PDA

View Full Version : Speakers Corner, The ONLY thread for Mid East stuff, US & Bush and UK Politics


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Danny
19th Apr 2004, 13:44
After a brief respite from the countless threads regarding the Middle East and circular debate they spawned, I have decided to try out a new concept. So that the mods and I can track the debates and not have to spend too much time dealing with the flame wars that tend to erupt, any posts regarding the Middle East, fundamentalist Islam (or any fundamentalist religious doctrine), al Quaida etc. etc. can take place in this thread ONLY! Anyone starting what the mods or I consider to be threads about politics that involve any of the above or associated topics will be merged into this one.

This is a trial and the usual rules apply. As ultimate dictator, I reserve the right to stifle free speech and supress anything that really grates but as usual, will make judgement based on how civilised the tone is. Signal to noise ratio will be monitored too. :suspect:

So... who is going to start this thread off? :E

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2004, 13:49
How about me with a condemnation of the hypocrisy of the foreign secretary attacking Israel's killing of a prominent terrorist. If our or US soldiers kill bin Laden Jack Straw will claim a great victory. When another nation kills a leader of a terrorist organisation threatening their people he complains. Sickening.

Huck
19th Apr 2004, 13:56
Warnings ignored, says retired Marine
By Rick Rogers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

April 16, 2004

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.

"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"

At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.

Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series.

For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and religious clashes that would be unleashed.

"I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice."

Known as the "Warrior Diplomat," Zinni is not a peace activist by nature or training, having led troops in Vietnam, commanded rescue operations in Somalia and directed strikes against Iraq and al Qaeda.

He once commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton.

Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it.

Not even Zinni's resumé could shield him from the accusations that followed.

"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.

Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."

"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."

Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said.

Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the working class with economic projects.

But it's not the lack of a comprehensive American plan for Iraq nor the surging violence that has cost allied troops their lives – including about 30 Camp Pendleton Marines – that most concerns Zinni.

"In the end, the Iraqis themselves have to want to rebuild their country more than we do," Zinni said. "But I don't see that right now. I see us doing everything.

"I spent two years in Vietnam, and I've seen this movie before," he said. "They have to be willing to do more or else it is never going to work."

Last night at the Kroc institute during his speech "From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table: Preventing Deadly Conflict," Zinni detailed the approach he believes the United States should take in the Middle East.

He told an overflow crowd that the United States tries to grapple with individual issues in Middle East instead of seeing them as elements of a broader question.

"We need to step back and get a grand strategy," he said.

answer=42
19th Apr 2004, 13:57
Just to get those veins in the temple twitching.

From Simon Hoggart's column in 'The Guardian':

'Gordon Adams ... spent five years in the White House advising Bill Clinton on national security budgets. He pointed out that this was not the first time the United States had been the world's only superpower. There had been the four years between the end of the second world war and the discovery in 1949 of the first Soviet atomic weapons.
"In that period we helped give the world the United Nations, Bretton Woods, Nato and the Marshall Plan. Now we have given the world Iraq." '

Loc-out
19th Apr 2004, 14:20
Danny

Fair enough.

Thanks for giving us another chance. You are right, some of us have not made it easy for you moderators.


Send Clowns

'ere 'ere 'ere!!!:}

419
19th Apr 2004, 14:55
Could someone explain for me (in idiots terms) the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

419

ORAC
19th Apr 2004, 15:05
See here. (http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm)

419
19th Apr 2004, 15:09
Thanks Orac.:ok:

419

OneWorld22
19th Apr 2004, 15:20
419 I'll give it a shot, it seems to be very complicated....


The Sunnis are so called because they stress the importance of the Sunna. In their understanding, the Sunna, the model behaviour which the Muslim community should follow, consists of the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Together with the Koran, the Sunna is seen as the main source of Islamic law. In fact the Shiites also stress the importance of the Sunna, although their concept of it includes also the words and deeds of the Shiite Imams. Since the importance of the Sunna was established in Sunni Islam rather earlier than it was in Shiism it seems probable that the Sunnis had already began to refer to themselves as “the people of the Sunna” in order to distinguish themselves from other groups of Muslims before the Shiites had fully developed their own legal theory.

In the period of its early development Islam developed three main divisions: Sunni, Shiite, and Kharijii. Historically, the division between them is said to go back to a civil war between the Arabs between ad 656 and 661, following their conquest of the heartlands of the Middle East. As religious groups in the form in which we know them, however, the three traditions took considerably longer than that to emerge. The two most important of them, the Sunni and the Shiite, did not really crystallize before the 3rd to 9th centuries. The fundamental issue which divides the three groups is that of authority—who should be the source of authority in Islam and what sort of authority they should have.

Because Shiites are very much the minority in Islam,(making up 10% of the Muslim world) they have tended to be on the defensive and to develop élitist attitudes and esoteric interpretations: as a result they not only ignore the majority view but also glorify the status of the minority.

Since Imamis believe that the Imams God chose as the world's legitimate rulers were not only usurped but also persecuted, they are more ready to accept conspiracy theories than other Muslims. Shiite politics are closely connected to this ethos and world view.

Theres a lot more information on it and it really is long winded and comples but basically they disagree most in ethos, theology and how they conceive legitimate authority.

answer=42
19th Apr 2004, 15:26
Could we please also have an explanation of what is Wahabi teaching and what are its 'opponents'.

Thanx

OneWorld22
19th Apr 2004, 15:28
Wahhabi, a fundamentalist Islamic movement founded by the 18th-century reformer, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and now the official creed of Saudi Arabia. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was descended from a line of Sunni religious scholars and received a traditional education in Hanbalism, his family's theological and legal school. During his travels on his pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj), he studied in Medina and became deeply influenced by the works of the 14th-century Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taymiyya, who condemned a variety of traditional Muslim beliefs, interpretations, and practices as alien or innovative.

While travelling through Iraq, Iran, and Syria, Ibn al-Wahhab refined his religious views and invited Muslims to join what he believed to be Islam's pristine form. The initial prejudice that Hanbali had inculcated in him against groups like the Shiites and Kharijis was soon extended to include widespread practices and movements that had been either tolerated in or become an integral part of the Sunni world, such as speculative theology (kalam) and Sufism. In particular, he condemned Sufi gnosis, musical performances (sama), and visiting and praying at the graves of Sufi saints (ziyara). The idea that visiting the graves of saints could bring baraka (blessing) or shafaa (intercession by saints) was denounced as idolatrous. Such purist views stemmed from a belief that anything appearing in Islam after the generation of the Prophet and his Companions was innovative and corrupting to the faith: he even rejected the central Sunni tenet of consensus (ijma) as a major legal source. Wahhabi fiqh (jurisprudence) therefore differs significantly from both Sunni and Shiite.

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's chief goal was the establishment of a theocratic state and this was realized in ad 1744 in Dariyya (now part of Saudi Arabia) when he and the region's powerful amir, Muhammad ibn Saud, swore an oath of mutual allegiance and made Wahhabi the official creed of the emirate and its Bedouin subjects. The conquests by the amir and his descendants of surrounding territory—including the two holiest cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina—greatly enlarged the emirate and number of subjects on whom Wahhabi was imposed. This emirate eventually became the kingdom that is known today as Saudi Arabia.

answer=42
19th Apr 2004, 15:36
Thank you.

My understanding is that Saudi Arabia funds Wahhabi religious teaching both in other Islamic countries where there has never been this religious tradition and also among Moslems living in non-Moslem countries, including in the West.

Is the conflict between Saudi Arabia and bin Laden therefore primarily about power and not religion? Or does the question not make sense in this context?

OneWorld22
19th Apr 2004, 15:42
I'd say its probably about both. About who should be the ultimate authority on Islam in its heartland.

airship
19th Apr 2004, 19:47
Dear OneWorld22,

This may not be the right place but as you appear to be very knowledgeable about the Middle-East, I hope you can help...

How do they like their eggs? Poached, boiled, runny, easy-over, sunni-side up etc... Can they do anything special with broken eggs or will they just make do with an omelette like we have here? ;)

OneWorld22
19th Apr 2004, 20:13
Don't talk shi'ite airship!

I'm no expert on Islam, its thanks to my trusty encyclopaedia.

Grandpa
19th Apr 2004, 21:30
I'm glad you did it Danny!

Because people who refuse discussion usually do it because they are short of arguments.

We all know you are part in Middle-East conflicts, Danny, as you ever try to make us approve Sharon's politics.

So, it's better for you to try to use logic to defend your position than flatly retiring in your room, close your windows, put your hands on your ears, and think the world agrees with you.

You know I don't, and thank to this thread I know now than General Zinni, from Marine Corps, thinks just what I think about Iraq quagmire.

We don't know now if a united Iraq can get out of this crisis(remember Germany united itself in 1871 in a war against France, and Italy did the same against Austrian Empire, may be Shiit and Sunnit from Iraq will unite expelling the coalition...but what about the Kurds?)

Did you think about the new danger that a united Iraq of this kind could create for a colonialist Israël still led by Sharon, with only USA as ally, when USA is rejected by all people in Middle-East?

One question is enough at a time,.....I have got so many for you Danny!

airship
19th Apr 2004, 21:48
Grandpa, le sujet est la cuisson des oeufs. Préférez-vous des œufs mollets ou durs ou peut-être une omelette en dernier recours? Amitiés, :}

mini
19th Apr 2004, 21:54
Danny,

I hope your idea works out.

Et al,

I have worked in many conflict zones, (including four years in Iraq) I'm sick of seeing the results of political polarisation. Anyone who has been here will understand that the only solution to disputes lies around a table.

Talking kills nobody.

So many times we read the rantings of the bar stool experts, fire and doom to the upstarts etc. It doesn't work.

I'm not a tree hugger, in fact quite the opposite, but I do learn from others mistakes.

Where does the motivation for violence come from? Identify this and you're half way to solving the problem.

Bubbette
19th Apr 2004, 22:00
It's taught to children, at least in the case of the PA, and is then encouraged by parents who celebrate at the death of their suicide bomber children, and children who play with "martyr" trading cards, each emblazoned with a difference suiced bomber, which they trade and collect.

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2004, 22:23
Talking kills nobody.That is not wuite true, if those with whom you are talking take talks as a sign of weakness. It is not always wise to trust in "peace in our time". Sometimes people have to be forced to the table, or they will never, ever comply with the agreements made there.

airship
19th Apr 2004, 22:30
Also taught to children and encouraged by parents before leaving the table: "Eat your greens or you won't get any dessert!" :confused:

Capt.KAOS
19th Apr 2004, 23:17
Thanks to the Great Leader allowing to share our daily Iraq information:

Weather in Baghdad
70°F(21°C)

Partly Cloudy

Rel. Humidity: 51%
Wind: NE at 6 mph (10 km/h)
Sunrise: 6:27 AM
Sunset: 7:36 PM
Barometric Pressure: 26.1"Hg (F)

Could someone explain for me (in idiots terms) the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims. well...at least you know there are sunnis and shi'ites. For Dubya all fuzziewuzzies are the same, even in idiot terms :rolleyes:


Nice to see Bubette back with her always invaluable Palestine ethnological information. Can you confirm that PA members eat Jewish babies, Bubba?

OneWorld22
19th Apr 2004, 23:24
Well Capt it was a Saudi professor in a Riyadh newspaper who claimed that Jews use the blood of Christians and Muslims in foods created to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Purim!!

Funny, if it wasn't so damn frightening that a national newspaper would print somthing like that....

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2004, 23:37
Kaos seems to eschew the idea of informed debate, simply trying to demean the comments put forward by others by force of derision rather than reasoned argument. If all you can do is sneer, Kaos, why bother posting at all?

DishMan
20th Apr 2004, 08:50
Yet another revelation book....

From todays Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml; $sessionid$GGO5WBVVVLH13QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2004/04/20/wirq20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/20/ixportaltop.html)

5bucksyourbeautiful
20th Apr 2004, 08:56
Wahabi - isnt that a line in the Brazilian Ketchup song ? 'i said a hey ha hey ha.. shake your wahabi...'



:}

airship
20th Apr 2004, 11:56
I thought it was a Japanese condiment? :rolleyes:

Ozzy
20th Apr 2004, 13:11
So Libya did once supply arms to the IRA - there's the link to this thread. Okay, just listening to that prat Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 (via Internet) where he is advertising that he is about to interview a "former IRA killer". I don't get it, once a killer always a killer - i.e. he has killed and that cannot be changed. Perhaps Vine intends "former" to modify "IRA" only, in which case then I could accept that. Will wait to see if the bloke has indeed left the IRA.

Ozzy

Dalriadan Archangel
20th Apr 2004, 13:18
Ozzy,

I can see your point but do you think that people should always be labelled for their past?

If this guy genuinely regrets what he has done should it always be held against him?

I have done somethings in my past that I regret yet I do not let them define who I am now.

Ozzy
20th Apr 2004, 13:30
I'm not making a judgement on the character of this bloke, I am just commenting on the use of the English language on a purely objective basis. In fact, he sounds like an intelligent guy - but that does not change the fact he has killed. There is no such thing as a "former killer" unless the word "killer" is being used to describe an occupation rather than the person.

Ozzy

airship
20th Apr 2004, 13:32
And Romanians are now (trying) to supply arms to the Americans?! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642245.stm) I just knew the AKs were superior to the M16s! ;)

Forgive, if not forget, or forever-more hold your piece!

jockeymon
20th Apr 2004, 13:55
"former IRA killer".
Worse than that the mans a patriot, once a patriot always a patriot, there are few things worth killing for, your country, monarchy/parliment, or religion are not. Unless you`re a deranged individual, yup judge the man by his past actions what else can you do??

BillHicksRules
21st Apr 2004, 13:09
Dear all,

I am surprised that there has been no mention or comment on here on the release of Vanunu.

Cheers

BHR

airship
21st Apr 2004, 14:49
BHR, at least Mordechai will now be able to have his eggs any way he wants them. He'll have to be careful about uttering such phrases as "this is my secret recipe for scrambled eggs" though, unless he intends to invite Mossad for breakfast. Funnily enough, one of Mossad's recent directors was also called Danny! ;) :uhoh:

DishMan
21st Apr 2004, 14:53
Heard on the news that Vanunu that he can't leave Israel, cant go within 550ms of a border checkpoint, can't go within 110m of a foreign embassy, has a map of where he may and may not go and list of people hemay and may not speak to......doesn't sound much like being set free to me.....:hmm:

Pilgrim101
21st Apr 2004, 14:55
BHR

There has now :}

Lots of conflicting comment regarding treachery versus whistleblowing recently - an interesting concept depending on whether or not your own life is on the other end of the line if someone betrays their little corner of the official secrets act without knowing the big picture. In Vanunu's case it might be useful to recreate the timescales and the events going on at the time he basically betrayed his Country.

The rights or wrongs of Nuclear weapons in the ME is also an issue open for debate, especially since the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi Nuclear facilities at Osirak (1981, I think) as a pre-emptive strike to defend themselves against an impending Arab nuclear capability. You have to think who has been most responsible in their pursuit of Buckets of Sunshine and who is the candidate most likely to use 'em :8

OneWorld22
21st Apr 2004, 14:56
Lads,

Seriously, check out this pictiure of "camel spiders" that are to be found in Iraq at the moment!!!

Jesus, they look like something out of Aliens!!

The picture is of two of them attached together and their top speed is 10mph!!!!! Apparentely they look for shade so its not uncommon for them to come charging across the desert and then come to a sudden stop when they get into your shadow!

As of the soldiers didn't have enough to worry about.....


http://www.skunksoup.com/images/funpics/camelspider1.jpg

answer=42
21st Apr 2004, 15:04
check out this article in the arty farty Guardian. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1197129,00.html)

'The targeting of al-Jazeera [by the US military] is all the more remarkable, given that it is the only Arab TV network to routinely offer Israeli, US and British officials a platform to argue their case. The Israeli cabinet minister Gideon Ezra famously told the Jerusalem Post: "I wish all Arab media were like al-Jazeera". Kenton Keith, the former US ambassador to Qatar, commented: "You have to be a supporter of al-Jazeera, even if you have to hold your nose sometimes."'

HugMonster
21st Apr 2004, 15:16
Al Jazeera has, indeed, shown remarkable professionalism in much of its reporting. They have been fairly outspoken in their condemnation of Mukhtada Al Sadr and the actions of his supporters. The Septics will get nowhere in targetting Al Jazeera. Far better to get their support, "hearts and minds". But maybe that's a bit too subtle for this Administration. I don't think Rumsfeld does subtle.

Pilgrim101
21st Apr 2004, 15:34
Have to remember the audience Al Jazeera is aimed at too of course - subtlety isn't their strong point because the goodies have to wear white and the baddies wear black just so the man in the street gets the blunt end of whatever point is being made.

"Hearts and Minds" is an impossible concept in the Arab world because there are tremendous internicine, tribal forces at work throughout the region (was it ever thus) to guarantee there can be no cohesion between the 24 or so Arab States. Only then can you consider the foreign/external forces in the region and their cause and effect.

HugMonster
21st Apr 2004, 15:42
Pilgrim, I disagree with almost every point you attempt to make.

I'll let most of the idiocy go, assuming you've overindulged recently in whatever your favourite tipple might be. However, your allegation that Al Jazeera don't deal in subtleties, alleging that they portray everything one way is total rubbish. For lack of subtlety, I suggest you look at Fox News.

As for the concept of hearts and minds, there's not much doubt that the US forces aren't much interested, preferring force to persuasion. And we've seen the results. The British method seems to be working rather better in their sector, where there is a much higher proportion of Shias and therefore rather more possibility of inter-sectrarian conflict.

Pilgrim101
21st Apr 2004, 16:34
I'll ignore your usual derision as a common tool of a failed attempt on your part to comprehend.

I'm in the British Sector and stop the holier than thou bullshit about us having the psychological edge because of our amazing "Britishness" and the respect of our foes and the ordinary Iraqis - this morning proved that fallacious yet again.

The lawless ones out here will kill us just as fast as the Americans, given the opportunity, and your obvious lack of awareness of the Arabic language I will forgive, but the few snippets you armchair wonders pick up third hand as an English translation of what is being broadcast as fact is as always, way off beam. Remember, not everything you read is fact - what I hear on Al Jazeera is the blunt edge of a young, inexperienced Broadcast station working in a political environment you peoplencan only have nightmares about !

I resent your tone but I'm used to supercilious know it alls who have never been in Iraq pontificating about the situation with superficial information gleaned from whichever tabloid they happen to subscribe to, with whichever political slant they are force fed by the media.

answer=42
21st Apr 2004, 16:40
One of the few times I've watched al-Jazeera happened to be the day of the Jerusalem University canteen bombing. They showed the misery, the suffering, the crying in a way that is much more direct than on western TV. I think that most people would have been moved by what they'd seen.

Of course, the Israeli government could have stopped al-Jazeera filming if they had wanted to. But, rightly in my view, they chose not to.

airship
21st Apr 2004, 16:44
Please rename this tread "Iraq and the ME"! :D

"Go ye and multiply and replenish...JB, in memory of Anthony Carn" ...hoping for a resurrection :ok:

Wino
21st Apr 2004, 16:58
Dishman,

Have you never heard the term "Parole"? When you get out of prison in the USA on parole you often have to meet once a week with your parole officer, can't leave the state or county (depending on the terms of your parole) are forbidden from being around other convicts (in many cases your friends before you went in) etc....

If he doesn't like it he can go back in his cage, as many people on parole wind up doing...

Cheers
Wino

DishMan
21st Apr 2004, 17:07
Sorry Wino,

There's no need to be patronising - though I do admit you have proven to do it very well in the past.

I was not aware that he was released "on Parole". I have heard no mention of it at all. Just that he was released.

Davaar
21st Apr 2004, 17:10
Great Heavens, OneWorld22, I have often wished you would just go back to the Guinness and stop posting here; but then who am I to express censorious thoughts, however valid they may be? So I never dream of putting them to laptop, because I know you are sensitive, and I am a gentle soul.

But this latest on the camel spider is something else again. I have read about Australian arachnids, from the teeny brown jumper through the funnel web to the giant Huntsman,and nothing would induce me to visit Oz. Ever. They tell me Africa has some hot numbers too, and I often contemplate a move to Iqaluit in Nunavut, where they have a lot of snow, but few spiders.

If you must post, will you please go back to something offensive and insulting about people, me perhaps, but stay away from nightmare-inducing arachnids?

Chugalug.

Bubbette
21st Apr 2004, 17:32
Vanunu stated he'd like to live in the PA under Arafat, so I don't know how anyone can take him seriously. Re Al-Jazeera, here's a thought on why they *didn't* air the video of the Italian security guard being murdered in Iraq:
. . . . ..the terrorists present the world with an endless supply of lies, which generally take the form of accusing us of what they do (and we don't). Many of their actions are staged precisely for the benefit of reporters (like the horror scene of the four dead American contractors a couple of weeks ago). They brought in the television cameras the other day to film the execution of an Italian hostage, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, but something went wrong. After forcing him to dig his own grave, they put a hood over his head and ordered him to kneel so he could be killed. He wouldn't go for it. He tried to remove the hood, and defiantly yelled at them "I will show you how an Italian dies." The scene was a propaganda disaster for them, and good old al Jazeera, the modern mother of lies, announced that they had the tape but wouldn't release it because it was too terrible to witness. It was terrible, but not in the way al Jazeera wanted us to think. It showed Western bravery, not Arab domination, so they couldn't show it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200404190846.asp

OneWorld22
21st Apr 2004, 17:37
Davaar, remember, they're more scared of you then you are of them!!

All the poor creatures are looking for is some shade from the scorching sun, have a heart man!!

(Just think of the 10mph speed, that's bloody fast!)

Wino
21st Apr 2004, 18:21
Dish,

Being an ex con even if not on parole has certain restrictions on you. In America you can't own a firearm or vote for example. There are other restrictions as well...

He broke the law.

Cheers
Wino

OneWorld22
21st Apr 2004, 19:42
God, a minimum of 68 now killed in the Basra bombings today.....This is really getting worse by the week.

Many of the dead were Children off to school in buses....:( :(


Add to that a car bomb in Riyadh which has killed 9.....what a bloody day.....:(

Ozzy
21st Apr 2004, 19:57
God, a minimum of 68 now killed in the Basra bombings today.....This is really getting worse by the week. Agreed :sad: the terrorists are not targeting coalition forces rather the folks that suffer at their hands are the ordinary Iraqi citizen:(

Ozzy

Slim20
21st Apr 2004, 20:16
Sorry everyone,

Whilst I am thoroughly enjoying the fascinating insights into spiders and eggs, i have to go back to the original post which Clownsy made about Jack Straw: (Clownsy I agree with you wholeheartedly BTW!:D)

The man is a complete oaf. Condemning the killing of a terrorist leader as it is "threatening to derail the peace process" stinks like four day old fish. I suppose he thinks his little jaunt into Iraq has brought a bastion of stability to the Middle East?:confused:

Dammit, at least the Israelis are getting results! JS and TB would be crowing from the rooftops if US or British forces nailed OBL or a senior figure behind the current terrorism in Iraq. For all that I think GWB is an odious creep, at least he found the consistency to support Israel's claims to the West Bank and their actions in dealing with terrorism, given his recent track record.

Hypocrisy by our leaders is UGLEE.

I think it would be fitting should Mr Straw find a camel spider rushing for the shadow between his buttcheeks one morning.

Definitely scrambled.;)

HugMonster
22nd Apr 2004, 04:54
Slim 20 - if you were to kill Gerry Adams tomorrow, that would derail the peace process in Northern Ireland.

So, would you applaud or deprecate the act?

Pilgrim - you miss the point. One man's bias is another man's even-handed reporting. Compared to many, Al Jazeera is independent and professional. They deserve to be encouraged. Ban them or keep them out and they will feel there's nothing much to be gained from being independent. One possible voice of reason among the arab channels will be lost as a channel of communication. Or do you prefer the US Administration's heavy-handed approach?

BTW, my information on Iraq comes from rather more than the accepted and usual media over here. In some respects, who knows, I may hear more than you! ;)

DishMan
22nd Apr 2004, 09:14
Wino,

Agreed Vanunu broke the law.
He was then tried convicted and sentenced for that.
He served the FULL sentence - he was not released on parole.

Only under very special circumstances do subsequent restrictions apply.
I would have thought that if the authorities were really worried about him releasing further secrets etc then they could have legally applied for his case to be reviewed and sentence increased????

It appears that his punishment is being continued.....or that the authorities do not wish him to draw attention to their "nuclear program" and thus restirict his freedom to speak.

The idea that one should not be allowed to vote after serving your complete sentence is, to me, stupid. It would indicate that the system has failed to "re-educate" the person. Especially as that restriction applies to anyone with a criminal conviction - which may be a very minor petty thing that occured in your teens. To impose that restriction on a citizen for life is irrational.
Banning someone from owning a gun for the same reason is laughable. (Especially in a country where so many believe it is their constitutional right to posess a firearm!) OK - it is understandable and common sense if the conviction was for a firearm or violent offence. But imagine someone convicted of fraud...Duuh In the UK there is a "register" which holds the names of convicted sex offenders. The reasoning being that they have one of the highest liklihoods of re-offending and the authorities can use it to minimise the risk of that person getting into a position which provides that opportunity. (See what happened when the process failed in the UK "Soham Murders".)

Personally, I believe that Israel's restrictions on Vanunu will have the opposite effect to that desired and will, in fact, draw people's attention to the "there's something to hide" scenario.
Every one is well aware that there is a nuclear programme and that it has certainly changed beyond any recogognition since 1986 when Vanunu ceased to have contact with it is also a given.

Davaar

I have been to Oz a few times and only ever seen two red-backs! Theye were in the letter box at the place I was working. The secretary let me take a photo before they were squished...one had a body 1 cm long so over all with legs was quite a size! She also kept promising to bring in the Huntsman that is resident in her house....he keeps the other nuisance bugs down! (but she didn't :( ) We had to do a site survey in some bush and the chap I was with was regaling me of stories about a snake that could charge faster than I could run and would actually chase after you......I kept to the clear sand areas and the bonnet of the 4x4! :=

Pilgrim101
22nd Apr 2004, 10:07
Hug Monster

Damn your eyes - I rip into you and what do I get ? A reasonable reply ;)

My point is that the Arabic Al Jazeera is definitely tailored (maybe even dumbed down) to the volatile man in the street here who believes that if a bus hits a taxi in downtown Cairo, it's a Mossad conspiracy. The effects of less than judicious terminology and graphic execution, combat, mutilation images here is almost pornographic in it's presentation given the audience.

That said, I'm a westerner suffering from culture shock anyway and from what I understand about UK TV these days, the media has a lot to answer for across the board in playing down to the lowest common denominator
:E

HM

BTW, I don\'t think I advocated banning Alk Jazeera at any point - the repetitive sh!te promulgated every day by the amateur night Sky News is just as bad :p

Interesting aside from you on your source - wouldn\'t like to share it with the lads and lasses out here would you ?:}

Slim20
22nd Apr 2004, 10:14
Hug Monster

Gerry Adams has committed to a peaceful end to the NI troubles, decommissioning of arms, and dialogue/power sharing within the Good Friday Agreement.

Hardly the moderate actions we associate with Hamas now, is it?

Ask me the question in 1982 and I'd probably have said yes. Ian Paisley? well that's a different matter.....!

OneWorld22
23rd Apr 2004, 20:56
Interesting story, I can imagine the US administration really do not want the US public seeing these images.

Startling mosiac as well....

See link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3652171.stm)

con-pilot
23rd Apr 2004, 21:28
OW22, All major TV networks lead with pictures of the flag draped coffins last night on their national evening news broadcast. The pictures were released by the D.O.D. to the networks and anyone else that wanted them.

Bubbette
23rd Apr 2004, 21:58
I think those photos were very patriotic and showed how respectful we are for our war dead.

Wino
23rd Apr 2004, 23:23
Oddly enough bush's approval rating has gone way up since the casualties started mounting.

Not what the luvvies were predicting, that's for sure.

Even the BBC just acknowledged it on the evening broadcast

Cheers
Wino

Ed Winchester
23rd Apr 2004, 23:53
Bush's ratings have gone up since the casualties started mounting............

That's great, he must be very pleased. I'm sure the families of those lost in combat will be delighted for him.

I am far from being a luvvie, leftie, liberal or whatever other tired old label you can think of, but this strikes me as a rather bizarre way of looking at things. Can the two occurrences really be tangibly linked to each other?

:confused:

Wino
24th Apr 2004, 00:05
No,
but what it does is blow all the pundits claims that bush will be tarred by failure in Iraq. Many prominent Democratic strategists had been rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of casualties.

Iraq was a problem for 3 administrations, not just bush... Most people have realized that.

Cheers
Wino

cumulus
24th Apr 2004, 21:13
One thing you have to realise about Al Jazeera, is that if anything, they are more feared and loathed by repressive middle eastern regimes, than by Israel or the US.
One thing they do not do, is coddle their audience. If twenty children were blown to pieces, by whatever side, thats exactly what they will show you on the news.
As a matter of interest, Channel 4 (in the UK) made a documentary that showed some of the footage that they thought too shocking for their regular news program during the war. The images were quite hideous, a child with the top of his skull blown away, body parts being gathered up, and so on. The war most of us saw on the television was profoundly sanitised, and in the case of certain networks in the US, more like a war movie.
We really do have the luxury of never seeing the full consequences of the actions of our elected governments.

Right, thats the longest post I have ever done. I will now go and lie own in a darkened room for an hour or so.

maxalt
25th Apr 2004, 16:17
Just saw the Sky News story in which David Blunkett is reported to have warned the visting French politician Jean Marie LePenn to behave himself - or else.
LePenn is being told that if he makes any racist remarks, or uses language liable to inflame racist sentiments, that he will be thrown out of the country.

And quite right too.

Meanwhile, outside Finnsbury Mosque, a one eyed, hook handed Mullah daily incites his followers to carry out suicide attacks on the West, and praises those who kill in the name of Islam.

Is this a clear case of double standards?

Jerricho
25th Apr 2004, 18:42
Not just double standards, but a very short memory as well it seems.

It's nearly time for that nice man Mr Archer to try and make another comeback. Oh, and let's not forget Neil Hamilton. Surely his little "I'm a celeb...." thingie equates to forgiveness?

Caslance
25th Apr 2004, 19:15
Is this a clear case of double standards? You seem surprised, maxalt. We're talking about politicians here - of course there are double standards...........

ps - Neither of the gentlemen you mention have any place in a modern decent society, IMHO.

Boss Raptor
25th Apr 2004, 20:30
Absolutely true...and sticking my neck out here and has been broached on other threads...I for one am sick and tired of the double standards apparently being tolerated from (in this particular case) the Muslim extremists in this country...they can apparently infringe the rules on racial incitement i.e. recent case of those outside a mosque shouting war and other aggressive/offensive notions...clearly in breach of recent legislation...nothing is done...but if u or I do it different story I am sure...

Not wishing to take this thread into a conflict of nitpicking or racialism...this is happening and this is the case....one rule for one and another rule for the others :confused:

mini
25th Apr 2004, 20:40
BR,

Agree totally. Having had the good fortune of experiencing many cultures, and still enjoying it BTW. When I work in a country I am expected to respect their values and modify my behaviour to reflect this, when the residents of such a country come to mine I expect they respect our values. We just happen to be more tolerant of violations than they are, hence the abuse - what's the answer?

Hoping
26th Apr 2004, 01:17
The example you cite Maxalt is not one of double standards. I'm sure David Blunkett would be against this hook-handed fellas alleged statements too. Both the French visitor and the hook-handed (I guess) resident have a right to be here. Neither is going to be thrown out so I fail to see the double standard.

Boss Raptor, why don't you try something and see what happens? Organise a demonstration outside a church and shout "war and other aggressive/offensive notions". Seriously. Maybe we are wrong when we imagine that the Muslims get better treatment in this area (freedom of speech). You shouldn't claim that you will be treated any more firmly than a muslim doing the same thing until you know this for certain. Don't you agree?

Mini, who expects you to respect the values of another country when you are working there? Do you really do this? For instance, if you worked in Syria, would you really respect the value of women having to cover their faces? I agree, you SHOULD respect these values, but will you not concede that it is actually a bit difficult to have respect for something that, well, you think is rather unpleasant? You are talking about visiting a country. Fair enough. What about the British people living in this country who do not respect the values of the whites? The British Muslims. They are not here visiting, why should they respect values they don't agree with?

Just a few straightforward points. I like to try and trick people into thinking sometimes ;)

HugMonster
26th Apr 2004, 10:57
Wino, I'm glad to see that you admit Bush's Iraq policy has been a failure.

Ozzy
26th Apr 2004, 13:37
From the BBC Mr Abu Hamza's lawyer has said stripping him of British citizenship would leave him stateless and would be a breach of his human rights. Is this true? Doesn't he revert back to the citizenship from whence he came? Apparently his kid served time in the Middle East for terrorist activities - like father like son....

Ozzy

Boss Raptor
26th Apr 2004, 13:51
Hoiping - as a matter of fact I enquired of a senior local police friend and it is very clear he apparently has been instructed by his seniors presumably motivated by the Home Office to deal with any such racially or politically motivated demonstration at a mosque swiftly and in exactly the way you would expect - to arrest and charge accordingly - yet strangely enough the instruction doesnt contain the reverse scenario of demonstrations at churches maybe as they were not anticipated - so now I am not going to try it out as I already have my answer from an official source and frankly it is a daft suggestion

astir 8
26th Apr 2004, 14:48
These are politicians, and all too often lawyers rolled into one - double standards are the least you can expect. Triple or quadruple standards are more likely.

Anything goes, as long as they can get re-elected. Preferably to the European parliament - the pay & perks are better.


Cynical? Moi?

Bubbette
26th Apr 2004, 15:18
Gee Wino, I didn't think that's what you meant, did you?

Wino
26th Apr 2004, 16:15
I have been against the IRAQ policies since the end of the first gulf war. After the first gulf war we should have either taken saddam out, or said "right, your out of kuwait, war is over, don't do it again, have a nice day." and left completely.

THe problem is after the first gulfwar we got ourselves into a situation where in poker terms we got ourselves "Pot committed" and have had no choice but to push all the chips across the table and say "all in". To do otherwise would have been the end of foreign policy. We had no more to lose by walking away in terms of our ability to influence and help the world then we did by going in. On the other hand, by going in we had more potential upside.

You dont see it that way, but to me we were simply repeating the lessons of the end of WWI. Rather than get bored and leave as the allies did to France after WWI allowing Hitler to get away with all kinds of things,

It was better to draw the line in the sand and then squash Saddam when he stepped over it.

THere are many things at work here, and if you focus on Iraq, you are still in the micro, not the macro.

So do I disagree with Iraq? Yep. But not the final invasion. THose cards were forced to be played after there were so many chips in the pot already. Because France denied us the ability to win the pot on a bluff, we were forced to play all the cards to a show down. There was no other choice.

Bush's Iraq policy was a result of CLinton's Iraq policy which was a result of the Bush I's Iraq policy, a squeemish coalition, and an inept and hopelessly corrupt United nations.


Cheers
Wino

steamchicken
26th Apr 2004, 16:23
I'm not sure we can strip him of citizenship. The last government I remember that had that particular practice was East Germany. (If you annoyed the regime, you went to jail, and once you had been in for a while, so long as you were lucky enough to get the attention of the West Germans, the Bundesrepublik would give the East some cash and you would be officially un-personed and pushed over the border.) It's in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (signed just after the UN charter) that we all "have the right to a nationality and not to be deprived of nationality". I really doubt he'll be deported - where would he be deported to? If he is really such a deadly threat to national security, why not charge him and lock him up? If Le Pen does anything naughty he can be thrown out because he is a Frenchman. It's not a double standard, it's the law.

Ozzy
26th Apr 2004, 16:29
I'm not sure we can strip him of citizenship. It's my understanding he only gained British citizenship through marriage (he is now divorced from that woman). Well perhaps he cannot have it taken away - but I don't see why not. I mean, he was born in Egypt, right? He would revert to being Egyptian, no?

I really doubt he'll be deported - where would he be deported to? He could be deported to Yemen where there is warrant for his arrest in connection to terrorist activities. I'm sure Blunckett could introduce an extradition arrangement with Yemen for the hook handed one if none such exists currently:E :E

Ozzy

Paterbrat
26th Apr 2004, 16:47
Seemed pretty clear to me, Wino simply acknowledged the fact that Iraq has been a problem for the last three administrations and that the showing of returning casualties has not been quite the disaster people had imagined it would be.

I think that it has been acknowledged that most struggles throughout history have incurred lives sacrifice and hard decisions. Those fact have and will always be disagreed with by some of the population whatever the cause whatever the provocation. It can be a bitter pill for some to swallow that the elected government makes decisions in the name of the people who brought it to power, but that is the way it works no matter how much noise the minority make, and yes it does sometimes lead to disaster, but more often than not a democraticaly led country appears to win out over a dictatorship.

Hi HM good to see you back with your, go straight for the goolies, style of entering the fray. Hows the Iraqi family connection going, have you converted yet or was religion not a problem? I know the situation well having been there and done that and in our case it was not, it was enough of a cultural minefield without that complication, had a magnificent relationship with the mother in law though she spoke no English and my Arabic was sketchy to say the least, we never had a cross word in 20 years, that I could understand anyway.

Great piccie WW22 those camel spiders can be mean bastards with a nasty bite, in Kenya the baboon spiders are a smaller but more agressive arachnid who jump at one when attacking. These daddy longlegs back here in Blighty are absolute pussies

With reference to the pinpoint elimination of known terrorist leaders all I can say is that despite the massive outcry about revenge at Yassin's removal and the subsequent attack on his successor there appears to have been little done. Hardly the tidal wave of vengeance promised? They lived by violence and it certainly appeared to have figured in their departure, they preached in favour of it, they got it.

The continuing violence in Iraq is hardly a surprising phenomenon. Having lived with it on a daily basis either through the Baathists on a regular ongoing basis, the extremists now giving vent to surpressed frustrations, or the kill happy jihad externals, it will probably simmer on for decades. Why on earth does anybody think that it will cease overnight. Sweetness and light have always been higher human emotions that sadly tend to take a back seat to the more primitive old brain tendancies of aggression and violence, I believe it's a design thing? They are certainly an ongoing historical legacy in this particular part of the world and may take a while to die down

With regard to Vannunu he obviously knew the score and has taken his lumps, and will continue to take them, obviously a man of principle he has acted upon them, unfortunately others believe that other prioritities should prevail and so the tango goes on. One man's treachery and treason are anothers whistleblowing duty to the world, who's right whose wrong, take your pick.

Al jazeera joins the hysteria of providing the world with more violence, deeper probing, and closer inspection of the " good news" bad news that the modern world seems to be overdosing on. We could all do quite well without the bulk of the violence drivel and general gossip that pours forth on a daily basis from every newspaper tv station, radio station and any other method used to pass the general bulk of mindless useless depressing cr#p that passes for important must have 'news'. The world has become addicted to what is nothing more that a massive gossipfest every single day. We have become as informationaly overloaded as we are becoming physicaly obese. Most unhealthy.

Now having added my opinions to the compost I will venture back to my afternoon out in the sunshine, it's a lovely day out there.

Biggles Flies Undone
26th Apr 2004, 16:52
I see he is receiving legal aid to fight his case. Bit of a slap in the face for the taxpayers IMHO......

Pilgrim101
26th Apr 2004, 17:29
Well Put PB !

Just a thought for the three Italians currently held in Iraq having seen one of their compatriots cold bloodedly murdered for the benefit of Al Jazeera. Where the f:mad: k are the demonstrations in the West to let the murdering c:mad: ts holding them know that their safety is of paramount importance to us and that any further video ecorded "executions" will see massive reprisals - language those f:mad: s really understand.

When you compare the bleeding hearts and propagandist sh!te pumped out for those terrorist ar$eholes in Guantanamo, to the deafening silence on the maltreatment of the Italians for one group in particular the Liberal hypocrisy and mental obesity in the West is fully exposed :yuk:

Bubbette
26th Apr 2004, 17:45
You dont see it that way, but to me we were simply repeating the lessons of the end of WWI. Rather than get bored and leave as the allies did to France after WWI allowing Hitler to get away with all kinds of things, Well, we cleaned up Europe and Japan pretty much, so I guess we can do it with Iraq.

Wino
26th Apr 2004, 17:52
We need a bad cop so we can play good cop.
The Russians were the bad cop of the occupation in Europe. Everyone wanted to be in the American sector.

Maybe we should bring in a rwandan contingent and give them a sector to carry out organized slaughter in. Then the US occupation won't look so bad.

But the US occupation of Germany and Japan did not go well initially either... On the other hand we were far less lenient with dissent in Germany and Japan too. We haven't strung up anyone publicly yet, and like it or not it was a huge part of the occupation of both Germany and Japan. Made people unwilling to want to be "noticed" by the occupying forces.

But oh my god, if we conducted trials and executions like were carried out in Japan and Germany post WWII think of the outrage.

Cheers
Wino

Caslance
26th Apr 2004, 18:02
Well, we cleaned up Europe...... Well I never, and there I was thinking that the fact that the bulk and the elite of German forces, including the overwhelming majority of Panzer divisions, were on the Eastern front meant that most of the fighting in Europe took place in the East.

We live and learn.............

Wino makes a good point about the "good cop, bad cop" situation, though.

At the moment, there is no "bad cop" and the occupying forces (for that's what they are, however we dress it up and whatever the motives) are the sole focus for frustration and discontent in Iraq.

All soldiers have an inherent right to defend themselves from armed attack, but clamping down hard in a general and indiscriminate manner would only make an already bad situation worse.

Ozzy
26th Apr 2004, 18:19
At the moment, there is no "bad cop" and the occupying forces (for that's what they are, however we dress it up and whatever the motives) are the sole focus for frustration and discontent in Iraq. Excuse me but I respectfully think that's bollocks. If that's the case Caslance then why the **** do the terrorists target and kill so many civilians, their fellow Iraqi's (assuming some of the terrorists are Iraqi)? Why do they kidnap and execute foreign civilians. Let's face it, the terrorists are simply trigger happy scum who have no morals, who will kill anyone and anything until they are put out of business.

Ozzy

Caslance
26th Apr 2004, 18:30
Ozzy my feelings on the kind of criminal scum that carry out despicable acts of that kind are almost identical to yours, are no secret, and have been expounded here many times.

However, if you're seriously trying to tell us that there is no sense of frustration and discontent among the general populace in present-day Iraq, and that this does not find focus on the foreign "occupying force" then I feel constrained to reply to you in your own, somewhat uncouth, terms.

With the greatest of respect, naturally...............

Ozzy
26th Apr 2004, 18:49
I am not saying that there is no sense of frustration and discontent and that it is finding focus on the "occupying force". But it obviously is not the "sole" focus you described in your original post. If it were solely focused on the "occupying forces", then just what would you hypothesise is the driving force behind executing civilian hostages and the indiscriminant killing of Iraqi men, women, and children?

Slightly more couth that response was.

Ozzy

OneWorld22
26th Apr 2004, 19:16
Wino, I've been an opponent of the war as you probably know, but I can see where you're coming from. There is an element of realpolitik involved here.

There was a real threat that the UN sanctions were going to be lifted. This was a rumour that wouldn't go away in the UN and seemed like a real possibility as there was more and more opposition every time the sanctions were up for renewal. If Saddam had beaten the sanctions then it could have been disastrous. He would have gained the adulation of the Arab world where in their eyes, he would have gained a victory against the great satan. (But funnily enough, this would have outraged Al-Qaeda and OBL who did not want a strong secular Arab leader controlling the region)

A strong Saddam free to build up his armaments again, could have posed a real threat to the Saudis. This could not be allowed to happen. As you could have had a situation where one Dictator could have dominated oil production in the region.

It was either get him now or wait till he was even more powerful and was strangling the western economies by controlling oil supply.

Maybe one day I'll see it like that and be thankful that the war happened when it did. But its just the lies told that led to war that still gets me, the linking of Hussein with OBL, which simply didn't exist, the WMD's that didn't exist.....

Politics is a nasty game and sometimes these kind of decisions are made that may repel us, but in later years maybe we'll turn around and admit it was right.

But Iraq is a mess at the moment and there's no denying that things are far worses then we thought they would be this time last year.

Slim20
26th Apr 2004, 19:35
I recall a popular story (in very bad taste) about solving similar problems in Vietnam, known as "Pull the Plug", quoted in Michael Herr's Dispatches and Robert Mason's Chickenhawk:

You take all the "good guy" Vietnamese and put them all on boats out in the Tonkin Gulf.

Anyone left in the country must be the "bad guys". So you hunt them down, bomb them and nuke them if necessary until they are all dead.

And then, the saying goes, you "pull the plug", and sink the ships.

I can see a similar attitude rapidly approaching regarding the Iraq situation. Blaming fanatics, terrorists and outsiders for the violence is a very dangerous tactic by Mr Bush.

Bubbette
26th Apr 2004, 19:43
Um, who else do you think is doing it. In any case, in Britain, it's a good time to be a female Muslim terrorist:

Muslim women exempt from ID card photos

Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday April 25, 2004
The Observer

Thousands of Muslim women will be exempted from having to show their faces on identity cards as the Government moves to allay fears among British Muslims that the new cards will be used to target them in the 'war on terror'.


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1202918,00.html

tony draper
26th Apr 2004, 19:44
Ah ! I see, thats the mistake the military is guilty of, they should be seeking these people among the Iraqi mothers union or the Iraqi Salvation Army.

OneWorld22
26th Apr 2004, 19:46
Agreed, ridiculous that they will be exempt from this.

What did you think Bubetter of France forbidding head scarves? I applaud them for it....

Slim20
26th Apr 2004, 19:49
You are overly concerned with terrorism sprouting everywhere - it's like the McCarthy witch hunts again, only this time it's Muslims rather than Communists.

*Iraqis* are doing the rioting, the stoning, the jeering, the shooting. Extremists are to blame for the suicide bombs and car bombs, of that I have no doubt, but frustration with the occupying forces is causing a lot of blood to be shed, and not just by terrorist elements.

You CANNOT just say it is extremists who are attacking US forces - it is a distortion of the truth to make ordinary Americans believe that ordinary Iraqis welcome the coalition, whilst extremists and fanatics are spoiling it. That is not the truth.

OneWorld22
26th Apr 2004, 19:56
But slim its an unfortunate feature of todays world post 9-11.

For example. You have an undercover security guard working at Heathrow. Will he/she be looking at white passengers or will his gaze follow middle eastern looking people the majority of the time?

It may be wrong what he/she does and it may be discriminatory, but could you blame him/her for doing it? Does it make them bad people?

Would you blame ordinary passengers post 9-11 for glancing a little two often at the two middle eastern men in 12A and 12B??

Bubbette
26th Apr 2004, 20:00
What did you think Bubetter of France forbidding head scarves? I applaud them for it....

I don't think it does anything to promote assimilation and respect for democratic and egalitarian values, which include the right to practice one's religion as long as it doesn't endanger others. Making sure that everyone, including girls, receives a proper education, and feels free to live their life as they see fit would be a better start. From what I have read, girls are beat up in the ghettos for dressing too immodestly, and the children in general aren't being educated in French civics (not that appeasement is the way to go, but having the choice to do so would be a start).

Slim20
26th Apr 2004, 20:02
Oh no OW22 I agree, today's terrorists are conveniently colour-coded for the benefit of the security forces, unlike the European terrosrist movements of the 70s and 80s.

However, the question in Iraq is how do you separate the fedayeen hardline militant from the aggrieved homeowner whose child has been killed in crossfire from US forces' "overwhelming force" response to a potshot? Both will be eager for vengeance, and both have access to AK47s and petrol bombs.

To your average GI Joe they both look like terrorists or fanatics; but in reality only one of them is, surely?

OneWorld22
26th Apr 2004, 20:07
I don't think it does anything to promote assimilation and respect for democratic and egalitarian values,


Of course it does. You must understand the history of France to understand this thinking. They pride themselves on secularism and its one of the cornerstones of their democracy, That was the thinking when the republic was set upo, to have a country free intitially from the influence of rome or any religious dogma. There are no crosses allowed on State buildings for example. They don't have a right in France to differentiate themselves from the general populace on religious grounds.

Removing religion from society? I'm all for it and bravo France. If Muslims want to live and work in France they must adhere to their hosts wishes.

I hope this isn't because you're ant-French after the Iraq war and will criticize them over anyting now is it?

This is actually very funny, It\'s Bush\'s Hotmail account!!


Bush\'s e-mails (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/bushmail.html#)

Caslance
26th Apr 2004, 21:28
what would you hypothesise is the driving force behind executing civilian hostages and the indiscriminant killing of Iraqi men, women, and children? The same impulse that drives almost all criminal actions, Ozzy, greed and lust for power over the lives of others. Evil, if you like, but I always think blaming evil erodes the personal responsibilty that such criminals bear for their disgusting crimes.

And I'm afraid that, rightly or wrongly, the sole focus for discontent and frustration is the occupying forces.

Such feelings are always expressed against authority, and what other authority figures are there in Iraq at the moment?

Perhaps things will change once a civilian Iraqi administration is in power, but how long do you honestly and truly think a civilian administration that was seen as US-appointed would last after a US withdrawal from Iraq?

Let's face it, our forces may have been greeted as liberators, and quite rightly, but now - whether rightly or wrongly - they're seen as occupiers.

Grandpa
26th Apr 2004, 22:03
....and I don't even know the reasons of that leniency.

Al Jazzeera is not the only ennemy : twenty newsmen have been "inadvertently" killed by US fire in Iraq .

The new way chosen by Paul Bremer now, is to reintroduce the Baath party members in Iraq's administration..........from which they were expelled by occupying forces one year ago....

For the moment, no help is requested from the first circle of Baath leaders, but with the improvements of the situation we are able to see day after day, it won't be long till a new job is offered to Saddam: may be Rumsfeld will prefer to let him deal directly with the Shiits instead of having occupying forces doing the dirty job.

airship
26th Apr 2004, 22:10
Keeping some Nazis in position after WWII worked apparently... :\

Grandpa
26th Apr 2004, 22:21
..........because they didn't suffer that much from US occupation.

Wino
26th Apr 2004, 22:41
Grandpa,
You should do a little more research.
from 45 to 48 the USA and the allies conducted 5000 trials in Japan, found 3000 people guilty and publicy executed by hanging over 900 people in Japan. Of course the emporer escaped, and some class A criminals (same category as TOJO) in the late 50s were allowed to return to public life and one went on to become prime minister of Japan....

but look at that figure again. 900+ public executions
Japan was subject to complete rule by the US military with powers that the current forces in Iraq can only dream of.

At times they used it


Cheers
Wino

Hoping
26th Apr 2004, 22:45
Boss, did you read what you just said?

to deal with any such racially or politically motivated demonstration at a mosque swiftly and in exactly the way you would expect - to arrest and charge accordingly - yet strangely enough the instruction doesnt contain the reverse scenario of demonstrations at churches maybe as they were not anticipated

But I thought you were complaining that

Muslim extremists in this country...they can apparently infringe the rules on racial incitement i.e. recent case of those outside a mosque shouting war and other aggressive/offensive notions...clearly in breach of recent legislation...nothing is done...but if u or I do it different story I am sure...

Surely you have proven yourself wrong there? It appears, from what YOUR friend says, that it is the Muslims that are being treated more firmly. No?

airship
26th Apr 2004, 23:07
Yeah! 900+ public executions and 2 nukes. It worked then, so Nuk'em once, Nuk'em twice!! End of problem... :\

benhurr
27th Apr 2004, 00:34
Dodgy ground for me, a thread which Danny started, but afer ploughing through the 7 pages I would like to make a simple point.

A life is a life - I personally dont give a flying f*ck about religion, nationality or anything else by which we chose to differentiate. Isn't it sad that the one thing we all hold most precious for ourselves we are more than willing to take from somebody else - and then seek justification for doing so.

Sorry I am sure I am regurgitating previous posts on this subject, but surely basic respect has a place in this.

OK I will go back to sleeping now...

hamusandtahini
27th Apr 2004, 02:29
Vanunu was illegally KIDNAPPED in contravention of international law. So don't give us the criminal crap as the nation responsible can also don that title. Its perplexing the shift in policy on this site is it a monthly cycle? Bwahahaha:E

BlueDiamond
27th Apr 2004, 02:37
Its perplexing the shift in policy on this site is it a monthly cycle?

It's offensive and childish remarks like this that caused debate on Middle East subjects to be closed here in the first place. You would be very wise to read the rules of engagement for JetBlast and you would be extremely wise to understand that making smart comments about the owner of this website is not really the way to ensure the continuation of this thread.

Bubbette
27th Apr 2004, 04:31
A life is a life - I personally dont give a flying f*ck about religion, nationality or anything else by which we chose to differentiate. Isn't it sad that the one thing we all hold most precious for ourselves we are more than willing to take from somebody else - and then seek justification for doing so.

No, if said life is coming to kill me and my family, you can be sure I will be out there trying to kill him first.

Boss Raptor
27th Apr 2004, 07:47
No you obviously haven't read what I have said or followed the vein of the thread;

If a Mosque is targeted by demonstrators etc. it appears the Police have instructions to act with the upmost force and priority...This is clearly not the same action or intent as Muslim activists standing outside a Mosque and making pro-terrorist statements/threats against the Western World in general which is the point where the objection comes and what I am complaining about

If a Church is equally targeted the Police have no clear instruction or priority (whom being attacked by is academic)

QED - Our legislation/rules are actively being directed/enforced which protects Muslims from racial/religious incitement so if I (a non Muslim) did it against them or others (as in your stupid suggestion) I would be subject to the full force of the appropriate laws.

but...nothing being enforced so far in parallel to protect other Religions etc. against similar action...therefore one rule for them (Muslims) and another in reality for the rest of us...hence the loud mouth Muslim boys getting away with spouting their pro-aggression pro-terrorist vile outside a Mosque and not apparently being touched despite the current situation of tension and recent tougher legislation against precisely such acts

So they (Muslims) can apparently say what they want regardless of being blatently illegal and/or upsetting people and Blunkett turns a blind eye (excuse the pun not intended) - but then Blunkett has the audacity to warn Le Pen 'Behave' and dont say anything racist/bad etc.!

Grandpa
27th Apr 2004, 08:38
It's not quite clear if people on this thread REGRET J.M Le Pen has been warned by David Blunkett not to engage in racist remarks.............OR if they wish same treatment for fundamentalists mollahs.

I feel concerned because this J.M. Le Pen is a shame for France, after his previous racist, pro-nazi, antisemitic, attitudes and declarations. He is part of the international net of Third Reich nostalgics and a danger for democracy.

Thus I adress my congratulations to British citizens who throw their dustbin on his car.
I wish I had been there to do the same!

That being said, I must admit that there have been, and still are differences in our states policy toward fundamentalists and terrorism:

In France, for a while there was a lenient policy designed to protect our country from terrorist activities in the stupid manner:"Do what you want abroad, as far as you don't threaten France". Our short sighted politicians had to take time to realise this was stupid, but thanks to Allah or whoever he is, this policy was left aside more than twenty years ago.

Now police and justice are doing their job here, and leave no chance to fundamentalist to spread their patriarcal way of abuse against women, or their appeals for murder and holy war.

In USA, and United Kingdom, there has been for years a policy of tolerance for these activists, when US or Brit administrations supposed they were acceptable partners in case of political changes in Pakistan or Egypt and other prominent Musleem populated countries. (Just remember this blind Egyptian Imam who could be accepted in USA with his polygamic family, notwithstanding his terrorist past and fundamentalist preaching....until he managed to blow up WTC).

After 9/11, this attitude has been revised, but Londonistan is still a safe place for a lot of public dangers who would have been jailed or expelled, had they lived on this side of the Channel.

There is an insurmountable contradiction in the fact of pretending to fight terrorism in Iraq (with the great successs whe are able to wonder) and let him express and recruit inside your own territory.

I know there are different traditions in UK and France about men rights, but I think it should be possible to act against terrorists and fundamentalist without breaking democratic rules (Bush's Guantanamo is clearly an example of what should never have been done....).

Pilgrim101
27th Apr 2004, 09:34
Welcome Back Grandpa ;)

I'm going to change my medication, because I agree wholeheartedly with you on our ridiculous assertion that these sponsors of terror and terrorists deserve the protection of the European Human Rights charter which "we" ie Blair and his bloodsucking lawyer of a wife have managed to hoodwink the British Public with !

Blair's wife is one of the many lawyers who advocate the expenditure of vast sums of legal aid money to leeches like Abu Hamza (thereby denying the funds to those genuine asylum seekers who do deserve our support).

As for Le Pen, I believe the only way to expose the vile beliefs of such Nazi thinking is in fact to give them as much publicity as they want. Most right minded people will find them repugnant but we also do have to remove the negative stereotype thinking of the many " normal" people who are very frustrated at the treacherous snakes in our midst who are fireproof from any critique because of their ethnicity. The police are terrified to act against these minority voices for fear of being branded "Institutionally Racist" or some other ridiculous pc terminology.

By the way, where I am, we are not "pretending" to fight terror, It's real, with a real cost to us, but we all believe that it is a cause worth fighting for. Please respect us for our commitment at least. :ok:

Grandpa
27th Apr 2004, 10:13
Edward Behr/ "Hiro-Hito"-1987:

"MacArthur told:"There must be more than ten executions"-page 430 (French traduction/Béatrice Vierne/Robert Laffont Editions
In this book you can read about General Ishii, Commander of "Unit 731"in which Chinese and Russian prisoners were tortured and subject for "scientific experiences" (Remember Dr.Mengele)before assassination.

General Ishii died from cancer many years after he and ALL his collaborators had escaped their punishment, because "MacArthur agreed to give amnesty to everybody in exchange for all informations about Unit731. He gave his word of honour there would be no legal proceedings"page 439 same source.

...........................................

Xu Zhigeng/"Nankin Massacre"Chinese Litterature Editions-1995

(In 1937 Japanese invasion forces seized Nankin and massacred more than 300 000 civilian, men, women, babies, elderly, using torture and raping women)
Conversation between Chinese Judge Mei Ru'ao and M.Carpenter Judicial Section Director Allied Forces Headquarter, Imperial Hotel Tokyo,1947:
C/"Allied Forces Headquarter received a message from Chinese Government saying Chinese public opinion demanded transport of General Hisao Tani in China for judgement. What's your opinion Dr.Mei?"
M/"You should agree with public and government demand."
C/"Yes but I fear Chinese justice is not able to judge Gl.Tani on fair grounds."
M/"According to international law general principles and Far East Committee Resolution about war criminal treatment, Allied Forces Headquarter can't refuse extradiction of B § C category war criminals when judgement is asked by victim countries."
C/"You are right."

You realise that if Gl.Tani and a lot of fellows war criminals were judged and executed in China, it's due to Chinese government insistence and not to US authorities will.

.....................................

Sugihara Yukiko/"Visa for 6000 lives"/ French traduction Karine Chesneau/Philippe Picquier Edition-1995

(Chiune Sugihara, Japan Consul in Kaunas - Lithuania - delivered more than 6000 visa for Jews fleeing the nazis, against his superiors will, HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW !!!!!!!!!!!)
"1947-June- dismissed from Foreign Affairs Ministry." page 181.
"1969-September- Decorated by Israel Religious Affair Ministry."page181.
"1985-January 18th-Entitled Yad Vashem prize by Israel Government as a "Just among the Nations".page 182
"1986-July- Died."page 182.

This courageous man who saved thousands was persecuted by Japanese administration under US authority, and had to wait till his death for public recognition in Japan, only thanks to Israel tributes.

Keep researching Wino!

Irish_Roll
27th Apr 2004, 10:38
I have just got my foot into the aviation industry and I am becommingly increasing concerned with how the Middle East problem is no longer confined to that region but is spreading like a cancer through the western world.

Why?

My view is that the Anti American feeling is becomming entrenched in the populations of Iraq and much of the Middle East because of the US support for Israels' illegal land grad in the West Bank. Americas biased support for Israel has exposed the rest of us to terrorism, September 11th/Madrid.

I was impressed that the former British diplomats spoke out yesterday not against the war, but the way in which the post war Iraq was handled and the back tracking, doomed policy in the West Bank.

Perhaps the UN should take a leading role in both trouble spots and force Israel back to its recognised border and help establish a true Iraqi leadership.

Amen

tony draper
27th Apr 2004, 11:13
I would not be to concerned about statements from Diplomats,as someone once said, never before in history have so many arse kissers back stabbers and self seekers been assembled in one organisation, the Diplomatic corp have had their noses firmly planted up Arab arses for the last sixty years f its a bit of a tradition among the chaps in the Foreign Office,couple that with a overdose of anti Americanism which they also traditionaly possess, and as was commented on on news night last night,the FO have been to a large extent been sidelined by the Blaire Government, so they are throwing their toys out the pram pet lips all of a quiver.

Evening Star
27th Apr 2004, 11:29
I too would be very wary of what the diplomats are saying. Perhaps the most interesting parallel is when Chris Patten was trying to introduce democratic structures in Hong Kong, while FO sinologists/diplomats were busy in Beijing underding his work because 'he did not understand' the Chinese. In the same way, the diplomats who are criticising the government I would say are too close to the problem to have an overview. It is, of course, prudent to listen, but to say they have the solution seems unwise.

While I agree about the toy throwing, I would not describe the FO as anti-American. If anything, the British establishment shows a depressing tendancy to be pro-American without question. What hold do they have over us?

tony draper
27th Apr 2004, 11:57
Just what one has read and picked up over the years ES, remember the FO regards itself as independent empire with its own traditions, not a tool of short lived governments,plus they have never forgiven the Americans for that rebellion.
Besides it was more a case of post war anti Americanism that led all those sweet things from Cambridge to be on the KGB payroll rather than a overwhelming desire to see a workers paradise established on Englands green and pleasent land.
" What! allow all these working class oinks into the loop ? heaven forbid"

:rolleyes:

Evening Star
27th Apr 2004, 12:45
And yet TD, that is the strange thing. Labour politicians, some with strong anti-American rhetoric, suddenly become in step with American policy once in power. Now everybody knows the real power in the land is the established echelons of the civil service, so that one then gets the impression that government policy is being set by a civil service content, for whatever reason, to let the Americans set the strategy. Why?

BillHicksRules
27th Apr 2004, 12:56
TD & ES,

Let me ask you this, who is the more reliable? A group of 50+ retired diplomats including at least one former Ambassador to Iraq who have not promotion nor re-election to seek OR politicians on both sides of the Atlantic facing re-election in the next 12 months?

Put it another way:-

Trained career civil servants OR glory seeking spin merchants?

Cheers

BHR

Boss Raptor
27th Apr 2004, 12:57
Certainly dont hold with M. Le Pen - the point being Blunkett warns him to behave and dont say bad things...yet as we see the Muslim extremists are blatently allowed to publically spew their revolutionary/racist/terrorist venom in this country and Blunkett and the cronies do nothing...one rule for one side and one for another = double standards

BillHicksRules
27th Apr 2004, 13:35
BR,

I think if you look closer you will find that the Home Secretary is acting within the constraints of the law in respect to both Msr Le Pen and Abu Hamza but why should the facts get in the way of a good tabloid style rant.

Cheers

BHR

Pilgrim101
27th Apr 2004, 14:03
BHR

The sad fact is that if you or I spouted the racist incitement against any ethnic minority equivalent to the bile spouted by Al Mujahiroun, Abu Hamza et al the full weight of the law would quite rightly bear down upon us. Where do you see Abu Hamza operating within the law ? It is quite clear that he is a racist and should be called to account for his incitement to commit violence in the name of Islam. The precedent has been set so why the reticence by "the Law", for which read the European Human Rights charter which is the most unbalanced legislation ever foist upon the British people at such a dangerous time.

The only reason Abu Hamza hasn't been sent back to Yemen is that he faces "harsh" Islamic punishment under Sharia Law - Ironic or what ? Anyway, the sad pile of excrement hasn't got much left to be chopped off

Le Pen is another French [email protected] whose presence in the UK should rebound on the fascist tendency represented by that slick clothhead who runs the BNP.

:mad:

Capt.KAOS
27th Apr 2004, 14:26
therefore a belated question for Bubbette:

Well, we cleaned up Europe and Japan pretty much, so I guess we can do it with Iraq.

"we" like in: are you a WW2 veteran?
"we cleaned up Europe" we?
"we cleaned up Japan" Like in: Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Are you in favor of using nukes in the ME?

Cleaning up Iraq properly would mean at least 500.000 troops and return of the feared draft, not something Dubya wants to happen in Election Year....

BHR; this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1204207,00.html) is the letter you're referring to.

The war mongers are hanging on to straws they'd never believed it had to a year ago.... :rolleyes:

tony draper
27th Apr 2004, 15:04
Looks like there is another option,mentioned on newsnight last night, the Americans may be persuaded to ask for his extradition, try him there, or just lock him up on that tropical island and due to the new rules his smart arsed lawyers will be able to do sweet FA about it.
A example should have been made of this creature years ago.

Bubbette
27th Apr 2004, 15:26
we" like in: are you a WW2 veteran?

We as in America and Americans, of which I am a proud citizen. I am absolutely in favor of using nukes in the ME if warranted--why not? I could think of a few Wahabi enclaves that would be good candidates (eg in E. Afghanistan/W. Pakistan).

Capt.KAOS
27th Apr 2004, 16:00
I already thought so Bubbette. So, do you think the use of nukes will solve the ME problem? Or is it just the kind of gung-ho politics the current US government (Rummy the Great) seems to be proud of and might work in Hollywood productions where the US president is personally leading the attack?

airship
27th Apr 2004, 16:07
These pictures may have some relevance to this discussion: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3663425.stm)

#1 of 6: Wouldn't he much prefer to be racing his souped-up Peugeot 306 in the evening on the industrial estate ? Given half a chance?!
#2 of 6: Boys will be boys, after all...
#3 of 6: Little girl says (translated) "I want to go home, I'm tired. This big man is my uncle. He said not to worry honey, everything will be OK. I think I made him cry... BTW, did anyone notice the non-regulation footwear...?
#4 of 6: no comment :yuk:
#5 of 6: Light aircraft were well advised to keep clear...
#6 of 6: CUT, let's take that again...

Pilgrim101, I prefer the "[email protected]" I can see compared with all the others who hold similar views but hide behind a curtain of respectability. One of my favourite turners is an avid FN supporter, if measured by the number of posters in his workshop (interspersed with the usual calendars portraying scantilly-clad women of dubious virtue). Being self-employed and close to retirement, he is now very close to seriously considering taking on a young "Magrebhin" who will carry on the business, the "real" French apparently preferring funny jobs in IT or the City instead. He has also liked holidaying in SE Asia the past few years. I would like to think that my 12 years of "informal" intermediation has "paid-off" to some extent! :p

Wino
27th Apr 2004, 16:16
Captain Kaos,

The ARMY does not have a recruitement problem and would not require a draft to reach a 500,000 man level.

The army has a budget probem and an increase of 30,000 men would entail more than a 5 billion dollar manning increase.

The reserves are a different issue.

But the regular amry is oversubscribed as far as recruitment goes.

Cheers
Wino

7x7
27th Apr 2004, 16:27
I haven’t read this thread, so forgive me if this post id way off the subject, but one thing has often intrigued me and that is, what would happen if the Israeli/Palestinian standoff was resolved?

Let’s all totally suspend disbelief for one moment and imagine this (unbelievable) scenario: George Bush wakes up tomorrow morning and has a ‘road to Damascus’ moment – a revelation where he realises that there will never be peace in Palestine while the ‘Jewish Entity’ remains in place in Palestine, a thorn in the side of Arab pride. He approaches Ariel Sharon who, along with every other Israeli, had the very same vision (remember we’re suspending disbelief here) and Mr Sharon gets into a huddle with George W and they agree that the entire Jewish population of Israel will move en masse to the US by December 31st. The long-suffering US taxpayer will recompense each and every one of them in full for everything they’ve left behind, assuring each and every one of them a job, along with a four bedroom mansion in downtown Manhattan – let’s make it a penthouse... six million of them, each and every one of them on Park Avenue. (I did say we were suspending reality here.)

Now let’s really suspend disbelief – each and every Israeli agrees to this, even the most rabid of the Ultra Orthodox. They all agree to leave the keys in the ignition of their cars, the fridges stocked with food and the sheets and blankets on their beds with the house keys in their front doors. By Dec 31st, the last Israeli is gone and the Palestinians move in and take over a totally operational Israel,., (sorry) … Palestine.

And now to my question. What do you think the situation would be in the new ‘liberated’ Palestine six months after this extraordinary event?

Capt.KAOS
27th Apr 2004, 16:29
I don't agree with that wino. Voluntary recruitment of troops remains problematic for Washington. Up to now the Pentagon has been able to rely on “economic conscription” to maintain the size of its army.

However, with simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military now needs more soldiers than “economic conscription” is able to deliver. That's why, in a July 2002 executive order, Bush made it easier for non-citizens who serve in the US military to become citizens. 5% of active duty members of the US armed forces are non-citizens.

Twenty-one of the US Army's 33 regular combat brigades are already on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, amounting to roughly 250,000 men and women. And this does not include a substantial number of US troops regularly stationed in Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan, or smaller contingents around the world.

Putting most of one's Army forces in Iraq would be a strategical blunder and only result in more fighting.

And, as you say, military budget will explode in the face of Bush by at least 3 times.

Bubbette
27th Apr 2004, 16:52
I already thought so Bubbette. So, do you think the use of nukes will solve the ME problem? Or is it just the kind of gung-ho politics the current US government (Rummy the Great) seems to be proud of and might work in Hollywood productions where the US president is personally leading the attack?

Which ME problem are you referring to? I think getting rid of Bin Laden, who seems to be in E. Afghanistan/W. Pakistan would solve a lot of terrorism problems. I also think getting rid of the Wahabi leaders and funders, who are spreading their intolerant hate and murder throughout the world would get rid of a lot more terrorism.

I haven’t read this thread, so forgive me if this post id way off the subject, but one thing has often intrigued me and that is, what would happen if the Israeli/Palestinian standoff was resolved? Absolutely nothing would change--the jihad preached by Wahabi Islam has nothing to do with Palestine and everything to do with the Great Satan--the US. And the world would have one more terrorist supporting, autocratic, Islamic state.

I don't agree with that wino. Voluntary recruitment of troops remains problematic for Washington. Up to now the Pentagon has been able to rely on “economic conscription” to maintain the size of its army.

No, the majority of army recruits enter it to make it a profession--that's why most military members are not in favor of a draft--it will lower the standards of the military. And the military has so far exceeded its reenrollment requirements this year.

Nani
27th Apr 2004, 17:13
What do you think the situation would be in the new ‘liberated’ Palestine six months after this extraordinary event?

After watching a documentary called "Her Israel",new citizens of Israel will continue their teachings how to hate and how many ways to destroy Israelis and Americans,tenfold.
They will kill each other and will continue their conspiracy theories on how Jews and Americans are set to destroy them...:yuk:

Did I read about calling on the UN somewhere in this thread?

:mad:I can't believe there are still people out there who stands by and believes in that corrupted body of so called "world problem solvers".

Bubbette
27th Apr 2004, 17:29
What exactly are you referring to Nani? You mean that the Palestinians will continue to teach hate and sacrifice of their children? Because the Israelis don't teach, and certainly don't practice, hate.

Diabolus
27th Apr 2004, 18:00
Is this supposed organisation realy a network of evil men and woman hell bent on the demise of the western world?

Or is it simply made up by scared and confused politicians and glory hunting journos that do not know what to tell us because they simply do not realy know what is going on?


The plot thickens.

D

airship
27th Apr 2004, 18:03
Diabolus, you are either very, very brave or else very, very foolhardy... :=

Told you, nah nah na nah nah.... :O

Wino
27th Apr 2004, 18:50
7x7

The situation would not change one wit. Because Israel isn't REALLY a problem for the Arab nations.

It is a usefull tool for inept Arab regime's to deflect critism from their own failings and to rally the troops. Remove Israel and nothing will change except for one line of the song, the tune will remain the same however... The same as every other petty failed tin pot dictator, "Its not MY fault that your life sucks...Its <insert scape goat here>'s fault"

Infact the west would probably be further be blamed. How could they live in such luxury while we live in such misery? Combine it with a healthy missuse of religion and there you are.

Keep dreaming.

Cheers
Wino

Caslance
27th Apr 2004, 18:57
In this instance, Wino, you are definitely not wrong.

Grandpa
27th Apr 2004, 21:49
It seems this letter is an unprecedented move by high ranking diplomats.

You can laugh at them Tony, but you can't deny the weigh of it.

It means Bliar policy has to change when it's criticised by those who had to make it work.

Just as Bush military action in Iraq has to stop, when it's publicly told unsane by General Zinni from Marine Corps.

Capt.KAOS
27th Apr 2004, 22:21
And the military has so far exceeded its reenrollment requirements this year. then why has the Army blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year ("stop-loss")? Hundreds more in the Air Force, Navy and Marines were briefly blocked from retiring or departing the military at some point this year. I'm sure this wouldn't be necessary if there was an exceeding enrollment.

Many tend to forget the rotation of troops and as it looks now more and more a fact the US will have to stay in Iraq between 5-10 years. US Army will be stretched to the limit, physically and financially.

"We're all soldiers. We go where were told. Fair has nothing to do with it."

PS Ever heard of the Selective Service System? (http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html)
Strategic Objective 1.2 of the 2004 plan commits the Selective Service System to being fully operational within 75 days of "an authorized return to conscription." Strategic Objective 1.3 then commits them to "be operationally ready to furnish untrained manpower within DOD timelines." By next year the government intends to turn the ignition key on a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters, 442 Area Offices, and 1,980 Local Boards.

tony draper
27th Apr 2004, 22:30
The letter doesn't mean squat Grandad I don't think you understand the Power a British Prime Minister wields he carries the Queens perogative,, if necessary as I understand it, a British Prime Minister can rule alone, technically he does not even need a cabinet,or Cabinet approval, as he is also the Chief Minister of the Treasury.
The letter caused some comment on the serious media last night but most of it not very complimentary about the Diplomatic service or the Foreign Office for the reasons I gave earlier.
Dream on Grandps, Tone is there untill he is beaten in a election of the Queen sacks him and dissolves Parliment.

Bubbette
27th Apr 2004, 22:36
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~2106066,00.html The military is meeting its reenlistment goals. Talk of a draft comes up regularly every 5 years or so. If certain skills are needed, of course the army will block discharges on a temporary basis. And I'm not sure why you seem so happy that the US military would be stretched so thin---who'd protect you then?

Wino
27th Apr 2004, 22:38
If you had read my post I acknowledged that the guard is a different story.

The problems with the guard have been building for a while because of the high number of deployments they are doing. We were nearing this crisis under the Clinton and Bush I regimes as well, in that case because the guard was being misused for humanitarian missions. Guard is a good deal one weekend a month 2 weeks a year, but when people actually have to leave on long deployments its NOT a good deal.

It takes a while to get a soldier trained and ready. We have not maintained enough trained killers for the current operational tempo, and that is causing a short term crunch. I don't agree with the heavy use of the guard as has been the case, but every 30,000 troops (which nets 3,000 killers, roughly) costs another 5 billion dollars every year. That's before you procure new weapons systems and whatnot. Sooooooo many functions of the regular military were transferred into the guard. Then those 30,000 troops only cost about .5 billion a year.

Its cheap if nothing goes wrong. But its problematic for long duration missions.

The Army still has no problems with ENLISTMENT, which is what a draft would improve. If you want to argue that the army is having retention problems, that is a different can of worms. In certain specialties, that has always been the case...Highlighted now of course...

But Consription wouldn't fix that problem either. Length of service for a draftee is shorter than for an enlistee. So bringing back the draft is going to fix the retention problem.

The only people talking about the draft on congressmen like Charles Rangle who think they can use it to scare wealthy republican voters that THEIR children might be drafted. But the army will have to start missing RECRUITMENT quota's long before such a plan would be implemented.

I know all about the selective service, and I have my draft card...

Cheers
Wino

Paterbrat
28th Apr 2004, 00:22
Well it appears that there is some tiny glimmer of hope, that common sense has not completely been overwhelmed, and that at least a modicum of action is being taken against the overt and ongoing radical muslim activity in the UK. At last something has been initiated by the government to curb the breathtakingly outrageous behaviour by a recent citizen of the country who has been openly preaching sedition violence and racist hatred.
Action also appears likely against the supporters of the two British suicide bombers, who supported and encouraged them in their acts. It is high time that the government was seen even attempting to bring it under control.
The release of the 'mental' terrorist however still baffles one. Just how that can be justified still is a mystery. That their legal aid is probably funded by the taxpayer is of course par for the course.

Rollingthunder
28th Apr 2004, 00:37
a modicum of action is being taken against the overt and ongoing radical muslim activity in the UK. At last something has been initiated by the government to curb the breathtakingly outrageous behaviour by a recent citizen of the country who has been openly preaching sedition violence and racist hatred.

Case adjourned until Jan 05. It will drag on for years and the spew will continue in the meantime. He has refused to provide defence information and there is apparently a great argument about legal aid.

Bletchley
28th Apr 2004, 01:02
Makes one wonder...if I was charged with a motoring (or other?) offence and declined to provide a defence.

I suggest that the Court would find for the Crown pretty damn quick.

Where on earth do we find the sort of people who allow this injustice to continue, and why on earth are we allowing this whole theatrical charade to continue.

Surely as a 'British' citizen he is carrying out a treasonable act?.

I also always thought that British Citizenship for those not born here was a privilege not a right?

One is always hearing about the Human Rights Act. If I read it correctly it guarantees one the right to life?.

So where are the concerned Judiciary who will insist on my (and your) right to life?

airhead10
28th Apr 2004, 01:44
My fellow Americans:

As you all know, the defeat of Iraq's regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American Forces from Iraq. This action will be concluded within 30 days.

It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short:

The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of theworld's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists to all parties later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

The American people will no longer pour money into third world hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France!

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we have at home.

On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize?

Try France, or maybe China.

To Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Work out a peace deal now. Just note that Camp David is closed. Maybe all of you can go to Russia for negotiations. They have some great palaces there. Big tables, too.

I'm ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid tickets, to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this.

Pay your tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers, and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York---.

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are going to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I'm going put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty---starting today.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them be saying darn tootin'. Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone.

It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness. It is time to eliminate World Cup soccer from America.

To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought. Drop dead.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Thank you and good night.

hamusandtahini
28th Apr 2004, 01:53
John Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985. As such he supported and carried out a US-sponsored policy of violations to human rights and international law. Among other things he supervised the creation of the El Aguacate air base, where the US trained Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980's. The base was used as a secret detention and torture center, in August 2001 excavations at the base discovered the first of the corpses of the 185 people, including two Americans, who are thought to have been killed and buried at this base.

During his ambassadorship, human rights violations in Honduras became systematic. The infamous Battalion 316, trained by the CIA and Argentine military, kidnaped, tortured and killed hundreds of people. Negroponte knew about these human rights violations and yet continued to collaborate with them, while lying to Congress.

President George W. Bush has nominated Negroponte to be US ambassador.

Wino
28th Apr 2004, 04:18
Hmmmm,
I would have hoped they would have appointed someone even tougher. Maybe G Gordon Liddy or someone like that.

I suppose Negroponte was the toughest they had lying around in the wings.

What's your point, Anyway? Surely this isn't a job for mother Teresa?


Cheers
Wino

Capt.KAOS
28th Apr 2004, 09:03
And I'm not sure why you seem so happy that the US military would be stretched so thin---who'd protect you then?
1) I'm stating a fact, no more, no less.
2) protect from whom? didn't prevent Madrid, did it?

If you had read my post I acknowledged that the guard is a different story. If you head read my post more careful you would have noticed it was an answer to Bubba. Have your draft card ready, it'll be necessary in 2005.

Maybe G Gordon Liddy or someone like that. It takes a thief to catch a thief, right? Negroponte has no experience in the ME whatsoever, but that didn't troubled Bremer at all, or did it? Interesting to see how Negroponte as a Powell ally will cooperate with the Pentagon....:hmm:

OneWorld22
28th Apr 2004, 10:16
What a ridiculous post airhead....

If countries disagreed with the US over Iraq, they had every right to say so for christs sake!!

You think even if their citizens overwhelmingly disagreed they still should have supported the US just because the US said so? Get real....

"Freedom" Fries my ass.....

hamusandtahini
28th Apr 2004, 11:35
Inevitably, Vietnamese view Iraq through the prism of their own experiences. And 75-year-old Mai Van Thuan's experience under French colonialism makes him deeply suspicious of foreign intervention of any kind.

Sixty years later, he still has vivid memories of his father's French employers slapping him across the face.

He doesn't believe American promises about building democracy in Iraq or saving Iraqis from a brutal tyrant.

"The invaders always say nice things when they arrive," said Thuan. "They always have nice, elegant words."

When Bush vowed recently to send more troops if needed, his words reminded many here of the American troop escalation in Vietnam.

"Surely this war will sow protests and divisions among the American people," said Hoang Van Thinh, a 27-year-old Hanoi resident, recalling American protests against the Vietnam War.

Vietnamese see one major difference between their war and the one in Iraq: Four decades ago the Vietnamese were far more united and prepared to fight than the Iraqi people are today. They rallied behind communist leader Ho Chi Minh.

By contrast, Iraqi insurgents are leaderless, and the country is riven by hostile religious factions.

But the longer the United States occupies the country, said Nguyen Thi Han, an elementary school teacher from Long An, the faster Iraqis will put aside their differences.

"They need to learn from us," said Han. "Vietnam is a united country, and that strength was there when we defeated the United States. If the Iraqi people stand up and fight, surely they will win."

Grandpa
28th Apr 2004, 13:27
Thank you so mutch for reassuring me about the other one abilities to rule at see, on the air and on ground, without the help of sailors, soldiers and airmen.

He is kind of Sheeva and can sort out Iraq's problem alone.

Good luck!

Boss Raptor
28th Apr 2004, 20:15
As an overview and a thought...

For many years I, my parents and peers before me were bought up under a curtain of mistrust, anxiety, tension and fear caused by what is generally referred to as the 'Cold War' and driven by military and idealogical aspirations

For some 10 years after the relaxing of Communism and the major changes across the Eastern Europe/Central Asia side of the World we enjoyed in my opinion a new era, a feeling of friendship, reconciliation and trust that was a breath of fresh air

Recent events 2001 onwards are again taking us back into the Dark Ages with individual nations becoming insular and perceived by some others to be aggressive/aggressors...the sides are being firmly drawn again for another 50 years of anguish but this time the sides are changing shape and membership/allegiances are altering from that previous...and all this because of ideology and religion...

In my opinion we are going backwards and not forwards to a brighter better future...and the extremists are succeeding in disrupting/upsetting the World and driving us all back to the dark ages...I think as a generalism this is being handled all wrong and a bit of contemplation and revised direction/strategy in dealing with this without forcing us all into our 'bunkers' and driving one country against another...as this is exactly what they they want us to do!

BillHicksRules
28th Apr 2004, 20:17
BR,

I agree with you. It is the extremists on either side that cause the problems for us in the middle of it all

Cheers

BHR

airship
28th Apr 2004, 22:43
All is not lost, Iraqis offer $15 million reward!

...for anyone "who bring one of these three heads" One of them is Donald (Rumsfield) but I assume they want the heads on a platter...

These Iraqis have a sense of humour, which is why I'm sure all is not lost. While GWB makes a last ditch effort to save face, throwing in everything except WMD into Falluja and bu**er the collateral damage (C-130 gunships or an updated version will after all be used for crowd control at Wembley after 2015), here we have a bunch of people trying to turn a (smaller deck of 3) cards.

(A) Do they have the money? (B) The US was happy enough to pay out on the basis of present "whereabouts" of the people they wanted.

They will have to come up with a better offer... :E

Kiting for Boys
29th Apr 2004, 18:05
Falluja Protection Army made up of ex Iraqi army and led by a Baathist General to replace US Marines.

Well they should have kept the army in place a years ago then…

Grandpa
29th Apr 2004, 22:41
Had to go see a doctor, and wait a long time.
Among magazines....a copy of TIMES from February 2003, with an interview of Jacques Chirac.

Inside, that sentence: "..........If my advice is wished, I will say: DON'T GO THERE!........."

Surprisingly, ALL his answers to Times questions are now verified.
Normally it never happens (try to re-read political analysis of a year ago it's allways outdated).

But in this case, it's a miracle, and at least we must thank Bush and his bunch of losers for one thing: they managed to get our Chichi tell the truth!!!!!

In April 2004, occupation forces lost more men than during invasion.

The way US guards are treating prisoners will product more hatred against USA around the world.

Pouring more and more US soldiers in Iraq, while "coalition"is disbanding will not do anything to "teach democracy", and make it more difficult to leave, like it happened in Viet-Nam.

Wonder what UNO could do now, in such a hopeless situation...?

hamusandtahini
30th Apr 2004, 02:07
A review of public records and interviews with people involved in the investigation show the commission, from its inception, has had to wait months for many sensitive documents, including presidential briefing papers detailing what Bush was told about the al Qaeda threat and when he was told it.

In some cases, the White House restricted the panel's access even to its own notes, citing national security concerns.

Over the panel's objections, administration "minders" were sent to commission interviews to take notes and report back on what was said, people close to the investigation said.

At one stage, Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman criticised what he called White House "secrecy, stonewalling and foot dragging."
Bush initially opposed creation of the commission, arguing a congressional investigation would better preserve sensitive security data. Victims' families led a public campaign that helped pressure Bush to back down.

Since then, Bush's lawyers have imposed restrictions on the commission's access to sensitive documents, delaying their release in many cases.


:yuk:

HugMonster
30th Apr 2004, 11:30
Well, the USA armed forces have demonstrated that they are no better than Saddam Hussein's animals of torturers.

I suppose it was predictable that the response of the White House was to take steps to ensure that news like that doesn't get out again.

Pilgrim101
30th Apr 2004, 11:44
HM

I find your remarks totally offensive ! The difference being that the perpetrators of these offences, when proven to be so in a court of law, will be sorely punished. Saddam's thugs were encouraged to commit such atrocities in a State wide programme led from the top - Are you insinuating that all Forces in Iraq are complicit in the crime reported in the media today ?

Nobody here that I know would advocate the treatment shown in shocking images in the news today - that's the kind of brutality we are fighting against. Let's wait for the truth to come out and punish the guilty in proportion to the crime.

Your immediate rush to tar honourable men and women across the board for the actions of a few bely your normal reference to "innocent until proven guilty" on other areas of dispute and debate on this forum :rolleyes:

HugMonster
30th Apr 2004, 12:19
Pilgrim.

All members of the US forces in Iraq are tarred with the same brush to the same extent that everyone who was in the Ba'ath party, everyone in Saddam's army, all other Iraqis are tarred with the same brush.

The difference is that many Iraqis co-operated with Saddam's forces out of fear for their lives and those of their families - simply to live. US Forces involved in this atrocity have no such defence and did so for the fun of it. That makes theirs the worse crime.

Wedge
30th Apr 2004, 12:56
Your immediate rush to tar honourable men and women across the board for the actions of a few bely your normal reference to "innocent until proven guilty" on other areas of dispute and debate on this forum

I think the photographs are pretty conclusive evidence that prove guilt. What a fantastic step in the battle to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people. While it may be unfair to tar all US forces with the same brush, that is what will happen as a result of the actions of these 'professional soldiers'.

The fact that Saddam may have encouraged his people to do the same, or worse things is irrelevant. I thought the USA was supposed to be the morally just liberator removing the tyrannical despot? Not to mention that a very senior officer - a Brigadier General, has been implicatied in these disgusting crimes.

Courtmartial proceedings are already under way, after which I expect the same people to appear in front of the ICC in the Hague for war crimes in breach of the Geneva convention
Oh no, I forgot, America decided it would not sign up to the ICC, they presumably thought that their soldiers would be well behaved enough not to break the law; or perhaps that they would just make up the law as they go along.

Or was it that many of their past actions would fall under the ICC's definition of terrorism :hmm:

oicur12
30th Apr 2004, 13:38
Negraponte - should be in jail. Presidential pardon is a wonderfull thing.

To the pro war lobby on this board - I pose some questions.

Is your stance regarding Iraq based on the non existant threat posed by WMD. Has your view changed upon learning that this threat was fabricated by your leaders.

Or are you gung ho to mow down Iraqi's (tens of thousands) because of the human rights abuses perpetuated by a leader they did not elect. Were you as vocal back in the eighties as you are now when the abuses were actually taking place (Hallabja).

Anybody know how long it will take the F-15's to fly from Kirkuk to Baku.

Paterbrat
30th Apr 2004, 15:07
Well it appears that some of the Pprune audience haven't seen any of the plethora of wanna-be SAS programs that have inundated the airwaves recently. The interrogation procedures undergone by men and women volunteers, would have I thought, shown most of the mollycodled tree hugging bunny loving idealists that there is a world out there where it isn't all sweetness and light.
In conflict there has always been unpleasantness violence co-ercion and death, pretty similar in fact to some of the behaviour regularly seen and experienced outside the pubs at closing time and football grounds on match days, in a sad and ongoing process in the UK on an almost daily process.
Another fact which seems to have succeeded in establishing itself, and is a big fat lie, is that the Iraq campaign was purely for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Anybody naiive enough to believe that leave the classroom! There were geoplitical and strategic reason for the US decision to crush Saddam and bring that area firmly under US controll and it had less to do about wishing to be kind and good and more to do with simple survival and control in an increasingly dangerous and hostile world. Sad but true.

Biggles Flies Undone
30th Apr 2004, 15:19
I agree with Paterbrat - there's a whole bad world out there.

So, whether the perps are morally wrong or right, should we we be shocked and outraged?

Wake up and smell the coffee guys.

airship
30th Apr 2004, 15:26
I believe that Paterbrat means that the Iraqi adventure was inevitable and even demonstrates foresight when considering the implications of the future requirements of rapidly growing countries such as India and China... :8

OneWorld22
30th Apr 2004, 15:52
PB, I've seen the worst of warfare with my own eyes, unlike I suspect the vast majority here.

There is no justification for what happened in these instances. It is not acceptable just to say that "ah, sure its war, what do you expect?"

And how does expressing disgust at these actions justify the labelling of one as a "mollycodled tree hugging bunny loving idealist?"

I for one like trees but not enough to get intimate, I'm certainly not and never have been mollycoddled and Bunny's? Couldn;lt give a shit about them!

So where does that leave me?? What label do I deserve?

Save the "Its a big bad world out there" horeshit for naieve simpletons and let the adults make up their own minds.

Wino
30th Apr 2004, 16:29
I assume that everyone is referring to the 60 minutes pictures.

Pictures whose authenticity has NOT been verified.

An investigation is underway. If wrong doing was done the people involved WILL be punished.

But go ahead and rush to judgement... Why not, we all know your feelings. Many of you speaking up are always waiting for teh slightest mistep to pounce.

But tell me something, before you start your bullshit comparison's to Saddam thugs, WHERE ARE THE MASS GRAVES?


So honestly, my attitude on it is "fcukoff Europe". And you know what? That's mainstream America's response. Because NEVER is there a thank you. A well done, may we help?

Do I think that there mighj be something to these pictures? Yeah, I do. Are they worthy of Hugmonster's (just and example huggy, it could have been anyone's)

Well, the USA armed forces have demonstrated that they are no better than Saddam Hussein's animals of torturers
Nope, reject it out of hand and it is statements like that that make sure that Americans realize that Europe has nothing to offer, gives no fair quarter to ANYTHING American, and America would be out of their mind to join the ICC.


Cheers
Wino

Wedge
30th Apr 2004, 16:32
In conflict there has always been unpleasantness violence co-ercion and death, pretty similar in fact to some of the behaviour regularly seen and experienced outside the pubs at closing time and football grounds on match days, in a sad and ongoing process in the UK on an almost daily process.

What an extraordinary comment. I have yet to observe a man being tied up by the wrists with metal wire, blindfolded and gagged, stood on a chair and told that if he steps or falls off he will be electrocuted; outside Highbury after a match on a saturday afternoon. Call me naive, maybe I am not looking in the right place.

PB, your comments imply that the disgraceful, and unlawful behaviour of these 'professionals' was acceptable because they are fighting a war. In other words that we may as well not bother with the concept of 'war crimes', which would mean nor could we bother with the kind that Hermann Goering was brought to justice for in Nuremburg, or that Adolf Eichmann was executed for in Israel; because he was fighting a war when he committed them. Am I correct to infer that?

Wino - you don't represent or speak for the majority of Americans, so please don't try to. Many Americans are ashamed by the realpolitik view of the neo-conservatives. I am able to draw this judgement despite admitting to being a European. Tell us to f__k off all you like, you won't get me to agree that America was right to execute this war in such a way. These pictures, which I reiterate are about as conclusive as you could hope to get, are just another nail in the coffin of Gulf War II's disastrous PR record.

Not sure what certain pompous Americans are expecting Europeans to 'thank' them for anyway. As Paterbrat says, the neo-cons were never really concerned with the welfare of Iraqis; I'd suggest they were more concerned with the balance sheets of the companies who would make huge profits from this war. Call me cynical.

Wino
30th Apr 2004, 17:38
No Wedge,
you don't understand mainstream America.

Basically mainstream America is constantly told to feel bad about themselves from psuedointellectuals in another version of liberal guilt, and frankly they are tired of it and aren't listening to it anymore. Don't believe me? then howcome Bush is still alive in the presidential race?

They have been exhausted by it, are sick of it and aren't listening to it anymore. So then the liberals tried anger. Lots of screaming and ranting and raving, and still no one is listening. Well, not exactly true, we did listen to Dean's scream....

As to the thankyou, WWII is alittle old now, the Marshal plan is somewhat old, but NATO and facing down the soviet Union for you and subsidizing all of Europe massively through Nato is NOT old. Bosnia is NOT old. Gulfwar I is NOT old. And in return we get pilloried or ganged up on. All of those massive subsidies that we provided wound up indirectly being turned on US. If the USA had not picked up and continue to pick up the tab for European defense, less money would have been available for things like Airbus subsidies, the French health care system etc.

Kyoto is NOT based on good science and was simply an attack on the American way of life. Aided an abetted by those same psuedo intellectuals propagting more liberal guilt and arrogance.

Well it doesn't wash anymore, like the little boy that cried wolf, no one is listening to them anymore.

Cheers
Wino

Caslance
30th Apr 2004, 18:02
Thank you all very much Wino.

There - does that feel better now? :ok:

Kyoto is NOT based on good science and was simply an attack on the American way of life. Uh-huh. Care to elaborate?

Wino
30th Apr 2004, 18:12
The Global warming studies are CRAP.

They started with an answer and then made the science fit.

Even Clinton said Kyoto was a bad idea.

the treaty was rejected UNANIMOUSLY by the senate. There was not 100 percent agreement on the declaration of war after Japan bombed pearl harbor, but this got 100 percent agreement.

That's both the democrats and the republicans in 100 percent agreement that the treaty was crap and an assault the USA.

Can't blame you for trying, curb the American economic engine any way you can... Our economy is growing again. Tell me, How is Europe doing? How about Japan. Both of em stuck in an endless malaise... They were at the time of Kyoto as well... You don't think that had anything to do with it?

BTW,

8 british soldiers are under investigation for torture of Iraqi prisoners as well. I guess that proves that great britain sucks as well...

Cheers
Wino

Caslance
30th Apr 2004, 18:19
That's both the democrats and the republicans in 100 percent agreement that the treaty was crap and an assault the USA. Politicians disliking something does not make it bad science.

You said Kyoto was based on bad science, not that politicians were sh*t-scared of upsetting their electorates. I'm still waiting to hear about the bad science bit.

BillHicksRules
30th Apr 2004, 19:17
Wino,

Oh where to begin with you my lad :)

I ask you to read to the end of this post and take 5 mins thinking time before you reply. I will make some hard points but there is light at the end.

"Basically mainstream America is constantly told to feel bad about themselves from psuedointellectuals in another version of liberal guilt"

This is such male cow excrement that I am surprised at you. Ever since the Mayflower hit dirt on your side of the Atlantic, the average American has been told how great he is. So if you have a problem with an inferiority complex fair enough but do not think that it is shared by all in your country. The reasons Bush is still in are far more varied and in depth than "those bad liberals are calling him names"

"As to the thankyou, WWII is alittle old now, the Marshal plan is somewhat old, but NATO and facing down the Soviet Union for you and subsidizing all of Europe massively through Nato is NOT old. Bosnia is NOT old. Gulfwar I is NOT old. And in return we get pilloried or ganged up on. All of those massive subsidies that we provided wound up indirectly being turned on US. If the USA had not picked up and continue to pick up the tab for European defense, less money would have been available for things like Airbus subsidies, the French health care system etc. "

WW2 - turned up late
Marshall Plan - buying favour and a market to sell goods to. The US economy is based on selling. You need an external market. That was the basis for the Marshall Plan
Facing down the Soviet Union - Please??? Faulty intel and dodgy politicos in several US administrations created the false image of the Russian Threat. For further info look at the supposed Bomber Gap and the Missile Gap.
Gulf Wars 1 and 2 - PLEASE!!!! Securing your oil supplies and we are supposed to say thanks why????

"Kyoto is NOT based on good science and was simply an attack on the American way of life. "

I will agree with you that Kyoto was an attack of the American way of life. It was such because it is that same way of life that is killing this planet. The choice is simple change or die. The rest of the world realises it has a greater responsibility to the future than it does to those businessmen giving them brown envelopes full of dollar bills.

"Well it doesn't wash anymore, like the little boy that cried wolf, no one is listening to them anymore."

The only one not listening is you. You are the little boy. Look at the stats on child asthma, respiratory diseases, oil and gas reserves etc. The US economy is dependent on oil and that is what will kill the US as a superpower in the end if it does not change. You need to start now. There is no time to waste. Bush maybe good for you ego and I can see that but you have to look at the bigger picture. It is simply a question of what is more important money and power now with death for your children or some hardship now and a future for your children's children that includes breathing clean air.

Cheers

BHR

HugMonster
30th Apr 2004, 20:05
Certainly there's a whole bad world out there. Are we infavour of it being so, or opposed? If opposed, do we simply accept it, or do something about it?

If anyone thinks that because it's already that way we should do nothing and accept the most degrading, inhuman, brutalising and cruel treatment of prisoners they simply expose themselves as morally bankrupt.

However much Wino may wriggle, plead the photographs are not proven as genuine and try to deflect the argument to Kyoto, he has to accept that some US troops have been behaving exactly the same way some of Saddam's henchmen behaved. Given that the US was not so long ago claiming that they were "liberating" Iraq from exactly that sort of behaviour, their conduct is indefensible. As has already been pointed out, the US Government was extremely wise not to endorse the ICC. Perhaps they saw this coming...

Bubbette
30th Apr 2004, 20:20
I still don't think that any US soldiers did this, which is what Hussein did:

They include the following:


Electric shock with electrodes connected to body parts.


Being forced to strip and sit on broken bottles or gas heaters.


Hanging from a rotating ceiling fan and being struck by pipes.


Burning with fire and branding with hot irons.


Burning hands or feet with a soldering iron or boiling oil.


Using a hammer to break noses and bones.


Ripping out fingernails, toenails and teeth.


Amputating limbs with a chain saw.


Burning rectum with boiling water.


Crucifixion by nailing ears and hands to cross.


Dumping live bodies in acid baths or ovens.


Attacks by wild dogs.


Nailing tongues to a wooden board.


Spraying eyes with insecticides.


Raping and hanging women while forcing children and husbands to watch.


Using hornets, wasps, spiders and scorpions to sting naked children while forcing parents to watch.


Using an electric carving knife to cut off penis or breast.

How could you possibly compare one to the other?

BillHicksRules
30th Apr 2004, 20:27
Bubbette,

Are you actually saying that because Saddam tortured his people worse than the US soldiers did then everything is OK?

Please tell me this is not the case.

Cheers

BHR

Bubbette
30th Apr 2004, 20:52
I am not saying it is right, but first, I don't really see this as "torture," at least in the vernacular, and second, I don't see that this should even be in the same sentence with what Hussein did--do you? Cutting off breasts is in any way equivalent to having some guys stand around naked? How about being dipped in acid? What do you think?

HugMonster
30th Apr 2004, 21:14
OK, Bubette, so we're arguing about degrees of torture?

Sorry - if it's wrong, it's wrong. I don't accept your comparison. Either you treat prisoners humanely, decently and legally (according to the accepted tenets of international law) or you don't.

If you don't behave according to the law, then where do you draw the line? There's nowhere to go from that.

It's simple. The US soldiers involved lowered themselves to the level of Saddam Hussein, his sons and henchmen.

Incidentally, you need to look up the word "torture". Most authorities (for example the Red Cross, The Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture, the UNHCR et al) regard even sleep deprivation as torture.

Caslance
30th Apr 2004, 21:18
How about being dipped in acid? What do you think? Not tonight, Bubbette - I have a headache.

It is neither valid nor reasonable to trade off degrees of atrocity as if there were some sliding scale of acceptability, depending on who is doing the suffering.

The USA is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and has not, to my knowledge, abrogated this treaty.

The treatment of captured Iraqis that has so revolted many of us - including, I might add, President Bush himself, who has promised that those guilty will be "severely punished" - is in clear and material violation of those parts of the Geneva Convention that cover the treatment of prisoners of war.

What kind of treatment can any US servicemen or servicewomen expect now if they should fall into the hands of Iraqi captors?

I know that there are Ppruners out there who have served, or still serve, in their nations' armed forces. What do you think?

Bubbette
30th Apr 2004, 21:36
Yes---there is a huge difference between the endemic torture practiced by Hussein, and some rogue soldiers at the beginning of the war. You really can't see that? So, let me get this straight--the US military (and as it represents the US, by extension, the entire US) has become barbaric torturers? Wow--guess you better be kissing up to we American, huh, cause we're probably going to have to clean up Europe soon (once again!)

And I think we've seen what happens to US civilians if they fall into insurgents' hands, haven't we--does Fallugah ring a bell? Doyou really think that was in response to these actions, which occurred a year ago? Please, let us know.

Oh, and what they did to that brave Italian?

Caslance
30th Apr 2004, 21:48
So, let me get this straight--the US military (and as it represents the US, by extension, the entire US) has become barbaric torturers? Not at all - what leads you to say such things about your own military?

Let's get this straight.....your own President says that he is disgusted by what took place in that prison. I heard him say it - not a spokesman, but Dubya himself - on the radio not an hour ago. Are you saying that the Commander in Chief of your armed forces doesn't know what he is talking about?

Mistreatment of the helpless is despicable and cowardly, demeans all those associated with it and tarnishes the reputation of their nation. It always is, whoever is dishing it out and whoever is doing the suffering.

And as for this week's recurring "cleaning up Europe" theme - leave those goalposts right where they are, ma'am!! ;)

Wino
30th Apr 2004, 22:17
OKAY BHR I have you!

Global warming and Kyoto fall apart for precisely these statements It was such because it is that same way of life that is killing this planet. The choice is simple change or die. That whole arguement falls apart when you simply look at planetary history. If what you were saying is correct then there would be a theshold that we are close to where all life would cease. But wait the average termperature on the planet has been MUCH warmer than where we are headed, or has everyone forgotten the dinosaurs? A very long a stable period of vibrant life on this planet. Carbon dioxide is gonna kill us. Oh wait, those levels have been much higher as well. Methane is gonna kill us. Oh wait methane levels have actually been falling and it turns out that there is a an oceanic cycle to methane that wasn't known about when Kyoto was drafted.... Oooops more bad scenice

SO what happens is scientists and politicians get in bed to push an agenda and you get bad science. Both sides are guilty of it, but this is an egregious case that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Are you saying the planet might change? Well of course it will, infact it is important that change keeps happening. When you get periods of stagnation that is when mass extinctions become more likely as indiginous populations become exquisitly suited for their envirnments and then the slightest change to a long term status quo wipes out everyone....


As to the rest of the thread.
A few bad apples, if true (and what did you expect GWB to say btw?) doesn't change the whole thing.

Yes the story may have some legs, but its not a valid indictment of all things US in Iraq but simply another case of stupid histeria. It is not the same as what was done in IRAQ, and there is no way that Huggy's statement saying that the Iraqi's were just following orders obsolves them and makes the US more guilty.

As to worries about treatment by Iraqi's of American POWs,,, ahem, we have known about Arab treatment of westerners since the tape of the American being skinned alive came home from Beruit.

Again, we may have had a few soldiers act badly, out of 130,000 or so that is regretable. It appears that similar numbers of BRITISH soldiers have acted just as badly and are under investigation as well, out of a much smaller number in country. Get your own house in order first... Of course that's not as much fun to talk about.

Cheers
Wino

Capt.KAOS
30th Apr 2004, 22:33
Bubette, have you seen the pics? (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444#new1) What amazes me is the fact that several Americans on the pics are female. And the general in case was female too. Can you imagine the humiliation for the Arabs? I mean, the lengths some members go to whitewash this case is astounding. Like finding out who has the lowest common factor? :rolleyes:

I wonder wino and co would say if the pics were US prisoners? Winning hearts and minds, final chapter...

Caslance
30th Apr 2004, 22:34
Get your own house in order first. Oh, so it's OK to mistreat helpless POWs so long as someone else does it as well, is it?

Two wrongs suddenly make a right, do they? :hmm:

And where's the "bad science" you were talking about earlier? All I've seen so far has been an exposition of paranoia and unfounded assertions.

I wonder wino and co would say if the pics were US prisoners? I know what they'd say if the prisoners were from The Country That Shall Not Be Named. :suspect:

ssultana
30th Apr 2004, 22:34
Views on the U.S and u.k photos?

finfly1
30th Apr 2004, 22:42
The excuse given that they were not "trained" in the Geneva conventuin is about as compelling as spending huge sums on 'drug education'. Most of what I would REALLY like to say here about this ... I had better not. Hope someone else does though.

Wedge
30th Apr 2004, 22:58
The front of Today's Daily Mirror (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3675215.stm) does indeed show equally conclusively that British troops are involved. In which case, at least they might face justice for committing war crimes in the Hague, unlike the American perpetrators.

ftr I don't have a problem in accepting these are crimes committed by coalition troops, albeit an American-led coalition. Clearly elements of both forces need to get their 'house in order'.

maxalt
30th Apr 2004, 23:06
Capt.KAOS

Bubette, have you seen the pics? What amazes me is the fact that several Americans on the pics are female. And the general in case was female too....

Just as an aside, I think its worth noting that this event goes to counter the age-old feminist bull which teaches that only MEN are capable of abuse or sadistic behaviour.

What say ye now sisters!

Coconuts
30th Apr 2004, 23:16
Looking at those pictures just makes me feel sick & want to burst out crying. I'm studying American foreign policy for my degree at the mo, trying to read as many books as possible to get a good cross section & an unbiased view as possible. But to be honest with you barr a few good deeds that they've done, overall it's the self righteous Yanks that come out as the baddies & bullies of this world.

Wino, you can drop you're snide comments. This is only the tip of the iceberg of how evil a regime you live under that try to masquerade as the good guys while persuing their imperialist agendas and exploting weak, poor nations & the worlds wealth. You can drop the "cheers" mate cause you've nothing here to cheer about. The government you live under is disgusting along with its paid off cronies around the world & their foreign policies are even more revolting.

I'm just shaking with anger. You Yanks should hang your heads in shame & start waking up to the real agendas of the people who run your country instead of forever burying your heads in the sand.

"Evil triumphs when good people do nothing" :mad:

Coco

Wino
30th Apr 2004, 23:24
Cas,

Do you honestly think that some extra carbon is going to end all life on earth?

What you missed out in Europe was the hysteria of the late 70s and early 80s when we had to have the Clean Air Act, so that we would avoid the coming ice age. We had conclusive data that an Ice age was coming, the planet was cooling and we needed to get the particulates out of the atmosphere to help keep the planet warm. OTherwise we were creating a slower version of Nuclear winter...

Very well drawn out studies and what not. Lead to the catalytic converters on all US cars and scrubbers in the factory smoke stacks and really put a damper on coal for electricty (thereby greately increasing oil and gas consumption!)

Your cars still don't have catalytic converters and you run plenty of diesel, so it looks like Europe is the late comer to the save the planet parade.

But you know what? It turned out to be a crock more or less. ANd we won't be bamboozled again. The upshot was that it turned the US economy on its ear, almost fatally cripled detroit and the US auto industry, and you know what ? IT was all for nothing! Furthermore because catalytic converters are a drain on the efficiency of a car they actually create MORE carbon dioxide while cutting down on the sulfer and nitrogen compounds. So FIRST undo the clean air act, then talk to me about this. But you don't get to keep piling stupidity on top of stupidity.


So sorry, I don't believe you. I have seen no evidence that says that the planet warming would actually be a bad thing. For who? Siberia is enourmous and will be a lot more hostipable. Alaska would be nice.

And I have lived long enough in England to know there is one country that should be ROOTING for global warming. Okay, it might kill the packaged holiday industry not to have to leave the UK to be warm once before you die, but ENGLAND would be lovely!

So no, you aint gonna kill the planet, its not a reasonable statement. Its an arrogant falsehood that calls everything else into question as well....


BTW. BHR, your asthma example is probably another case of the envirnmentalists causing more damage than good. The Asthma is probably from the increasing "tightening up" of the houses. As they get more and more insulated mold and spores and dust build up in the house. Where I live we have another phenoma called Radon, which causes radiation to build up in houses that are well insulated. Gotta conserve till it kills us.

Cheers
Wino

Idunno
30th Apr 2004, 23:33
I've come to a new conclusion about this whole scenario in Iraq.

I no longer believe this is a new Vietnam for America.
It goes back to something much more fundamental.

This is The Roman Empire versus Early Christian/Jewish Fanatical Fundamentalism in the Middle East 2000 years ago.

Think about it...the ingredients are all exactly the same.

A World SuperPower bogged down in a dirty little middle eastern conflict which is fuelled by religious fundamentalism.
A clash of cultures which have completely opposite and incompatible values.
A military SuperPower which wishes to impose (in all good faith even!) the Pax Romana on a people who reject it.

A few religious fanatics...and even a Messiah figure (Al Sadr).

Well folks...here is the news...if you read your history books you'll see that the Roman Empire not only failed in their attempts to quash the fanatics...they actually ended up succumbing to the cult, and the eventual dissolution of the Empire was the result.
What then followed was almost a thousand years of anarchy and darkness in human progress.

I once read an interesting theory, that if the Roman Empire had not fallen we would have had working flying machines by 1000AD on a similiar timescale. Who knows...by now we'd have been out to Alpha Centauri.

America is a great idea...but its being pissed away by the idiocy of the right wingers and power brokers, and it is becoming a shadow of its own ideals.
This is how the Roman Empire ended...not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Implausible?
It seems less so day by day.

Who said "If you don't learn from History, you are doomed to repeat it."

Caslance
30th Apr 2004, 23:34
So sorry, I don't believe you. About what do you not believe me? I haven't expounded any position whatsoever on this issue - I've been careful not to. For all you know, I might think it's all "a load of tree-hugging hippy cr*p" (E Cartman).

For my part, I think that when you talk about "bad" science, you're really talking about inconvenient conclusions - ones that threaten the comfortable smug certainties of our consumer society and our destructive economic model driven by short-term gain and leaving future generations to fend for themselves.

Every driver I know has a catalytic converter on their car, actually. You know what, we have running water and electricity, too.

And when it comes to arrogant falsehoods...............no, there your government and industry really do lead the world .

The next world war won't be fought over oil or religion but over water and clean air.

Capt.KAOS
30th Apr 2004, 23:57
Sorry for OT, but this is just too ridiculous....

Your cars still don't have catalytic converters and you run plenty of diesel, so it looks like Europe is the late comer to the save the planet parade. Huh??? No catalytic converters??? Yeah,right and we Europeans still wear bear skins and drag their wifes into the caves... :rolleyes:

Many luxury diesel cars already used catalytic converters and virtually all new diesel – engined cars sold in Europe are now fitted with oxidation catalysts.

Wedge
30th Apr 2004, 23:58
Catalytic converters have been compulsory throughout the EU in all new cars for some years now.

But we are going off the point, however factually incorrect Wino's post may be, I'm sure these are not diversionary tactics, perish the thought :hmm:

Wino
30th Apr 2004, 23:59
No its not the conclusions that I questions,
Its the methods and science in the first place

Its the same group shouting, and they are ALWAYS proven wrong.

Oh my god, and Ice age is coming.
Oh my god the planet will be out of oil by 1995
oh my god saccarine causes cancer (well it does, but not in doses that are possible for a human to ingest...)
etc etc etc

So here they are playing the same tune again.... And history tells me that if I relax and do nothing, I will be proven right in time.

I forget if you are a pilot cas, but all of these things have an air of panic about them, and the rule of aviation that will save your life is "No fast hands in the cockpit) We used to to emergency drills as a sprint.. QUICK QUICK QUICK, shut the engine down, cut off the fuel, fire the bottle.

Now we just silence the bell... relax, we will get to it... just keep the plane right side up.

Well, that is what the panic stricken have not gotten throught their heads yet....

As to the catalitic converters, yeah, I guess they do now. But still if you want to import a car to the USA from the UK you got to put MORE polution controlls on it...

Catalytics have been madatory since 75 in the USA and leaded fuel (still sold in the UK) has been illegal since 90...

Idunnno,

You may be right, but it took rome 100s of years to fall. I'll take that exchange...

As to coconuts.

Our country is no better or worse than any others in the area of foreign policy. Foreign policy is always the creation of man, and man is by nature a flawed beast.

Just look at the MASSIVE corrruption turned up in the Oil for food program in Iraq...

Cheers
Wino

Idunno
1st May 2004, 00:09
Wino, I'm not happy about the fall of western civilisation and the arrival of a new 1000 year Dark Age...even if it's only gonna happen 100 years from now. :sad:

Kiting for Boys
1st May 2004, 00:31
Sounds like there are bad photos of UK/Iraqi prisoners as well.

We could explain the spams pics as Contractors or Reservists.

Same day as Big Ben stops working.

airship
1st May 2004, 00:59
Congratulations are in order. Those denouncing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and civilians have upheld the traditions and honour of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment (http://www.army.mod.uk/qlr/index.htm). :ok:

ssultana
1st May 2004, 03:44
idunno, while you have many valid points which i respect, i have a problem with the statement, 'history repeats itself' history does not always repeat, sometimes there are similarities as would be expected from any system, but 'history' has not existed long enough to repeat. There has never been an internet before, nor nuclear weapons, nor global travel on this scale. Sometimes our circumstances are original, and we cannot change that.

con-pilot
1st May 2004, 03:55
Coconuts, you stated that looking at those pictures made you want to break out crying. For God’s sake where have you been these last twenty years?

The pictures are bad, no doubt about that. But may I ask you a few questions?

1. Did the prisoners have all their extremities? (Toes, fingers, hands, feet and hang me down things)
2. Where they burned?
3. Did they have bruises?
4. Where they bleeding?
5. Where they so starved that they looked like World War II German concentration camp survivors?
6. Where the pictures taken after the bodies where dug up from a mass grave?

Obviously the answers to the above questions are NO!

These few, and I mean few, soldiers WILL be court marshaled! They WILL be found guilty! They WILL go to prison! The Commanding Officer has just been charged, he WILL suffer the same fate! (It’s a national election year, duh!)

The majority of American citizens are shocked and appalled by the actions of these few soldiers. The majority of the US Armed Forces are just as shocked and sickened. This was an act by some REMF that need to be treated the same way. However that will not happen because of our laws. Instead they will go to prison and suffer for the rest of their lives because they were stupid!

For anyone to compare what these few, soon to be punished, poor saps did in these pictures did to what happened to men, women and children under SH is very confused.

Coconuts, what SH did to his own people didn’t make you want to get sick and break out crying? Would you please take a deep breath and think about what you wrote? We are NOT living under an evil regime, believe it or not. Otherwise, as Wino stated, President Bush would not still be leading in all the polls, not by much, but still leading.

Europeans have to get over the fact that Europe is not running the world anymore. For better or worse the United States is the most powerful nation in the world now. Europe had its chance for centuries and blew it.

Ok, now I wait for the counter attack of innuendos and non-factual based replies.

:yuk:

Caslance
1st May 2004, 08:07
I forget if you are a pilot cas, but all of these things have an air of panic about them, and the rule of aviation that will save your life is "No fast hands in the cockpit) We used to to emergency drills as a sprint.. QUICK QUICK QUICK, shut the engine down, cut off the fuel, fire the bottle. Fair point, well made as usual, Wino.

I'm not a pilot, but I do have responsibility for IT data integrity, disaster recovery and business continuity over 11 sites dotted round the UK so I understand perfectly where you're coming from here.

As I said earlier, I don't necessarily agree with all of these alarmist predictions of doom. But we as a species cannot go on consuming the planet's resources in the way that we are now - simple fact, really.

Once it's all gone, it's all gone - and forever. When that day comes, all of the military and economic might in the world isn't going to help at all.

Fanciful? Not at all. We can discover hitherto unknown reserves of vital resources and use new techniques to exploit previously inaccessible reserves, but we cannot create new oilfields, we cannot add more water to the closed system that is Planet Earth and we cannot quickly or easily scrub the skies and seas clean once we've fouled them.

And we have nowhere else to go.

Bad science? No - it's economic and physical reality.

It is a given - at least among the sane - that the current economic and industrial activities of homo sapiens as a species do damage to the planet. The only areas of dispute are the extent of the damage, it's likely outcome and the best means of reducing or even reversing it.

The USA consumes a disproportionately large fraction of the available resources and is the cause of a corresponding share of the damage simply because it's the world's largest economy and is a demand-led free market.

That doesn't make the people of the USA evil or hell-bent on global destruction - it's just simple fact.

No attempt to reduce the impact of this damage on the global system can succeed without the full co-operation of the world's largest economy.

A global conspiracy against the USA? No - again, just simple fact.

How did we get onto this subject anyhow??? :confused:

oicur12
1st May 2004, 10:35
Con Pilot,

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

Take a read of this site. Do you think the actions of coalition forces have improved since the first Oil War. Or is it more likely that tighter controls have been placed on the press in recent years.

"Coconuts, what SH did to his own people didnt make you want to get sick and break out crying".

The lions share of the abuses that took place in Iraq "to his own people" (everybody, sing along) - including the period when WMD were used - was during the mid to late eighties when Iraq was recieving agricultural subsidies from the US (specifically designed to allow Iraq to divert funds into its war with Iran) and was using US built helicopters (including 10 bell) modified to spray chemicals that killed thousands of Iraqis.

So now I am confused. Why are you so supportive of efforts in Iraq designed to overthrow a dictator for crimes committed 16 years ago with the full support, financial backing and technical expertise of your Government.

OneWorld22
1st May 2004, 11:40
Thank god for the likes of 60 Minutes. I was getting a bit worried lately about Freedom of the Media in the US.

Good to know the program is upholding its fine tradition of investigative reporting.

46Driver
1st May 2004, 12:23
Just taking a look back in following the reports of Iraqi POW's being mistreated. How this happenned - I don't know - but someone will pay. As a military professional, I find it appalling. And HUGMONSTER, don't even begin to try and tar me with that brush. The political side of this is that it will hurt Bush more than any amount of combat casualties.

On the points concerning Kyoto, I agree with WINO - it was simply designed to slow down the American economy. Due to the spread out nature of American cities and suburbs, mass transportation is not practical, nor do Americans want to raise taxes to pay for them. We could go to Nuclear power to solve a lot of our electrical needs, but the environmentalists hate that idea even more than oil.

And finally as for America being late to World War II, my Czech girlfriend is quite adament about saying that we were both late to the war......

OneWorld22
1st May 2004, 13:21
I have to add this point in,

Just remember, there is no group more angry at these revelations then the ordinary decent soldiers themsleves. These men and women who did these acts have sullied the name of the overwhelming majority of excellen t servicemen and women out there trying to do their job to the best of their abilities.

The military will deal with these people and the punishment will be severe for them as not only have the crimes been severe, but the military in both countries will come down like a tonne of bricks on any soldier who disgraces their regiment/battalion/division like this.

Honour and pride are still very important concepts in the military.

Mike Jackson looked like he was furious yesterday, I wouldn't have liked to have been those soldiers if they were locked in a room with Iron Mike after this!

Wedge
1st May 2004, 14:01
I just wonder what good ol' Southern boy Bill Hicks would have said about this - his routines about GW1 can be transferred quite beautifully:

"There's no one that can threaten us, no one at all. OK here I am talking about countries we don't arm first, if you want to debate on that level you have a point. 'Iraq has incredible weapons. Incredible weapons.' 'How do you know that?' 'Well.......we looked at the receipt. And when that check clears we're going in'.

Then George Bush makes these speeches 'we still live in a dangerous world'.......THANKS TO YOU!!!!! Before that Kuwait had ROCKS man!

How does it feel to realise we are the evil empire?

Politics makes such strange bedfellows. Saddam Hussein recently said 'We have nothing against America. We just want to see George Bush beheaded and his head kicked down the road like a a soccer ball'.....and I'm thinking.....THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SEE!

A vote for Bill Clinton, is a vote for higher taxes. Clinton says he won't raise your taxes, but he will. You know that's what it all seems to be about today, voting with your wallet. Well you know what I have news for you, there are other reasons not to vote for Bush - for example the fact that during the 1980s he was Vice-President in a regime with Ronald Reagan whose policies included genocide. See the reason I won't be voting for Bush is 'cause he's a mass murderer. And I'll pay that extra nickel on a litre of fuel just knowing that little brown kids aren't being clubbed to death in Honduras so that PEPSI can put a plant in there"

:E

Hicks was proof that fortunately, not all Americans think like Wino. True, his views were a polemic, but he made some very insightful comments, and was hilariously funny as he made them. I don't quite see the logic of arguing that because the people who benefit from America's foreign policy, Americans, are planning to vote for him in the election means that the policies are justified! Of course, thanks to America's 'free press', controlled by the conservative establishment, most Americans don't understand the issues. Of course, Wino says I don't understand mainstream America. I'd suggest I understand mainstream American better than most of the docile and brainwashed 'mainstream Americans'. Call me a supercilious liberal if you want, but it's the truth.

46Driver
1st May 2004, 14:08
Well, not all Americans think like Wino - some are more conservative; :) at least enough for Bush to win 30 of the 50 states in the last election. When shown as a map - it is quite telling.
www.uselectionatlas.org

Grandpa
1st May 2004, 14:23
I am very cautious about those pictures (modern digital data could be easyly distorted)...........but as said above US administration allready admitted the facts, and I'm afraid UK is on same path (so sad for my Brit neighbours these soldiers are a disgrace for their country!).

I can't help remembering what we did during Algeria war: same pictures of prisoners humiliated and tortured before "corvée de bois" early in the morning, same civil houses searched opening doors with gun or grenade, women and children pushed and abused, men sent to unknown destination..........we have to live with that burden on our conscience and you will have to do the same (for those who have got one!).

Glad to know occupying forces didn't yet dig MASS GRAVES....

...Only wondering where are buried hundreds of Falluja residents kindly laid down by so soft US weaponry.....

Their parents had time enough to dig INDIVIDUAL GRAVES.

What a blessing Iraqi should never stop to thank US for!


On this particuliar day, everybody is able to note:

1- G.W.B is the best ally of Bin Laden in the world, trying by all means to offer him credibility and build an enhanced recruitment policy.

2- His best assistants in this dirty trick are wearing US/UK uniform and are standing in Iraq.

3- We are all going to pay for it, so PLEASE STOP THAT MESS!

p/s: understood Wino that your first arguments in environment discussion are from Clinton's mouth...What a change!

OneWorld22
1st May 2004, 14:24
Certainly looks depressing on the Atlas, but remember Florida is very marginal, (well it should have been red at the last election!)And then of course look at the populations of the Red states and you realise its not all so one sided looking for the GOP!

Thank god for New York and California and the whole West Coast and New England and the great lake States and the Mid-West.....

New Mexico looks funny all on its own.....I always did like Albequerque and Taos!!

Wino
1st May 2004, 14:46
Holy crap,
I agree with something Granpa said.

WAR SUCKS!

It would have been VERY nice to have been able to avoid it, and history shows that a united front at the UN might well have forced Saddam to abdicate, buuuuut we all know which government went about scoring points at the US's expense and forever removed the ability to obtain a diplomatic solution to the Iraq problem.

Of course in light of the massive corruption that was exposed in the oil for food program going all the way to Chirac it is little wonder WHY they opposed any sort diplomatic solution. Can't stop that French gravy train....

Far better to get the USA to fall on its face.

Then again, they sold a Nuclear reactor to Iraq. Yeah, they really needed nuclear power with all that oil...


War is a dirty mess. It wasn't my choice. But sometimes you have to fight. The US found itself "pot committed" with so many chips in the pot that it had no choice left but say"all in" push em all in and hope for the best.


Oneworld.

Be carefull about saying "Thank god for 60 minutes." They have been CONVICTED of fabricating evidence in many of their stories. The Suzuki Samuri roll overs: they had to rig the suspension of the cars to make it happen on TV, The Pickup truck with saddle tank fires in a collision, turns out they put a pirotechnic device in the truck so it would catch fire on tv, 2 seperate stories, 2 seperate producers and production teams, 2 seperate fabrications and 2 seperate convictions, hence my caution, a documented history of making up facts, infact that is one of the reasons that they prefer stories about the government, the government has few avenues of legal relief for a false hood that is printed as compared to a company that can show economic damages before a court. My sister was a producer for Inside Edition and once explained this very clearly to me....


Cas,
the problem is that without the do gooders the market itself would most likely fix the problems. As oil got more and more expensive nuclear power would become more and more viable (and I think its better for the envirnment). The problem is that the envirnmentalists have already cut off that avenue of energy again based on bad science.... (Can you say chernobyl?)

So you have constant meddling in the market in the name of ecology or the planet, but you know what? The effects are self defeating... Left alone, the market would eventually fix many of these problems on its own, possibly in a speedier time frame.

Cheers



Cheers
Wino

46Driver
1st May 2004, 15:09
I thought it was "Dateline" on NBC that had the truck blow up by putting pyro inside it? At any rate, all the liberal media is the same, you can really only trust Fox News - or do I just like Laurie Dhue..... Seriously, the big reason why Fox has been so successful is that a large part of the American public was fed up with ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. When Clinton beat Dole by a few percentage points in '96, a poll of the media had them voting for Clinton by something like 96% to 4% - and you wonder why we call it a liberal bias....

As for the map, Florida is still a dead heat but I will be sure to vote. Pennsylvania could be a switch - the polls have a Bush ahead by 6%.

As for the map, I knew why I despised New York and all of the hippies on the Left Coast. In DixieLand, I'll take my stand, to live and die in Dixie, away, away, away back home in Dixie......

Pilgrim101
1st May 2004, 15:19
Grandpa

Once again your debate sinks to a pathological, irrational hatred of Bush and America. I'm glad to see you now include the UK in your own personal axis of evil.

Your arguments would be a lot more reasonable without your normal hauteur and the glee with which you use the latest issue in evidence against the reasons for the Liberation of Iraq.

You will eat your words in a year or so, maybe sooner, once the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security instead of running away (Were they trained by the French ?) In addition, the actions of those clowns in the photos were repugnant to us all and you do yourself no favours by comparing all of us in Iraq with the two or three stupid prats photographed. If guilty they will be severely punished and there is no doubt that Bush and Blair are revolted by such actions. Of course it doesn't fit your argument to acknowledge that does it ?

Forget Algeria, you don't need to look any further than your Country's shameful involvement in the Ivory Coast two years ago (shoot to kill), and Rwanda. Do some research there please ?

OneWorld22
1st May 2004, 15:20
46Driver, may god always bless New York, LA, San Francisco,Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Detroit etc!!!

Watch out, we're comin' down south to kick some serious ass!

Wedge
1st May 2004, 15:30
The electoral map of the USA is of course, a complete red herring, the United States Electoral College system last time round ensured that Bush won (albeit in highly dubious circumstances), despite winning half a million fewer votes than Gore:

Bush 50,456,002 47.87%
Gore 50,999,897 48.38%
Nader 2,882,955 2.74%


I'd suggest that a true 'democracy' would put the candidate who took most American people's votes in the White House. Indeed there are many right-wingers in the USA, but a clear majority of Americans wanted to see a Democrat in the White House in 2000.

46Driver
1st May 2004, 15:30
Well, as the bumper stick says: Yanks 1, Rebs 0, halftime... :) The invasion has already started; we call the Yankee infested capital of Georgia "Occupied Atlanta" and we are busy digging a moat at the Tampa-Orlando line to prevent yet another Yankee flanking manuever. However, we are trying to win "Hearts and Minds" with Krispy Kreme and NASCAR.....

Hopefully for this election I will be stateside (I was in Prague last time but did vote via absentee.)

As for the electoral college, it has been around for just a few centuries - its not like it was suddenly put into place for Bush to win. Florida was simply extremely close - and if the residents of West Palm Beach could have figured out how to use a butterfly ballot, Gore would have won. That's the way the system is, and a pretty good one at that. And don't forget that during the same 2000 election, America elected both a Republican House and Senate...

con-pilot
1st May 2004, 15:34
Yes it was “Date Line” with Stone Phillips and Jane Pauley. However it could just as well been “60 Minutes”. To truly understand the anti-Republican pro left wing liberal bias of the major news networks in the United States you have to be involved in a major story that has been covered by the major networks as I have on a couple occasions.

By the time the story was aired what had actually happened compared to what was shown was beyond belief. Comments were taken out of context, video was edited to show the view that the reporter and/or the studio bosses wanted to be seen to promote their political bias and had very little factual story line of what really happened.

If President Bush walked on water the major news networks would state, “Bush can’t swim!”

I’m with 46 Driver, Fox Network News for me.

Caslance
1st May 2004, 15:35
(Can you say chernobyl?) Yes. Can you say "massive fallout over a large land area"? Or are the adverse effects of long-term exposure to high levels of ionising radiation also "bad science"? ;)

I'm not sure I agree with your thesis that the market, left to it's own devices, would solve the problem of diminishing resources. Surely the market would promote short term profit-making and leave it to future generations to have their profit margins eroded by the costs of exploiting new energy sources and cleaning up the environment?

Which is roughly where we are now, isn't it?

OneWorld22
1st May 2004, 15:36
46Driver, I think you're right, the South is certainly in the midst of an invasion by stealth, silently killing the North with copious amounts of fried chicken firstly. Then the main invasion will come from a plaguye of Billy-Bobs in those Nascars.

I'm doing all I can on this side to stop this rot,

see here (http://www.democratsabroad.org/)

Come on you Yankees, fight back!

con-pilot
1st May 2004, 16:06
“Democrats Abroad”, I love it! Now if we can just get more Democrats to leave the country it would be great! Just kidding.

Wedge, you are semi-right about the election results. A slim majority of Americans that “Voted” gave Gore a slim lead in single votes. Only about 40% of eligible voters voted in the last presidential election. The majority of the non-voting population was middle to upper middle class people who the majority of which are Republican. Apathy was the major reason given, most people believed that there was to way Gore could possibly win over Bush and therefore didn’t bother to vote. That will not happen in this election.

Now getting back the thread topic. The war in Iraq will influence the election the most. The economy is improving, jobless rates are decreasing and more people own homes than any other time in American history and the home building industry is skyrocketing.

Every terrorist expert I have heard has stated that there will be a major terrorist attack attempted against the United States just before the elections. The last thing the terrorist want is for Bush to get reelected. Terrorist and their supporters do not want George W. Bush in power, because he does what he says he is going to do.

46Driver
1st May 2004, 16:16
Last election, it was a distinct possibility according to the news reports on several channels that Bush was going to win the popular vote but Gore the electoral college - and then the opposite happens. In any event, I suspect that this election will have one of the highest turnouts in recent history.

As for a terrorist bombing before the election, I think it is a likely but that the results will have the opposite effect on America - the people will want blood even more fiercely than after 9-11 and Bush will get re-elected. Just my opinion.

And give Billy Bob some credit, he was married to Angelina Jolie for a while!

OneWorld22
1st May 2004, 16:18
Of course the Terrorists want Dubbya back, he's the one man who can truly alienate the Muslim world and make it so easy for OBL and co to convince the Arab world that he is hell bent on re-igniting the crusades and that the west is looking to eradicate Islam!

Go George......

Capt.KAOS
1st May 2004, 16:20
Terrorist and their supporters do not want George W. Bush in power, because he does what he says he is going to do. I think conpilot basically verbalize what most Americans like in Bush. It doesn't matter whether he does the right thing, is troubled by any knowledge about the matter, realise the consequences or has any substantial strategy, as long as he does what he says, he's the right stuff. Ignorance is bliss, pretty scary if you ask me :rolleyes:

Talking about knowledge, most interrogaters operating in the Abu Ghraib prison had no or poor preparation or intelligence background, many of the security jobs are subcontracted to private contractors being subject to no applicable military or civil laws. Again an example of a dramatically bad organised operation.

The justification of the invasion to liberate Iraq and establish a western style democracy is through these incidents becoming exactly the nightmare of decadence many Imams have predicted.

PS OW22, exactly! No better drafting officer than GWBush.

con-pilot
1st May 2004, 16:25
No OW22, the terrorists do NOT want Bush back that is the last thing they want. They want someone that will run to the UN crying and wringing their hands after another terrorist attack that kills another 3 or 4,000 people.

Paterbrat
1st May 2004, 18:44
Wow, take time out to smell the blossom and the thread has sped by another bunch of pages. Obviously a hot topic.
Hmm WW22 well I obviously pushed a sensitive button there with my arborealy infatuated bunny etc label, but if you fancy it feel free. Actually simply acknowledging that life can be nasty brutish and short is a still step too far for quite a lot of people. No we should not go out of our way HM to participate in the unpleasentness, however that still leaves someone the job of holding off those who would do it to us if they could.
My submission was obviously overtaken by events and had nothing to do with the unpleasant and criminal treatment of prisoners by some the coalition forces.
It is a minority. Is not the standard and yes it is certainly unacceptable. It has been exposed has been greeted quite rightly with outrage. Steps are being taken to find out what, when, and by whom.
But in response to the hysterical headlines and to try and get just the slightest perspective, it should be realised that this is abnormal and not the usual, and that sadly the obverse has not been the case, prisoners of the Iraqis have routinely been treated in a far worse manner. Reports that the outrage felt by the Arab world serves only to underline the hypocracy and double standards that exist. That sort of behaviour existing only too often in every single one of their countries on an ongoing and routine basis. This certainly does not excuse nor condone, simply point that the banner headlines are as usual a little hysterical and are delighted to sink their teeth into yet more good/bad news that will sell sell sell.

OneWorld22
1st May 2004, 18:57
No Con, they DO NOT want an administration that tries to work within the UN and who believes in dialogue and islolating the terrorists away from the mainstream community.

They DO want governments who will isolate the wider muslim community and push the average muslim towards the extremists.

Wino
1st May 2004, 21:18
oneworld,
Alqueada's toppling of the spanish government, by all accounts deliberate, would seam to prove you wrong.

Cheers
Wino

Caslance
1st May 2004, 21:44
Alqueada's toppling of the spanish government, by all accounts deliberate, would seam to prove you wrong. All those Spaniards voting for the Opposition helped a little bit as well, though.

On what basis do you assume that Snr Aznar's Popular Party (PP) Government would otherwise have won the election? The gift of second sight? A close examination of the gizzard of a freshly-sacrificed goose?

The PP was anxious that ETA be blamed for the bombings because Aznar liked to portray himself as the most determined opponent of their terrorist tactics and as a robust guardian of the territorial integrity of Spain - a latter-day Cid.

Aznar had focused on the issue of ETA and it's activities, in large measure, to divert attention from his efforts to impose unpopular austerity measures and welfare cuts.

At the same time, his government were afraid (with good reason, as it turned out) that a popular perception among the Spanish electorate that the bombings were the work of Al Qaeda or some similar group would rebound against the Popular Party.

They were caught out lying to the electorate, and paid the price.

Wino
1st May 2004, 23:19
Yeah, cas they were caught out lying,

but what were they lying about? Had there been no attacks, what would the result of the election been?

I see what your driving at, but its a chicken or the egg problem....
IN this case no egg no spanish chickens...

BTW, those austerity measures have a lot to do with the Euro...

Howlong before some austerity measures in say... France. Well of course not, they will lie and do as they always do...

Cheers
Wino

Grandpa
1st May 2004, 23:30
Who is pathological: the one who puts the blame of Iraq's invasion, occupation, and the mess which results of it..........on the French (....surrender.....again and again).......?

...........or.......

..........Grandpa who reminds you that French Government warned Bush/Blair: ".........If my advice is wished, I would say:"DON'T GO THERE".........."

Pilgrim, did you read about Ivory Coast, where French soldiers are risking their lives, under UN mandate approved unanimously(that means approved also by US authorities), to prevent another tribal war to spread there with the result of more massacre...........?
Repeating lies doesn't make truth Pilgrim!

This woman General , in charge of Abu Ghraïb jail, isn't anybody.
You can't say all this affair of prisoner abuse is only caused by a few stupid soldiers when a high ranking officer is involved.

When I say these one are the best allies of Bin Laden, you can be sure it's not a figure of style inspired by anti-americanism, it's only that I take a full view of the consequences of the diffusion of all documents concerning US unlawfull management of war prisoners will have on public opinion in Middle East and around the world.

Now, if you don't care of Arab public opinion and what the world thinks of your disgraced administration (WHATEVER YOU MINIMISE THESE FACTS US/UK ARE IN CHARGE OF IRAQ AND CAN'T ESCAPE THEIR RESPONSABILITIES!), you may continue denying the evidences, and fancy you can rule the world alone.

It's up to you...........

Wino
1st May 2004, 23:40
Sorry grandpa, but while WMD may not of turned up, evidence of french corruption in the oil for food program most certainly did, reaching VERY high in the french government.

I suspect that has FAR more to do with the french opposition than any forsight. A person with good forsight like you ascribe to Chirac would know that corruption gets discovered....

"Don 't go there, I don't want to be found out" is more likely the rest of the sentance.



Cheers
Wino

Caslance
2nd May 2004, 00:12
Well of course not, they will lie and do as they always do... Well, they are at the end of the day (23:59) politicians. What more can honest men expect from them?

A pleasure and a privilege to debate with you, as always Wino.

Wino
2nd May 2004, 02:58
Yeah you too cas, one of these days we will have to lift a pint together...



What more can honest men expect from them?

So are you saying that being a policitican and being an honest man are mutually exclusive? I should hope not but I fear that you are right.

I actually suspect that this has much more to do with Bush's popularity than his programs or Iraq or whatever...

After 8 years of "I smoked pot but didn't inhale." followed by blatant lie after lie, some of which were too silly to believe could come out of an adult mouth, let alone the president of the United States, the relative honesty of "this is how it is, if you don't like tough" of Bush seams like a breath of fresh air to some.

And that is why I think Kerry is stumbling as well. The latest, I threw my ribbons back, well no I didn't, Yes you did I saw you do it, no I didn't throw MY ribbons I threw someone else's, I only TOLD everyone they were my ribbons...... And here we are, right back in the Clinton cesspool again...

Its like dealing with Unions in airlines (I got to compare it to what I know). You can have BAD relations with unions and be quite successfull (ala Bud Maytag and the original National Airlines, worst Union relations in history) or have great relations with unions and be successfull (Southwest Airlines and Herb Kelleher, most heavily unionized airline in America, and most successfull with VERY good relations till herb left) But don't dicker and dither... Pick a course and stick to it. Even a bad course if consistant can be profitable...

Cheers
Wino

Wiley
2nd May 2004, 06:49
Kapt KAOS touched on the point that immediately came to my mind when this story first ‘broke’ (now there’s a double meaning if ever there was one). It is the presence of US servicewomen in the pics is what will really be causing the upset and utter outrage on ‘the Arab Street’.

The fact that the US was using females as part of the interrogation teams (and as the CO of the prison) should not come as any surprise to even the most luvvie or the luvvies. Any serviceman who’s been put through the Code of Conduct course, that prepares you for what to expect if captured, will tell you that using females to taunt you on the size of your danglies as you stand there naked and hooded is an extraordinarily effective way of breaking the will of a Western ‘alpha male’ captive, (as many aircrew and spec forces people are). It accelerates the humiliation factor exponentially for a Westerner. For an Arab male, I would imagine it would be even more ego-shattering, which is exactly why the Americans were using females.

I can’t say I’m at all surprised to learn that the distasteful things I saw in the photographs have been happening. War’s a really nasty business, and distasteful as it might be to most of us, no Intel Service, military or otherwise, expects to get answers out of captives by asking questions of them over a coke in the prison canteen. Anyone who’s seen any WW2 spy drama will know that ‘our side’ – the ‘good guys’ indulged in some pretty nasty mind games to ‘break’ Nazi captives (and, I suspect, some pretty nasty physical games as well, which we don’t dwell on in our winner’s version of that war).

I think anyone like HugMonster, Caslance et al whose outrage factor is approaching hyperdrive at the moment should go out an re-rent the Tom Cruise / Demi Moore / Jack Nicholson movie ‘A Few Good Men’ and watch again the courtroom speech the Jack Nicholson character (the nasty Marine colonel) made at the end of the movie. Post-Sept 11 2001, it takes on a very different if no less appealing aspect – or at least it should for any thinking person in the West.

What really does surprise me in all this is that anyone in this day and age could be so incredibly stupid as to take photographs of the truly distasteful and demeaning things the US interrogators were doing in that prison. I understand that insanity is a plea that will get you off in many cases in the US justice system. If there was an ‘absolute stupidity’ plea, the MPs seen in those photographs would be on a shoo-in to getting off on that defence.

The really scary angle to this is that a small number of US servicemen and servicewomen – of incredibly stupid servicemen and servicewomen, whose one ambition in life, (to judge by the fun they seemed to be having in those photographs), might be to fill a guest slot on the Jerry Springer Show- will quite probably have an enormous effect on the current world political scene or at least upon American foreign policy in the short term.

As uncomfortable as many of us might be with what we’ve seen in the papers over the last few days, we should take some comfort in the fact that we still live in a society, imperfect though it might be, that allows such uncomfortable facts to be publicised. The society the people we’re fighting wish to set up, should they win, will not. It’s a truism that history is written by the winners. Unless we in the West get our act together, there’s a very good chance it’s going to be written in Arabic.

Pilgrim101
2nd May 2004, 07:18
You never fail to amuse us Grandpa ! :p

Your pathetic, predictable Anti-Bush ranting would be a lot more credible if it wasn't coming from the most self serving member state of the proven to be corrupt UN. Shame on you, sitting impotently on the Substitute's bench criticising the strategy without contributing one positive point of your own other than to run away from Iraq with the job unfinished.

Your misinformation about Fallujah and the overall situation here is laughable and the glee with which you sieze on the actions of a few stupid morons (It's bad enough it might be true, without people like you wishing it was so !).

Read again the statements from your own Government on the Ivory Coast disgrace and the statement made by one of your diplomats in Rwanda (Kill them, but kill them off camera !) Just because you rant and rave doesn't make your points any truer Grandpa !

Your last statement about US/UK "ruling the world alone" actually gives away the French bitterness about not being included and ignored by the decision makers in the world today. Shame, Grandpa - France is now destined to be always the Bridesmaid, never the Bride in world affairs ! Just wait for the Saddam trial to see just how far French corruption and hypocrisy runs :yuk:

El Grifo
2nd May 2004, 10:45
Bearing in mind that it was you who brought the subject up Wino.

Quote :- "After 8 years of "I smoked pot but didn't inhale." followed by blatant lie after lie, some of which were too silly to believe could come out of an adult mouth, let alone the president of the United States, the relative honesty of "this is how it is, if you don't like tough" of Bush seams like a breath of fresh air to some".

It has been reported widely that Bush was not only a self confessed Alcoholic, but also a user of Cocaine !

Surely that is marginally worse than "smoking pot and not inhaling"

Whadaya Thunk ???



:* :ok: :*

Grandpa
2nd May 2004, 10:48
....Pilgrim is mistaking France for Wiley: "Do whatever you want but NEVER MAKE ANY PHOTO!"

I wonder if you work in a team, one destructing his mate's arguments on next post..........

I clearly understand the meaning you give to the word "misinformation"......

It's only when informations are in contradiction with what you think and say.

So the world is much nice to live in whith blind eyes.

When you speak about France bitterness....you are a little short sighted: .............you should say WORLD BITTERNESS , and when dealing with world leaders opposed to Bush unilateralism, you should not forget they are approved by 80% of their population who are opposed to Iraq's war (but I don't worry if you chose to attack Chirac only, it's easier than turning against them all, including Zapatero of Spain, a man who does what he said!)

OneWorld22
2nd May 2004, 11:02
And Bush never admitted any of his little vices before any GOP fans start......They were meant to be well hidden, buried like other Bush family secrets!

El Grifo
2nd May 2004, 11:08
Quote:-

"They were meant to be well hidden, buried like other Bush family secrets"!

Unlike, of course the infamous and illusive and now non-existant

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Pilgrim101
2nd May 2004, 12:07
Grandpa

Your last post just continues to betray your prejudice, blind puppy like acceptance of the French and other media reports, lack of any conception whatever of the risk of doing nothing in todays world and a clear failure on your part to comprehend where the world's problems stem from. Bush is not the problem.

Spains capitulation in the face of terror will do that Country no honour when others have to carry the burden - what will she do when Islamic terror groups resume the attacks on her ? Spain has just been relegated to the back of the terror list because she rolled over and complied with their initial demands. What will she do when the normal, further terror demands (the usual tactic) are placed on her ?

I don't see any contradiction in my stance against your prejudice against the UK and America and your blind Franco French arrogance but if your thoughts are as tortured as your English I understand. PS I'm fluent in Russian and Arabic but never found anything in common with the French to bother to learn the language

montys ex teaboy
2nd May 2004, 12:15
Well, what’s all the fuss about torture?? Okay, the photos look ugly.

Let anyone tell me what government, in time of war that has not taken part in this age-old practice? If a government wants information from a prisoner that could save the lives of many people in that country, they will extract it. Period.

Are you so naive that you think they would let the lawyers get involved? Come on. All’s fair in love and war. If you want information you extract it. Simple as that.

The coalition of the willing are at war. Like it or not it was thrust upon them.

El Grifo
2nd May 2004, 12:31
Monty, Although in the real world, what you are saying is pretty close to the truth. The big mistake is to shoot pictures of the proceedings, never mind allowing them to be published.

There are now doubts being cast on the authenticity of the images recently published by an English newspaper, showing British Troop "abusing" prisoners.

The images are said to be digital in origin. Buried within every digital image, is an information file, either EXIF or metadata providing information including which date and time the image was shot.

That would be a good starting point at which to begin any investigation.

If the information contained therin has by any chance been "surgically removed" that alone would indicate foul play.

If, and I emphasise the word "IF" the images are fake, then what responsibilty or liability should fall on the newspaper which originally published them.

Gainesy
2nd May 2004, 12:39
There is some debate that the pictures of "British Troops"are posed and the incident is being faked for whatever reason.

Viz:
Boots laced civvy style
No formation insignia on shoulders
Wrong type of hat
Pouches left open
When being hit in balls its instinctive to close legs, "victim" is not doing so
Pictures look too "static".
SA-80 (rifle) looks unused/too new.

And why shown in black & white when most digital cameras are colour by default?

Ed to add: Crossposted with El Grifo, above.

El Grifo
2nd May 2004, 12:50
Hi Gainsey,

Just for reference, Colour Digital Images can be converted to B/W at the flick of the wrist.

Pilgrim101
2nd May 2004, 13:19
"Reasonable Doubt" now ??? I personally think even the US photos look too contrived now I have seen them. Not too much in the way of blood or bruising there. If true, it looks more like a stupid, moronic treatment of POW's as a "prank" which is nonetheless still evil for it's perpetration. There will be a reckoning for those prats who were stupid enough to be photographed showing such lack of compassion for frightened prisoners.

However, I am also wary of the timing of the release of such pictures now.

Kind of puts into perspective the usual savage Iraqi frenzy of sadistic pleasure involving lots of hysterical screaming, laughter and sharp knives, throats, genitals, dragging corpses behind 4x4's and and dancing on the mutilated bodies of their prisoners for fun afterwards before finally hanging them as some kind of grisly trophy.

El Grifo
2nd May 2004, 13:45
Unlike the "British" images, it is clear to see that the "American" images have been shot on a point and shoot compact, with a built in flash.

The "British" images have been shot on an altogether different beast, certainly using flash, but in an much more professional manner.

OneWorld22
2nd May 2004, 14:00
Pilgrim are you telling me the CIA and their hired operatives have never used the same methods as Husseins cronies?

Give me a break.

Ands is that what we've really come down to? A League table of torture severity?!

"And the winners are..........

Tell 'em what they've won Bob!!"

Pilgrim101
2nd May 2004, 14:41
Just where did I say that OW ? It's certainly worth another look at the "evidence" before condemning the whole of the Coalition Force as torturers and thugs which I did infer from some less than balanced comment earlier !

Don't try to twist my words to suit your own point, which was what exactly ? Where did I indicate anything other than revulsion if the acts are in fact proven to be true. Seems to me that we are guilty of everything certain members of the forum want to accuse us of with only media reporting as the so called evidence. Wait for the Court Martial, if there is one on the strength of the photos you have seen in a toerag publication more focused on Beckhams sex life than anything near the truth.

There's enough disinformation and outright lies about Iraq in the media to at least display some critical analysis of the situation and a little more judicious thought before accusing me and my oppos of "institutionalised torture" on some internet forum

Give me a break :rolleyes:

OneWorld22
2nd May 2004, 15:09
Wind your neck in Pilgrim and scroll back to my comments made yesterday about these instances being in no way indicitive of how the armed forces have behaved. You're the one going on about Hussein's cronies actions being far worse.

But these actions are still disgraceful and if true I hope they're severly punished for their actions and for soiling the name of their Unit/Battalion etc.

Wino
2nd May 2004, 15:23
Oneworld,

Bush has admitted that he partied too much in the past. He;s said, and says I don't do it anymore, and the rest I'm not gonna talk about.

And then unlike that idiot Gary Hart who challenged the press to follow him while he was having an affair on a boat to bimini, HE DOESN'T DO IT ANYMORE!

That is called integrity.
Clinton ALWAYS had the option not to talk about things (even monica Lewinsky, you should check the constitution, amendment 5) but instead always found it convienient to tell baldfaced whoppers. Leaves a bad taste in people's mouth. Even the sex lies, he had 90 days to decide and said screwit, I'm gonna lie, can't even argue that its a spur of the moment mistake.

Clinton ALWAYS lied when he didn't have to because it was EASY, then started spinning from there.

Bush has said "not gonna talk about it" about somethings, but that is VERY different then lying. But in the meantime, no one has come out and said he's a drunk or tied a good one on lately. When he quit drinking he QUIT.

Cheers
Wino

BlueDiamond
2nd May 2004, 15:24
Colour Digital Images can be converted to B/W at the flick of the wrist.
You are quite correct, El Grifo. I would add further that it is entirely possible to change entire scenes to suit a required purpose. As an experienced bitmap editor, I can confirm that changes can be made down to the fill and even outline of each individual pixel. Given enough time and any average bitmap editing programme, anything is possible.

From my own experience, I would suggest that photographic evidence nowadays can be anything but a true record of what actually happened. Placing people in a location they have never even visited, or with a group of people they have never even met is a matter of relative simplicity. It can actually be done easily and quickly. If you spend more time on it, it can be done without leaving any evidence that the picture has been manipulated.

PLEASE NOTE ... What I have said here is not in any way intended to indicate that the photographs are NOT genuine. I am speaking only of what it is possible to do by way of editing them.