how else could he kept his status well?
He for surely has also counted on oil smuggling being too minor issue to be used against his dictatorship, which it really is if thinks of it - if caught pants down, he could still have walked away from it.

It's amazing what you can find out when you view a country under a microscope.
Some gets away with bigger things and some are widely critisized for smaller things.

Martlet · « **Reply #51 on:** August 12, 2003, 05:11:12 PM »

You said:

"This way americans are guilty of starting a war based on lies and broken alot of laws it has signed.
Human right laws comes to my mind as the first thing which was violated."

I'm asking which human rights laws were violated, and which "laws it has signed" have we broken?

Fishu · « **Reply #52 on:** August 12, 2003, 07:37:45 PM »

martlet,

and like I said, if you read, I don't know exact law #'s nor have I put those up, since it really isn't my heart business.

Common sense is allowed.

I'm sure you've heard of the guantanamo things and how those breaks more than just one human right laws.

Martlet · « **Reply #53 on:** August 12, 2003, 10:10:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
martlet,

and like I said, if you read, I don't know exact law #'s nor have I put those up, since it really isn't my heart business.

Common sense is allowed.

I'm sure you've heard of the guantanamo things and how those breaks more than just one human right laws.

You keep making that claim. When are you going to tell me which human rights laws are being broken?

Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact.

Munkii · « **Reply #54 on:** August 13, 2003, 01:56:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact.

Why not? It works in the US.. from both sides.

Kweassa · « **Reply #55 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:36:45 AM »

So, anyone find any WMDs lately?

Did they find another hub-cap or screw-driver or thingamajic that 'might' have been used to create something? No?

ps) Ooooh! Nice slap there, Munkil! That's one line to savior for ages.

Fishu · « **Reply #56 on:** August 13, 2003, 08:10:25 AM »

What did I say about ignorance?

It's amazing if this martlet guy hasn't heard of whats wrong with the guantamo (sp) prisoners jurisdical treatment.
-> human rights violations.

1. they won't be told what they're exactly accused of
2. they haven't been appointed a lawyer
3. they're being held in there for extended periods of time without either of the two - if not guilty, they're only released after their 'case' has been throughoutly investigated by the goverment, which can take several months and over years.

There is no guarantees of people not guilty being sentenced or executed and that is not helped by weak to non-existant defence.

and so on for the beginners...

Perhaps Martlet needs to visit guantamo as a more permanent visitor, maybe then he will see whats wrong, instead of requiring rather extended information of the laws broken.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-110703-action-eng

"Most of the detainees have been held for more than a year in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They have not had access to any court, to legal counsel, or visits from relatives. They have been subject to repeated interrogations and confinement to small cells for up to 24 hours a day with minimal opportunity for exercise."

"are suspected by US authorities of being members of al-Qa'ida or "otherwise involved in terrorism", and can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, or charged and brought in front of a military commission consisting of military officers appointed by the executive. There will be severe restrictions on their right to counsel of choice and to an effective defence, and if convicted they could be subject to the death penalty and would have no right of appeal to any court."

How many points do you see wrong?
Perhaps it's ok in your country nowadays, who knows...?

Torque · « **Reply #57 on:** August 13, 2003, 11:02:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Munkii
Why not? It works in the US.. from both sides.

That's gonna leave a mark...

Torque · « **Reply #58 on:** August 13, 2003, 11:17:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
She broke a bunch of laws, and now she is gonna get punished. Do I even have to mention the moral hypocrisy of this so called "peace" and "human rights" activist going abroad to protect the regime of Saddam Hussein?

All of a sudden it's a moral question, although when Reagan was protecting Saddam's regime for years it was just good economics.

Martlet · « **Reply #59 on:** August 13, 2003, 11:29:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
What did I say about ignorance?

It's amazing if this martlet guy hasn't heard of whats wrong with the guantamo (sp) prisoners jurisdical treatment.
-> human rights violations.

1. they won't be told what they're exactly accused of
2. they haven't been appointed a lawyer
3. they're being held in there for extended periods of time without either of the two - if not guilty, they're only released after their 'case' has been throughoutly investigated by the goverment, which can take several months and over years.

There is no guarantees of people not guilty being sentenced or executed and that is not helped by weak to non-existant defence.

and so on for the beginners...

Perhaps Martlet needs to visit guantamo as a more permanent visitor, maybe then he will see whats wrong, instead of requiring rather extended information of the laws broken.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-110703-action-eng

"Most of the detainees have been held for more than a year in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They have not had access to any court, to legal counsel, or visits from relatives. They have been subject to repeated interrogations and confinement to small cells for up to 24 hours a day with minimal opportunity for exercise."

"are suspected by US authorities of being members of al-Qa'ida or "otherwise involved in terrorism", and can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, or charged and brought in front of a military commission consisting of military officers appointed by the executive. There will be severe restrictions on their right to counsel of choice and to an effective defence, and if convicted they could be subject to the death penalty and would have no right of appeal to any court."

How many points do you see wrong?
Perhaps it's ok in your country nowadays, who knows...?

I HAVE been to Guantanamo Bay, have you?

You love to dance, don't you? You bounce around without answering the question. Am I speaking at a reading level that is too high for you?

WHAT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN?