anti americanism fashionable

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Can`t have it both ways I`m afraid, if you are going to argue that this is a war then they have to be classified as prisoners of war.

Covert agents get killed all the time, it is the nature of the job and a risk they accept. If, as you claim, this is a war, then they are casualties of war, nothing more.

and the 9/11 and Bali victims....?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by danielf

Note to Dubya: Burma has oil, rubies, and a lot of heroine goes through it. Rumour has it that the government profits from the heroine.

I like it!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Covert agents get killed all the time, it is the nature of the job and a risk they accept. If, as you claim, this is a war, then they are casualties of war, nothing more.

So the guantanamo bay prisoners are lucky to be alive then.....they are practically living in the lap of luxury!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

[holds help in pained expression] If this is a war they are prisoners of war and should be treated accordinally, if it is not a war they are citizens and should be treated accordingally. How can we critices people's disobediance of international law if we do it ourselves. We should 'set the good example' - treating the people nicely until trial isn't going to cause anymore deaths.

But they are treating them nicely. They are alive and have medical care and are not tortured. They are probably more comfortable than they were when they were fighting!

[Ramrod]

I'm off to bed. Night all!

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So your beef is with howthe US media is portraying them???!

Yes, but this is not the entire 'beef'. If you think that the only reason for doing bad things is because 'they are evil' then naturally you won't think anymore of it. this is the problem the US has.

So disliking a country is enough reason to go and do 9/11? Get real!

I AM NOT SAYING THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED I'M SAYING THEY THOUGHT IT WAS JUSTIFIED. The terrorists sacrified their lives for this cause, they obviously believed in it - we must understand why. Would you blow yourself up over a disliking someone?

It is however a damn sight better than the living conditions that US soldiers would get if the tables were turned.

I'm refusing to answer any of these type of arguements because it can amount to anything. Such as 'the US should be grateful the planes didn't hit a nuclear power plant' 'You should be grateful because at least David Blunket is trying to stop immagrants' - Why don't we just accept everything in the world? - lets face it - it could be a lot worse

I'm going to bed now as my head can't take more of this

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by darkangel

the Geneva convention does not apply unless there is a formal declaration of war i belive

correct but it depends what you class as a formal declaration - the point is the IRA always 'considered' themselves at war therefore that is one side making a formal declaration.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I like it!

It's not funny. Not to the people in Burma anyway...

[etccarmageddon]

I can vouch for the suffering of the Burma people at the hands of the (illegal) military rulers. I dont know about oil but I do know they profit a lot from tourism.

you cant call the people detained at guat. bay terrorists unless you believe in guilty until proven innocent. that last thing I heard about that place is that the yanks dont plan to put any to trial as they realise that the whole thing is a PR cockup.

as for the US having it coming... well that doesnt justify/excuse violence.

if other countries or people have been hard done by the US then fair enough if the US experiences non violent protest such as a demonstations - you can excuse that by saying 'they had it coming' but to suggest that the killing of thousands of civilians is because "they had it coming" is disgraceful.

certainly the US 'has it coming' in terms of a backlash for it's treatment of the Guat bay 'detainees' plus it's selfish environmental policy but only in terms of non violent expression - e.g. trade wars, diplomatic issues, demonstrations...

[kronas]

Originally Posted by darkangel

my point was that all we know is being showed by a bias media who have a vested interest in make the pictures etc show what they want

you cant trust any media these days so you have to look for info somewhere

it works both ways

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes, but this is not the entire 'beef'. If you think that the only reason for doing bad things is because 'they are evil' then naturally you won't think anymore of it. this is the problem the US has.



I AM NOT SAYING THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED I'M SAYING THEY THOUGHT IT WAS JUSTIFIED. The terrorists sacrified their lives for this cause, they obviously believed in it - we must understand why. Would you blow yourself up over a disliking someone?

I see where you are coming from and I agree completely with the above.

[downquark1]

Good answer, but gravity has no choice in the matter. The terrorists had a choice, they chose to murder innocent people

I don't think choice has a big part in it. If you take the millions of muslims who are 'mifted' at the US it only took a handful of insane ones to pull off the 9 11 attack - it's probability, sooner or later something bad would happen.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I don't think choice has a big part in it. If you take the millions of muslims who are 'mifted' at the US it only took a handful of insane ones to pull off the 9 11 attack - it's probability, sooner or later something bad would happen.

Exactly! It's the 'handful of insane ones' that I'm on about- they are evil, normal people don't do things like that.
I completely agree that the US/UK etc need to examine why they are hated by vast swathes of the worlds population and try to remedy matters but at the same time the suicidal lunatics need to be caged or exterminated like the mad dogs that they are.
I may be wrong here but I read somewhere that part of the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that Islam is a relatively new religion compared to Cristianity and they are about 600 years behind where Cristianity is now. Think back to what Cristians were doing 600 years ago and you can see why they seem to have such a big/active 'lunatic fringe'

[downquark1]

I may be wrong here but I read somewhere that part of the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that Islam is a relatively new religion compared to Cristianity and they are about 600 years behind where Cristianity is now. Think back to what Cristians were doing 600 years ago and you can see why they seem to have such a big/active 'lunatic fringe'

The problem is the qua'ran doesn't leave much room for interpretation. The Bible is full of metaphoric lessions that Jesus taught, you can argue they mean almost anything. The qua'ran is more like a guide book, it tells people how to live and even mentions punishments for criminal (ie. cutting their hands off). This is why Muslim fundamentalists are many and dangerous.

Exactly! It's the 'handful of insane ones' that I'm on about- they are evil, normal people don't do things like that.

Yes, but it must be remembered that they were only reacting or over-reacting to the hate already there.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I may be wrong here but I read somewhere that part of the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that Islam is a relatively new religion compared to Cristianity and they are about 600 years behind where Cristianity is now. Think back to what Cristians were doing 600 years ago and you can see why they seem to have such a big/active 'lunatic fringe'

Islam never teaches you to harm anyone well the quran does not,the only exception i know of is if someone is harming your religion, but the muslim extremists feed young people's minds with false hope and promises, they only have themsleves to blame.