Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I don't know about that, but a US citizen has been captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taleban. I think his name was Walker.

Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

OK, so you are prejudiced against a religion.
Of course I am! I'm prejudiced against lots of religions. Why is that bad?

If you look what is going on in countries that are predominantly Islam you'll see why I'm against that religion. Women have no rights. Men can abuse them like they are nothing. No bill of rights for most part. So yeah. You can say I think Islam is a bad influence on people.


That is bad simply because it assumes that US Nationals cannot be terrorists.
No it doesn't. U.S. citizens are, however, covered by the Constitution. You can't detain someone without pressing a charge if they are an American.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Jerrek, how is a racist law not bad?
No. You don't disprove something, you prove that someone is guilty. Prove to me it is bad.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

The Patriot act allows the US to hold foreign nationals without charge. According to Amnesty International, the US is holding 650 people without charge (for up to a year) at Guantanamo bay.

If the government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue it through the normal legal channels? Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.

I seem to recall you are religious person. Doesn't your religion have anything to say about that?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

The Patriot act allows the US to hold foreign nationals without charge.
That is fine with me.

Why do they need a law allowing them to imprison ANYONE (whatever nationality) without charge?
To protect against terrorists?

I suspect it is because they are being less than successful in reducing terrorism and with an election coming up, the Bush Administration don't want to appear to be failing.
So the Patriot Act, passed in 2001, was a play to get re-elected in 2004? That is sound logic.

Is that the best you can do? I'm disappointed.
Likewise. I would have thought you would be able to substantiate your point.

I seem to recall you are religious person. Doesn't your religion have anything to say about that?
Not really. All people are equal, but if one group starts making trouble you can bet I'm going to focus on them. Just like all middle easterners are getting fingerprinted when entering the United States.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists? Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.

Anyway, let's phrase the question another way: If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?

Maybe the Patriot Act wasn't a play to get re-elected directly, but IIRC Bush had a very slim majority when he was elected. I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Allright, I will substantiate my point then.

The 9/11 attacks were an atrocious crime, and those that are responsible for it should be found and brought to justice. I supported the war in Afghanistan, as there was substantial proof that at least some of those responsible were hiding there being protected by the regime.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).

In this situation, I find the line that you are justified to invade another country because of their human rights issues (after being fed several lines about WMD, links to AL Qa'eda) a little rich. Especially, since so many countries that abuse human rights apparently have nothing to fear from the US.

You're right, prisoners in the US are not tortured, raped etc., but their human rights are being violated, and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances. And the line that they are terrorists doesn't cut it, as they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I understand that the war on terrorism requires special powers, but I fail to see why this requires such a violation of human rights.

As I said earlier in this thread: I am reminded of this WW2 movie, where one the soldiers suggests roughing one of the prisoners up a bit in order to get some info, and the officer replies: Isn't that what this war is about?

BTW: Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe? (As you brought up Mugabe a number of times)

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

excuse me for my anti bush stance for a moment but i thought i would give you all this information i have come across.......

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid and a majority branded the U.S. president a threat to world peace, opinion poll results published on Sunday showed.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h_britain_dc_6


The fact that people are willing to come and express themselves †� I'm going to a great country," Bush said during a brief question-and-answer session in the Oval Office.



While saying that people don't have to agree with him, Bush said, "But certainly they should agree with the goals of the United States, which is peace and freedom."

yeh right :rolleyes: peace and freedom is that the same peace that you try and impose on the iraqi people ?

the freedom ill admit you have done that by freeing them from saddam but who is going to rebuild the country ?


and the right to freedom ? i thought the US was the land of free speech so why are there designated protesting areas away from bush and i mean well away from him in the US

if the US was really wanting to be a nation that made a diffarence to the world there would be a togetherness with allies across the globe to solve the various problems such as israel zimbabwe and especially africa after all western countries were involved in the sabotaging africa with slavery

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists?
Who said anything about imprisoning innocent people?

Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.
They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?
Yes, they should put them in front of military tribunals. I guess they are just waiting a bit.

I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.
And I don't think so. His approval rating was in the 80s when the act was passed.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.
Funny, but I have a different version. I was told it was about looking into the possession of WMD (as declared by the U.N.), and then investigating it.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).
So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs.

but their human rights are being violated
And my heart is pumping purple p*ss for them.

and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances.
They are not American citizens and thus not entitled to protecting by the Constitution. Or would you have us extend our Constitution to everyone in the world now? I wonder how the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, will go down with the French Government.

Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe?
No, but I've been there, and I know people that do live there. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid
At one time the majority of Britons believed in owning slaves.


So kronas, let me get this straight: You will support invasion of Zimbabwe, right?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

So, these guys were combatants in a situation referred to as "the war on terrorism", yet because your government tells you they are guilty (the same government that will pick the members of the tribunal which in most countries would be considered a conflict of interests) you believe them. Do your law enforcment people and military never make mistakes?

And if the United States is acting in a fair and legal way by imprisoning people without charge, why not do it on US soil?
Intelligent Answer. Beliefs change. At one time, the human race believed the world was flat and the sun orbited us.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I saw the interview on breakfast with frost and George Bush is still saying that Sadam should have disarmed,

So he demanded that they disarm
They said they have no arms
They invade because they say they do have arms
They find no arms
They say Sadam should have disarmed in the first place

What am I missing? :dozey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

are people not allowed to defend their own country?


So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs.

No, I proved that the US used a semantic hack to avoid being in direct breach of the Geneva Convention. In spirit they still are, and I'm very interested in the verdict of the supreme court.

You may also want to take a look at this:

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 2, 7, 9 and 10 make interesting reading.

And my heart is pumping purple p*ss for them.

Yes, you seem very interested in a reasonable and rational debate

They are not American citizens and thus not entitled to protecting by the Constitution. Or would you have us extend our Constitution to everyone in the world now? I wonder how the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, will go down with the French Government.

When it comes to detaining and trying people yes, I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens. And don't be silly, you have no say over French law. I think you're smarter than that.

No, but I've been there, and I know people that do live there. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing, I was just interested.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

What hate?!

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I was laughing at how I could see Bush being tempted by the booty, not at the Burmese peoples plight....:dozey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

are people not allowed to defend their own country?
Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story.

It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 2, 7, 9 and 10 make interesting reading.
Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document. It is a socialist's wet dream. For example,

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Wrong. I don't buy the right to life crap. You murder someone, you're gonna be executed.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Bull**** once again. If it is predominantly Middle Easterners that blow themselves up in the States, you can bet we're going to focus on them. I couldn't care less if it is disciminatory.

Everyone has the right to work
Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
This is so funny and so full of ****.

I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens.
Then let us agree to disagree.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

The point of the rules for prisoners of war is that they are not punished for the crimes of their country. If you are called to fight and you are captured you were merely doing your bit to defend your country and should be detained in fitting accomadation until the war is over and then returned to your country.
I believe that isn't refering to the death penalty

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

:rofl:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

The hate for america the muslim extremists have

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

....the right to life?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I always thought that the right of life didn't apply to people who had been sentanced (legally) to death :shrug: But then again I'm against the death penalty :dozey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Yeah, sorry. I overreacted.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story.

It relates to them being called illegal combatants rather than POWs

Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document.
Why is that lucky for me?

Bull**** once again. If it is predominantly Middle Easterners that blow themselves up in the States, you can bet we're going to focus on them. I couldn't care less if it is disciminatory.

I don't have a problem with that, but with certain people being detained without being charged, when this is against your own law and treaties the US have ratified. Especially if the Us are going to point the finger and accuse other of human right violations.

Everyone has the right to work
Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

I agree that sounds a bit silly.

I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens.
Then let us agree to disagree

Since I don't see each other coming any nearer to each other, let's. ;)

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I really don't know, I'm in deep uncharted waters here:)

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

np m8. I'm not that much of an as**hole;):) :angel:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income - it happened in some communist countries. Capitolists were forbidden from work and therefore starved.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Not just capitalists, the educated, the judiciary and vast swathes of the middle classes.
.....but don't get me started:disturbd:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Methinks that so much ink has been spilt in this thread so as to make into a little book.

:D

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

thats besides the point you didnt answer any of my points so i will assume the truth hurts and i was correct


seeing some of your points and replys you are not the most rational person hurling insults around sparks a great debate :rolleyes:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.

Agreed. And the accomodations are more than good enough. They live better than some bums on the streets of New York.

Please take your point to Saddam though, and the other dictators.

Then it must surely refer to unborn babies. Then I completely agree with the statement. Innocent children should not be murdered, and they have a right to life. Excellent point.

The people that are being detained without being charged [i]are not American citizens[i] and they are not on American soil. Hence, American law does not apply to them, unless you want to extend American laws across the world.

It is not a human rights violation, for me, to temporarily hold illegal combatants. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Then it should be rephrased. As it stands, I completely disagree with that statement.

Of course. Everyone else has to be wrong because only you can be correct.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

sorry - this isn't aimed at just Jerrek, but I find this kind of "reply to selected parts of a post" 'multiquote' approach, a real pain. Just my opinion, but I feel we miss the big picture, when we reply to posts like that.? - especially when the quotes aren't referenced - is =username too hard?

-

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Unless of course, you insists on keeping up the cheap rhetoric...

Indeed, some of them are under 16:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...941876,00.html

The thing is, nobody knows who is there. It's a black hole, and that in itself is reason to protest.

According to this source (which you will no doubt dismiss as socialist or communist)

http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/us033103.htm

There's 6 people that were arrested in Bosnia. Not captured in war, but it's not clear they are combatants either.

It also states:

Instead, the United States decreed that no member of the Taliban ´s armed forces was entitled to POW status †â€ÂÂÂ� a decision that most independent international law experts found legally untenable. Furthermore, the United States insisted that no members of Al Qaeda deserved Geneva Conventions protection †â€ÂÂÂ� not even those captured while fighting for Taliban armed forces.


So, it looks like being a member of the Taliban's armed forces, pretty much excludes you from being a POW. Garb or not...

Edit: and while looking for less communist sources, there was this interesting article from CNN:

http://us.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/column...tainees.03.11/

Do note, it is a year and a half old (and at the time all GB detainees were captured in Afghanistan), but it places some question marks at whether this illegal combatants thing is lawful or desirable.

The word quagmire comes to mind...

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Yes, I agree. As an active poster in this thread, I occasionally find myself reading someone's post, and looking for a reply to something I said, because I expect the poster to reply to one of my posts, but it not being clear from the quotes.

At least I know what I'm looking for. For someone who hasn't kept up with the thread, it must be virtually impossible to keep track of who said what. So yes, please include the username when replying (makes note to himself, and adjusted his last post to include a username).

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And that means what exactly?

Read: Which Europe found untenable...

Excellent. This is bad, how exactly?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Or read: which the international community found untenable.

Because it shows that the US in this case have no regard for international law/treaties they themselves ratified, and will do as they please. Yet, when the Iraqi television showed footage of captured Americans, the US were very quick to quote the Geneva Convention. I think this attitude is one of the reasons for the bad rep that the US has around the world.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

i found something else... this security operation to 'protect' bush is going to cost YOU yes you the taxpayer £5 million pounds

and bush continues to spout his rhetoric

"I understand you don't like war, and neither do I.

"But I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of 11 September 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America and war on people that love freedom."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3275907.stm

:rolleyes:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And yet another example of the arrogance of the USA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3281225.stm

First they refuse to accept the report from the IAEA, now they are chastising Europe for refusing to dismiss it along with them.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

As a Council Tax payer may I suggest that the people involved in the anti-Bush rent a mob contribute some hard cash towards the policing costs for their marches, Big mouth Ken Livingstone can also donate a few thousand pounds, normally he likes giving other peoples' money away.

President Bush is entitled to say what he likes, he and the USA is our ally and loves freedom as we do in the UK.

:wavey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I've always considered the concept that there are freedom loving people and those that are not such a trite piece of rhetoric. After all, aren`t the extremists just fighting for the freedom not to have their way of life dictated to them by the West?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

What, as in Afghanistan, where until the US invasion the Taleban enjoyed the 'freedom' to deny education and liberty to half their population (i.e. the women), to deny citizens who disagreed with them the right to express that opposition or leave the country, and to thoroughly disrespect foreign cultures even when they are no threat to them, ably demonstrated by the decision to blow up a set of ancient Buddhist statues?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

As you are an expert in trite rhetoric I leave that to you. George W. Bush is entitled to say what he likes. Extremists in this case being terrorists want to impose their form of tyrrany on us. The terrorist are just that, they don't have mass popular support. Their methods vary and homicidal murder is their favourite m.o.

Are you going to contribute some hard cash to London police to help pay for the anti-Bush rent a mob protests?


:rolleyes:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Yes but Towny, you arn't seeing things clearly.....it's ok for the Taleban to do those things 'cos they arn't American(or western).:rolleyes:
It seems like anything that is done to 'us' by 'them' is our own fault and we 'had it coming/deserved it' whereas anything that we do them gets the left wing liberal contingent bleating.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Well put.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And now, instead of the Taliban, we have what, exactly?

Well, a country that, apart from a US installed government that, in another time and place would have the word "puppet" prefixing it and which requires constant protection.

Large areas of the country that are being ruled by "war lords" ie people with a little imagination and a lot of guns.

A resurgance of growing opium poppies for the heroin trades.

Areas which are still being controlled by Taliban sympathisers.

Frequent death threats and attacks against womens' rights supporters.

The list goes on and on. And this has been going on for longer than the current Iraqi situation and doesn't show any signs of dying out soon, let alone there being any clear "exit strategy" for either country!!

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

You mean say things like "You're either with us or you're against us"?

Or how about "After praising nations like Bahrain, Morocco, and Oman for embracing reforms, the US leader scolded Iran -- which he once labelled part of 'an axis of evil' along with North Korea and Iraq -- and warned its leadership must follow suit or "lose its last claim to legitimacy."'

Or "But the president's remarks stretched beyond the Middle East, as he declared that the US "commitment to democracy is tested in Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe -- outposts of oppression in our world."

(Quotes from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../56125/1/.html )

You mean like the mass popular support that Bush had from his "Coalition of the Willing. Who were they again? Let's see:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Ah, yes. Some very notable players on the world stage there! And it's not as if any of them were offered bribes (oh, sorry, "financial support packages") to encourage them to sign up...!

Hmm, is the same as using cluster bombs in civilian areas, or perhaps the bombing of water, sewerage and power infrastructure in the first Gulf War?

Well, actually I am being *FORCED* to contribute hard cash to the London Police because a proportion of the five million pound cost is coming out of *MY* taxes!

And who exactly is "renting" this "mob" for the protests? As far as I am aware, those who are protesting are private citizens who wish to express their disagreement with the illegal policies and actions of the US (and UK) governments, not from any "anti-democratic" purpose, but *FOR* democratic purposes, something which certain people seem to have overlooked.

:rolleyes:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Ah, another example of "reasoned debate"! :rofl:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Why didn't you put it in a private reputation message, then?

What good do mutual self-congratulatory messages like that do to help the discussion along?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Being somewhat VERY Pro British, I have to admit, I was quite embarrassed to read the following, posted my an American working in this country, and I quote......

TBH that makes me feel very embarrassed for being a UK citizen.......

On the other hand, watching the USA inflict it's power on the rest of the world agitates me, maybe I will just sit on the fence for now

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

good point people here need to differentiate between being anti-bush administration and anti-American! unfortunately we still have have the rule Britannia ****e in our mentality and until we get over our own arrogance we should not accuse others of the same

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Actually, I think President Bush is quite correct. Dictatorships need to be dealt with and those who rule without respect to the UN Human Rights Charter should be punished. Incidentally, haven't you noticed the silence on human rights by the Gaddaffi led UN Human Rights Commission.

I see little point in this, we were allied during the Second World War with some strange bedfellows: Joe Stalin's USSR, sometimes circumstances are like that. Some of the countries you mention are new democracies, one gets the impression you wish to belittle them due to their size, that's not very nice.


No, not the same, homicidal terrorists murder deliberately as a matter of policy: men, women, chidren, mothers and babies, and even those at prayer such as the recent terrorist bombing of two synagoges in Turkey,;how on earth can you smugly say that it's the same as Allied forces bombing military targets, if civilians are killed or injured it's regretably accidental.


Just my point, we are faced with HIGHER COUNCIL TAX bills simply because anti-American rent a mobs, encouraged by that idiot K. Livingstone searching for publicity inconvenience life in London. If you support anti-American protest why dont you put your money where your mouth is and help a little more by giving the police more cash.

Very likely many will be living on state benefits, some indeed it could be suggested may be funded by the G.L.A, K. Livingstone loves giving other peoples' money away,who knows?

:eek:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Like.....:idea: G W Bush.

Did anyone watch news night last night? Bush's former speech writer, the author of 'why people hate america' and a liberal democrat baroness was there with Jeremy Paxman.

The American accused the BBC of biased.
The author said that the US keeps floating international law
The lib dem tried to keep the peace by saying both europe and america has it's bad point, and Britain likes to pick n mix.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

It's so very easy for you to look at the effect and not the cause, does that make it easier to live with your conscience?

I think the statement I`ve quoted above indicates the level of reasoning you are bringing to the debate. Because a protest doesn`t serve your ideals they must be a rent-a-mob. Are you going to be donating some extra cash to cover the policing of Bush's visit, because protest or not, do you not think that there may be some extra security in place anyway?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Yep here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm
http://www.adequacy.org/public/stori..._OFJhpwMj.html

This page also makes an interesting read and I feel is quite relavant to this thread.
http://www.newsviews.info/current1.html

Also for a light hearted dig at things.....

http://www.jokeindex.com/joke.asp?Joke=3463

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Nevertheless that is the general tone of this thread......

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I thought that this was interesting.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

If they are held on an American Military base, no matter where that base is in the world they are indeed on American soil. The US embassy in London is classed as American soil, see my point?
Now I agree with you partially that yes these people were captured and were detained. There are however disturbing reports and photographic evidence that points to the officials of this "POW" camp torturing the inmates.
These "illegal" combatants were not part of an official army, therefor they should not be tried by a military court and they should not be executed because of something they did not do.
Imagine if the british forces executed the US soldiers for killing British troops in friendly fire incidents, you wouldnt like that would you?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Perhaps you would care to raise the level of debate by refraining from personal remarks relating to my conscience, which is quite content.


Yes, ok, we live in a free society and people have the right to protest and protest with responsibility, but I'm sure they, the protesters, are adult enough to understand criticism will be made toward them and they should not deceive themselves into thinking they represent the great mass of citizens. As to cash, I was hoping you yourself would make a gesture to donating a nice sum of money to the Metropolitan Police: we here in Harrow have no choice. Your friends will be diverting police resources from outer London in order to police their demonstration, this in turn opens up the possibility of more criminal activity in areas like this.


Who knows maybe there are potential homicidal killers about waiting to make themselves martyrs, let's hope not. Probably more security would be in place but perhaps not to the extent it is now.

Now enough of this, I need to get some work done.

Have a nice day.

:spin:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Errrr isnt it being reported on the TV that there is wide spread condemnation at the visit of Dubya?

That would infer that a vast amount of people are oppposed to the state visit.
Theres an air exlusion zone over London......why? they dont even do that for our royal family.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I can't find it now, but I thought I read somewhere that the Red cross was complaining it was not being allowed access to the prisoners to verify the conditions they are being held in.


IF that is the case, that is suspicious in itself.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

This is directed at all the people who think that the protest shouldn`t go ahead. Where's your support of freedom now? Do you only support freedom and the right of expression if it happens to agree with your view of the world? Hypocrits the lot of you, you're happy to bomb another country to ensure that they supposedly have freedom of expression, but are willing to attempt to stifle it in your own country.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And who the hell are you to determined the concept of "freedom" for the rest of the world? Different cultures have different belief values, but of course, only your set of values is the correct one isn`t it.

I could point out here that Christianity also attempts to curtail a lot of freedoms, perhaps we should get a liberation force in to free us from those attempting to make us a Christian state?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I'm with you on this one, well maybe not all of it. What really ****es me off is the people that jump on the band wagon, and then go straight back to work/whatever telling everyone they have done their bit.

There is a group down here in Bristol who stand by a busy road side every week protesting about Bush/War but no one will join them, there are only about 5 of them. Then when a big one happens in London they are there straight away. Maybe its because its bound to appear on the news, maybe its because they want to feel part of something, but only want to give up one of their weekends? who knows.
Its like when Catholics try and redeem thereselves by saying they go to mass at Xmas and Easter. People should be in it for the long run, not just for day.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

SO *WHY* hasn't the USA intervened in all those other countries who are so "unacceptable" to their lights???

It is not that they are "strange bedfellows" it is the fact that the USA offered what were nothing less than "financial inducements" to more than a few of these countries to get them to sign up and support America's illegal actions in Iraq.

If you actually asked those countries and their peoples what they thought about the situation in Iraq I would put good money on the response being "we don't give two hoots about it, but we could do with a few billion extra dollars!"

Ah, that wonderful term "friendly fire"? But firstly you haven't addressed the usage of cluster bombs and other such munitions which have the unfortunate habit of leaving unexploded ordnance lying around on the ground where it lurks until some poor unlucky sod trips over it or a hapless child sees something shiny and pretty and picks it up, only to have their hand blown off.

And secondly you haven't addressed the point that the USA *deliberately* and *as a matter of policy* targetted *civilian* infrastructure (conveniently redefining it as "military targets") resulting in outbreaks of disease and deaths amongst the general population.

And again you make this accusation, yet again, you fail to back it up with any *real* proof. So either provide some cites that these "mobs" are being "rented" by someone or some organisation or shut up about them.

Why on *earth* should I want to do that? What logical connection is there between the two ideas? It seems you are drawing a totally irrational conclusion based on nothing more than your own prejudices.

Oh! State benefits! Why didn't you say! Clearly, then, this is categorical proof that actually it is the *GOVERNMENT* themselves who are "renting" these mobs!! :rofl:

Ah, supposition, innuendo, hearsay, gossip and not a *SHRED OF PROOF*!

:rolleyes:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Gosh, that's a nice big brush you're using to tar everyone who you disagree with!!

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

So is this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/s...997231,00.html

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I am currently living on Stat benefits, I am going to preotest against Dubya when he visits Sedgefield this coming friday.

Now Am I doing this because I am unemployed? No
Am I doing this because I beleive the war in Iraq was unjustified? hmmm Partly
Am I doing this to be a pain in the arse? You betchya

I know I will cost money in policing (which will be there anyway) but I want to make sure that Dubya knows I am unhappy wiht HIS actions.
Now As I said I am on benefit, I cant go to the states and do this (i'd probably be arrested and executed as a terrorist if I did lol) so I do it in a way I can.

Saying I am doing htis because I am a scrounger and living on benefits only shows you to be a uneducated pathetic individual that has about as much sense as the person I am demonstarting against.

If you care to look a little closer, you will know the benefit I get is for being a carer, I do work, but sadly when your qualified to work in IT and there are no job let alone IT jobs its a tad difficult to find work. I have worked as a security guard on £2.10 an hour, I have worked as a labourer, I have worked in factories and I have shovelled **** on a farm for 12 hours a day. Dont ever tell me I'm a lazy layabout that wastes his dole money on protesting.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

No, because the US courts have agreed that, as Guantanamo Bay is only *leased* by the USA under a treaty dating back to 1903, it is *not* American soil. Curiously, however, it doesn't appear to be defined as *Cuban* soil either!

Basically this allows the USA to keep these prisoners in a legal limbo which is entirely to the convenience and liking of the US administration because they can deny the detainees the rights they have under US law and also, by calling them "unlawful combatants" they are denied rights under the Geneva Convention.

It's a neat bit of legal hair splitting.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And what on earth do you think you're proving by this nonsense?

How many people can afford to give up their jobs to protest in this way? Could you? I doubt it.

It's not some pathetic desire (as you imply) simply to "get on telly" it is a desire to make sure that their *presence* is seen. to let you and our government know that there *ARE* a large number of people who object to what is happening and are willing to give up a day to attend a protest to express that objection.

If you think that this is "jumping on a band wagon" they you really have *no idea* what you are talking about.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Its a neat way of making your country hated even more too.
*shakes head* and they STILL wonder why they are hated, they have the nerve to say its because they are successful.

I say bring on the embargo the UK is thinking of imposing on the US in this latest trade war spat.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

A very neat attempt to side step the issue ... something I note you are very adept at doing when you have no answer to the point raised.

Within the context of the world we live in, 'absolute freedom' does not exist, because my 'freedom' to do one thing could impair someone else's 'freedom' to do something else. That's why we have laws. The laws which we claim defines our freedom in fact restrict it. To take a trivial example, my neighbour can't play his stereo at full volume at 2am because that violates my freedom to get a good night's sleep.

It's no use pointing out to me the 'curtailment' of freedom within Christianity; I am a Christian as you well know so I am quite familiar with the concept. As a matter of fact, I have found life within the moral framework of my faith to be truly liberating (and do try to remember that I adhere to that faith by choice).

As all 'freedom' is relative, I propose that the best definition of 'freedom' is that which finds a balance between the right of the individual to do what he/she choses, while safeguarding the rights of others not to be inconvenienced by those choices.

Your apologism for a 'culture' whose 'belief values' regards it as acceptable to make women into second-class citizens is really quite sad. Afghan women make up broadly half of the population of the country, so how can you regard oppression of women as a legitimate 'cultural' value when it is only subscribed to by, at most, half of the culture? (In fact, many Afghan men considered the Taleban rule to be extreme, but were powerless to do anything about it). This set-up fails my proposed definition of freedom because as the Taleban exercised its freedom to deny women education and careers, many women were thereby denied the freedom they desired to be educated, or have a job. Remember that many Afghan women previously had these freedoms, even during the Soviet occupation.

The situation in Afghanistan was brought about by tyrrany, pure and simple, and I submit that the situation there now is substantially better for the people than it was; that the majority of the people accept this; and that you should stop blindly assuming that anything the USA gets involved in must necessarliy have been better if they had left it alone.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/image...t-top-left.gifQuote:http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/image...-top-right.gifhttp://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/image...p-right-10.gifNo, not the same, homicidal terrorists murder deliberately as a matter of policy: men, women, chidren, mothers and babies, and even those at prayer such as the recent terrorist bombing of two synagoges in Turkey,;how on earth can you smugly say that it's the same as Allied forces bombing military targets, if civilians are killed or injured it's regretably accidental. http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/image...t-bot-left.gifhttp://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/image...-bot-right.gif

Quote:

Graham: Ah, that wonderful term "friendly fire"? But firstly you haven't addressed the usage of cluster bombs and other such munitions which have the unfortunate habit of leaving unexploded ordnance lying around on the ground where it lurks until some poor unlucky sod trips over it or a hapless child sees something shiny and pretty and picks it up, only to have their hand blown off.

...and you haven't addressed the points raised in the first quote Graham...

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

While you belief that you have the right to determine the values of another country only highlights your own arrogance. Next time you take a look in the mirror I suggest you pay close attention, perhaps you will get some insight into why the west is hated so much.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Not at all, I'm just telling it as I see it.:shrug:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Thats a bit strong Wadd....

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And you still side-step the issue. Really, it is so much easier to attack the person who disagrees with you rather than to address the issues they raise, isn't it?

I posted a paragraph in which I proposed a useful definition of 'freedom' and then I applied it to Taleban-ruled Afghanistan. I then suggested that Afghanistan failed this reasonable definition of 'freedom'.

If you wish to take the debate a step forward, what you need to consider doing is addressing the issues:
Do you agree or disagree with my definition of 'freedom'?
If not, why not? What is your alternative definition?
If so, in what way do you disagree with the way I applied that definition to Taleban-ruled Afghanistan?

Of course, if it is impossible for you to do that without questioning your own deeply entrenched position, you could just continue sniping at other forum members.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

The point is a government should have the freedom to impose the laws they want or the people want. If the people want to be muslim extremists who are we to say otherwise. Even some of the women would agree. You could say they've been brainwashed into the religion - but I could say the same about you.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And once again you completely miss the point. There is no value in me defining freedom in the general sense as everyone has a different definition. It is certainly not acceptable for me to define freedom for another country through the means that the coalition have been currently taking. Their concept of freedom is from their interpretation of the Koran. That is no different from you using the Christian bible as a guideline for how you live your life. I can`t comment on your personal views on this issue as I obviously don`t know them, but the recent news coverage has highlighted clearly the fact that by your definition the Christian church is unwilling to give "freedom" to homosexuals, treating them as second class citizens. I don`t see any difference in this case.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Thats assuming the government in question was lawfully elected in the first place and allows legitimate expressions of opinion. Thats also assuming that it has a proper judicial process. I don't think the Taleban or Saddam did.
The point about extremism is also wrong as extremists make up a tiny portion of muslims and most 'rational' muslims are deeply concerned about them.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Does the qu'ran describe democratic elections and 'proper judicial process'?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I have no idea but I do know that neither of those governments were democratically elected by their people qu'ran or no qu'ran.
Neither did they carry out the peoples will.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I'm really not going to get drawn off-topic by discussing decisions taken by a single branch of a single Denomination of the Church in a single country, whatever it was they were making decisions about. Suffice it to say that if you base your view of my faith (and that of certain other members of this forum) on what you hear on the news about 'The Church', your conclusions will always be wide of the mark.

As regards 'freedom', I understand your point perfectly, but I think you are fundamentally mis-applying the relativist notion of all lifestyles and cultures being equally valid. 'Freedom' as a concept extends beyond the individual, because decisions I take will affect others. As such, I think there is great value in you owning for yourself a general concept of 'freedom' within which individuals and cultures can relate to each other. If you do not have any such definition, all that is left is 'might is right', and surely this is exactly what you have been arguing against all this time?

The definition I advanced for discussion is not a narrowly defined one; we could discuss exactly where lies the balancing point between individual liberty and responsibility to others and we could discuss what measures can legitimately be taken when that balance is upset.

To take Afghanistan as a specific example, a well-armed band of people with allegiance to a particular interpretation of the Qu'ran took control of the country by coup d'etat and then implemented their understanding by threat (and use) of lethal force against the population. I agree with you that they are perfectly free to live their own lives the way they choose (just as I am free to interpret the Bible and live my life accordingly). However as I said, they decided everybody else should live the same way and used force to back up their decision. Furthermore, they allowed like-minded people to set up camp on their territory, from where they planned the attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001.

This violates what I consider a reasonable definition of 'freedom' in two ways:
1. Their freedom of religious expression severely impeded the religious and cultural expression of the majority of the population of Afghanistan.
2. Their freedom of political expression ultimately denied the freedom to go on living of almost 3,000 people in New York and Washington.

So, to re-state the possible debating point I made above, where is the balance between expressing one's own freedom and impinging on others? Are (1) and (2) above justified, in the name of alowing the Taleban to enjoy their own definition of freedom?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I see, much like the coalition is doing now. So it is alright for one group to do it, but not another?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Within an agreed definition of 'freedom' a situation could easily arise where force is justified in preserving that freedom. I'm not saying that it is always ok for certain people to use force, while never ok for certain other people to use force.

Do you think the Taleban were correct to use force to impose their religious views on the rest of the people of Afghanistan?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

In that case we should take military action against the Vatican, they are a prime example of corrupt and oppressive regime.

That is an internal matter for the people of Afghanistan and not my call to make. But according to your example, the next time I feel my freedoms being curtailed by the Christian Right then I have a legitimate cause to physically attack them?

As I said before, Christians are just as bad at imposing their views and restricting freedom. But because you choose to believe one piece of scripture over another you can`t see anything wrong with that.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I think I detect within this rather sour and sarcastic post that you might just about be almost agreeing with me. :rolleyes: ;) In a discussion forum, you don't have to make a call, you just express an opinion. I get the impression that you don't like the Taleban regime but to say so would undermine your position.

Now, regarding your comments on Christianity, let me briefly set out my 'agenda' again just so we're clear and just so you don't feel the need to keep diverting the debate onto (what you perceive to be) my beliefs. I've said this more than once in this thread already, so here goes nothing:

I'm a Christian. My understanding of the Bible means I am a pacifist. Jesus' message was for his followers to be peacemakers as he was. My understanding of the Bible also leads me to believe that legitimate, secular government, even when it sets itself against God's purposes, is to be tolerated and not rebelled against unless its demands put an obligation on me that is contrary to my faith, in which case I can disobey, but peacefully. Ultimately all authority comes from God and he will ultimately call everyone to account for what they do with what they are given.

This is why I feel able to debate this point with you even though I could never have sanctioned the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan myself. In fact, were I to try to actually do anything about those countries, I would have joined the many Christians who were there either legally, bringing medical aid, or illegally. And believe me, there were plenty of them - peaceful, but still illegal.

As for your comments about the Vatican, I do not regard much of what comes out of there as particularly 'Christian' and nor do a lot of Christians.

As for the Christian Right, as I said, our freedom is defined and constrained by laws designed to allow personal freedom while protecting the freedom of third parties. Domestic laws just about everywhere in the world would forbid you from phyisically attacking someone just because you disagree with them, but 'international law' (insofar as it actually exists) does ultimately allow for armed conflict. If you really want to beat up a Christian, I suggest you go to one of the many countries in the world where we are persecuted for our beliefs. The secret police in Tunisia or China, or even Pakistan, would welcome you with open arms.

Look, I don't like armed conflict, you don't like it either, but what I have been trying to say is that this is the way the world is, and those that want change need to understand that and then work within those parameters if anything is going to change. What I think you are doing - and what many of the protesters on the streets of London today are doing - is saying, this is how the world should be, and then getting angry when they see people acting differently. A little more pragmatism and a willingness to engage with people where they are instead of where they think they should be would be useful.

And as for 'imposing views' and 'restricting freedom' ... anybody who ever did such a thing in the name of Christ is a liar and is not following the teachings of Jesus. I would never do that, and I can safely say that other Christians on this forum like Russ and Bexy would never do that. So now you know.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Ah! So you have lost your cool! Now lashing out at everyone who disagrees with your worldview. No more arguments eh! You are qualifying for the hypocrite status since you equate terrorism with using force to bring down Saddam Hussein. Take a good look at your sorry self, use your brain and think.

:spin:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I see no loss of control there, merely some questions and my opinion of certain individuals. "No more arguments"? I`m sorry, I didn`t realise that every post of this forum had to answer questions. Is it not permitted to raise them as well?

If any one has "lost their cool" in a recent post I think it might very well be you, your indiscriminate use of exclamation marks would tend to suggest that.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

While we may disagree on a lot of points, my comments about Christanity aren`t directed at you specifically, that is why on one of my posts I stressed that I wasn`t commenting on you as I wasn`t aware on your specific beliefs on the topic. I`ve had many a debate where religion has come into the matter with Russ, and I hope that he doesn`t feel like I`m attacking him either.

But Christianity has oppressed in the name of its cause. Now I can undertand that from a modern interpretation of the bible you can categorically state that these are not Christians, but this is only within your modern definition. The Crusaders and the Inquisition certainly considered themselves to be Christians, and even if this was only for public consumption, it's probably the public opinion that matters most in the larger scale of things.

But in lesser ways Christianity still oppresses certain groups. The recent furore about the ordination of gay bishops is one such example. When it comes to women in the clergy, the Anglican church has moved with the times, but the Catholic church is still rooted in the dark ages. In both cases, the individuals who are expressing these views are using their religious scripture to justify their cause, so in this respect there it is only fair to draw parallels with the Muslim extremists.

I not singling Christianity for comment here, I feel that pretty much all religion has caused too much trouble in the world.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

rightwingnews.com


My views exactly.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

One more interesting post: http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/...s/20031118.asp

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

So that is your entire answer to Towny's post #284?!:rolleyes:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Actually, considerable aid was given to the USSR by the USA and the UK during WW2. Again may I remind you of your arrogance towards the new democracies of Europe, people who suffered under Soviet influence and are now free.

Having read a lot of your posts, I see that arrogance is something you are rather good at, you also use "supposition, innuendo, hearsay, gossip and not a *a shred of proof! So you tell me to shut up that's not very democratic is it! Rent a mob, proof of funding, as yet cannot provide proof, that's the nature of the limitations of what we know about the protesters, one assumes they have nothing else to do and they never say anything about themselves. Certainly, when K. Livingstone was GLC leader he did dish out money to all sorts of fringe groups. You don't like anyone opposing your views and you always respond with intolerance along with blah, blah, blah.

I have said elsewhere, this is a free society people who feel so concerned have a right to demonstrate, as long as they are responsible and keep within the law. I think about 25 people did so in central London today. I also think they should donate some money to the Metropolitan Police to meet with the extra expense.

In the end you and your friends do no favours to the Iraqi people who are now free of Saddam Hussein's terror regime.

Do have a nice day.

:wavey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Actually, one more opinion column. The media seems full of them today.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/995254.asp?cp1=1

Pretty much.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

! oh dear ! another one, you are very observant ! there goes another one, oh dear, Dr Wadd doesn't like it!

So after all your blah, blah, it comes down to exclamation marks, if only the world was so simple.

Of course you can raise questions, but remember your readers may not necessarily think like you. We live in a free society, get out there and enjoy it.

Do have a nice day.

:wavey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Where was todays 'mass' protest.

According to the BBC only about 600 turned up.

And from BBC:

:confused:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

The whole idea of mass protest was propagated by the BBC in the first place! I know they've always been veering leftwards but really, in the last few months it's become increasingly silly.

And it was my misfortune to have to read the Guardian this morning - - - their lead 'news' story was a laughably poor piece of leader writing passed off as journalism.

If news organisations would get on with the job of reporting the news instead of sniffing out facts that happen to back up their pre-decided position, there would be a lot less hysteria and a lot more clear thinking.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I'm surprised you could stomach it!

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

that URL says it all.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Excuse me? How did I *not* address them? I just pointed out that Allied forces *redefined* "military targets" to include *civilian* infrastructure. An illegal act and one that has undoubtedly resulted in the deaths of women and children.

They used cluster bombs in civilian areas an action which if not completely illegal is certainly legally very dubious, not to mention morally reprehensible. Something also, I have little doubt, has resulted in the deaths of women and children.

How on earth can you sit there on your moral high horse and claim that we are somehow "better" than those suicide bombers when the best phrase to describe such policies and actions as the ones above is "morally bankrupt"?!

Oh, and I suggest you take a closer look at Turkey's Human Rights record too!