4.) America tells everyone what to do. Well they don't, what America does is actually do things, as opposed to the french who as well as being garlic chewing surrender monkeys, would rather talk, discuss, and just like me, procrastinate.
And this is an example of a well informed, well balanced, open minded point of view? A case of pots and kettles methinks!
Home
TheSinner.net
More human rights violations
58 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re:
by Pender Native on Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:09 pm
"I have seen flowers come in stony places
And kind things done by men with ugly faces,
And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races,
So I trust, too."
And kind things done by men with ugly faces,
And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races,
So I trust, too."
-
Pender Native
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:46 pm
Re:
by Ewan MacDonald on Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:26 pm
[s]Pender Native wrote on 13:09, 16th Mar 2004:
[i]4.) America tells everyone what to do. Well they don't, what America does is actually do things, as opposed to the french who as well as being garlic chewing surrender monkeys, would rather talk, discuss, and just like me, procrastinate.
And this is an example of a well informed, well balanced, open minded point of view? A case of pots and kettles methinks!
[/i]
The comments about the French were meant in jest. If you look at the rest of the point you will realise that the point is valid. I just wanted to put one or two amusing comments into what would otherwise have been a long boring rebuttals of anti-americanism
[hr]
In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)
[i]4.) America tells everyone what to do. Well they don't, what America does is actually do things, as opposed to the french who as well as being garlic chewing surrender monkeys, would rather talk, discuss, and just like me, procrastinate.
And this is an example of a well informed, well balanced, open minded point of view? A case of pots and kettles methinks!
[/i]
The comments about the French were meant in jest. If you look at the rest of the point you will realise that the point is valid. I just wanted to put one or two amusing comments into what would otherwise have been a long boring rebuttals of anti-americanism
[hr]
In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke
-
Ewan MacDonald
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:32 pm
Re:
by tintin on Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:27 pm
[s]Ewan MacDonald wrote on 12:29, 16th Mar 2004:
1.) Their imperialist message, no. What america does is encourage free trade, freedom of Speech, and Human rights. That isn't imperialism, that is a moral perspective that should be encouraged, unless you believe those attributes to be a bad thing.
Encouragement of free trade: Our objective with the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is to guarantee our North American companies control of the entire territory from the North Pole to Antarctica - free access with no obstacles or difficulties for our products, services, technology and capital...Colin Powell, US Secretary of State. Hardly letting others get a share of the market, are they? Hardly bringing the free-market and liberal values of America to all, are they?
Human rights: I refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it applies (or doesn’t, in America’s case) to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. I also refer you to experiments conducted on American Citizens during the MK Ultra project.
I also encourage you to look again at the proliferation of such charming organisations as the KKK; the fact that racial segregation was in place until very recently in a SUPPOSEDLY CIVILISED COUNTRY, and their inherent denial of opportunity to racial minorities until VERY recently.
2.)They destroyed the British Empire. Even of the British Emprie was a completely good thing, and it wasn't, surely the financial and military obligations of two world wars had more to do with the colpse of the British Empire. Apologies if my heart does not bleed that London can't oppress a large proportion of the globe.
Financial and military obligations of two world wars had more to do with the colpse of the British Empire. I think it was more to do with an increased desire for national self-determination on the part of the colonised, than to do with military obligations, but we’ll let that pass. I also note the sorry state of many, if not all (with the exception of Malaysia) colonised nations. But we’ll let that pass, as well.
3.) Russia. Bearing in mind that America has left Putin alone and not condemned him for his outrageous anti-democratic policies I think that that point falls. Secondly the idea that their idology was superior to America, so now you believe that communism is uperior to free-market democracy and capitalism.
Would the desire for hefty oil contracts have anything to do with this?
4.) America tells everyone what to do. Well they don't, what America does is actually do things, as opposed to the french who as well as being garlic chewing surrender monkeys, would rather talk, discuss, and just like me, procrastinate. Also since I presume this is a reference to Iraq, Frane did not want to be involved because of the large weapons deals they had with Saddam. I'm glad America ignored them.
So America has never had weapons deals with ANY dodgy regime? Gosh, I MUST be misguided.
And it’s OK for America to have weapons. They tell other countries they can't have nuclear weapons. But not anyone else? Why are places like China not allowed to have WMD, but America is? Are they in some way superior? Oh, according to your arguments, they are.
France values discussion and talk as a means of resolving issues peacefully. America just dives right in; makes Britain and the others follow (if Britain hadn't, it might have found itself rather isolated).
5.)I will concede that in WWII America did not save Britain, the RAF did. However, it is accurate to state that neither conflict could have been won without American intervention. In WWI the Allies moved less distance than an ashmatic ant with heavy shopping until America intervened. If they hadn't then the large number of German soldiers moving from the Eastern frnt might well have ben decisive. In WWII how exactly was Britain going to conques Europe?
Rather an odd statement. How can you compare the RAF to an entire country? Did the Royal Navy and Army play no role in winning the war, then? Were they so weak that they just had to call out the RAF, who had, according to my interpretation of your statement, been doing nothing the whole time?
I rather think that Britain’s mission in WW2 was not to conquer Europe but to defend herself from enemy invasion. The Germans wanted to conquer Europe.
misguided opinion and bias
I would urge you to read John Pilger’s “The New Rulers of the World” before you tell me I am misguided and prone to bias. You as a historian ought to know the value of reading around an issue. It might open your eyes to a different and perhaps even more valid viewpoint than a simple "hang ‘em and flog ‘em" mentality.
1.) Their imperialist message, no. What america does is encourage free trade, freedom of Speech, and Human rights. That isn't imperialism, that is a moral perspective that should be encouraged, unless you believe those attributes to be a bad thing.
Encouragement of free trade: Our objective with the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is to guarantee our North American companies control of the entire territory from the North Pole to Antarctica - free access with no obstacles or difficulties for our products, services, technology and capital...Colin Powell, US Secretary of State. Hardly letting others get a share of the market, are they? Hardly bringing the free-market and liberal values of America to all, are they?
Human rights: I refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it applies (or doesn’t, in America’s case) to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. I also refer you to experiments conducted on American Citizens during the MK Ultra project.
I also encourage you to look again at the proliferation of such charming organisations as the KKK; the fact that racial segregation was in place until very recently in a SUPPOSEDLY CIVILISED COUNTRY, and their inherent denial of opportunity to racial minorities until VERY recently.
2.)They destroyed the British Empire. Even of the British Emprie was a completely good thing, and it wasn't, surely the financial and military obligations of two world wars had more to do with the colpse of the British Empire. Apologies if my heart does not bleed that London can't oppress a large proportion of the globe.
Financial and military obligations of two world wars had more to do with the colpse of the British Empire. I think it was more to do with an increased desire for national self-determination on the part of the colonised, than to do with military obligations, but we’ll let that pass. I also note the sorry state of many, if not all (with the exception of Malaysia) colonised nations. But we’ll let that pass, as well.
3.) Russia. Bearing in mind that America has left Putin alone and not condemned him for his outrageous anti-democratic policies I think that that point falls. Secondly the idea that their idology was superior to America, so now you believe that communism is uperior to free-market democracy and capitalism.
Would the desire for hefty oil contracts have anything to do with this?
4.) America tells everyone what to do. Well they don't, what America does is actually do things, as opposed to the french who as well as being garlic chewing surrender monkeys, would rather talk, discuss, and just like me, procrastinate. Also since I presume this is a reference to Iraq, Frane did not want to be involved because of the large weapons deals they had with Saddam. I'm glad America ignored them.
So America has never had weapons deals with ANY dodgy regime? Gosh, I MUST be misguided.
And it’s OK for America to have weapons. They tell other countries they can't have nuclear weapons. But not anyone else? Why are places like China not allowed to have WMD, but America is? Are they in some way superior? Oh, according to your arguments, they are.
France values discussion and talk as a means of resolving issues peacefully. America just dives right in; makes Britain and the others follow (if Britain hadn't, it might have found itself rather isolated).
5.)I will concede that in WWII America did not save Britain, the RAF did. However, it is accurate to state that neither conflict could have been won without American intervention. In WWI the Allies moved less distance than an ashmatic ant with heavy shopping until America intervened. If they hadn't then the large number of German soldiers moving from the Eastern frnt might well have ben decisive. In WWII how exactly was Britain going to conques Europe?
Rather an odd statement. How can you compare the RAF to an entire country? Did the Royal Navy and Army play no role in winning the war, then? Were they so weak that they just had to call out the RAF, who had, according to my interpretation of your statement, been doing nothing the whole time?
I rather think that Britain’s mission in WW2 was not to conquer Europe but to defend herself from enemy invasion. The Germans wanted to conquer Europe.
misguided opinion and bias
I would urge you to read John Pilger’s “The New Rulers of the World” before you tell me I am misguided and prone to bias. You as a historian ought to know the value of reading around an issue. It might open your eyes to a different and perhaps even more valid viewpoint than a simple "hang ‘em and flog ‘em" mentality.
-
tintin
Time gentlemen, please!
by KateBush on Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:53 pm
Now now, boys, play nicely! Deary me, getting a little heated, aren't we? Tintin--get a grip. You can't slag off one empire if you're in favour of the British one, which you undeniably are.
And Ewan--stop using your IV final-breaking technique of crushing your opponent utterly!
Thanks guys, really brightened up my day! hee hee!
[hr]a red rose is not selfish because it wants to be red rose. It would be selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red, and roses. -Oscar Wilde
And Ewan--stop using your IV final-breaking technique of crushing your opponent utterly!
Thanks guys, really brightened up my day! hee hee!
[hr]a red rose is not selfish because it wants to be red rose. It would be selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red, and roses. -Oscar Wilde
Intelligence can leap the hurdles which nature has set before us- Livy
-
KateBush
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:51 pm
Re:
by Ewan MacDonald on Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:25 pm
You appear to have rather missed the point of my post tintin, so here is a brief rebuttal of what you have said.
1.) Colin Powell maes clear Aemrican companies will have free and fair access to markets, which is free trade.
2.) You are the one who claimd that the British Empire was destroyed by America, so its a little unfair to attack me for not discussing every related factor.
3.) Again, you've ignored the salient point about Ideology. Capitalism and Democracy beats Communism. America hasn't interfered in Russia's internal affairs like you originally stated.
4.) I never claimed America hadn't, I just felt it was hypocritical to hold up the French government, which could give classes in corruption, as a paragon of virtue. french attitudes are just, if not more, driven by National interest. On WMD's China has nuclear weapons and has had them for some time. What America disputes is that Rogue States with ties to terrorism should have them. This is because such weapons could kill millions of American citizens, do you think that they should be alowed to do this?
5.) Oh dear. I was trying to summate a complicated situation, I didn't realise you needed a lesson. In early 1940 the British Army was defeated, and was only saved by the Heroism of Dunkirk. However, they had to abandon most of their equipment. Operation Sealion, the invasion of Britain, was cancelled because the RAF defeated the luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. Without this Hitler could have invaded. That is how the RAF saved Britain, as was ackowledged by Churchill's famous comment, 'Never was so much owed by so many to so few'. however, the Luftwaffe offensive obliterated muchg of Southern England, and without american assistance and forces D-Day would have been impossible, and therefore the Allies could not have won the War. Here endeth the lesson
Finally. You claim that I am unaware of the meaning of bias. What I stated was that your original post showed significant bias, that is my opinion. Bearing in mind the mass of contradictions, fallacies, facile commnts, and inaccuracies in the original post, I believe that the accusation of bias is substantiated.
This post is not an attempt to protray America as perfect, but I feel that ill-informed Anti-Americanism is unfair. There are legitimate questions bout Camp X-Ray, but this sort of attack on all things American does not contribute to that discussion
[hr]In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)
1.) Colin Powell maes clear Aemrican companies will have free and fair access to markets, which is free trade.
2.) You are the one who claimd that the British Empire was destroyed by America, so its a little unfair to attack me for not discussing every related factor.
3.) Again, you've ignored the salient point about Ideology. Capitalism and Democracy beats Communism. America hasn't interfered in Russia's internal affairs like you originally stated.
4.) I never claimed America hadn't, I just felt it was hypocritical to hold up the French government, which could give classes in corruption, as a paragon of virtue. french attitudes are just, if not more, driven by National interest. On WMD's China has nuclear weapons and has had them for some time. What America disputes is that Rogue States with ties to terrorism should have them. This is because such weapons could kill millions of American citizens, do you think that they should be alowed to do this?
5.) Oh dear. I was trying to summate a complicated situation, I didn't realise you needed a lesson. In early 1940 the British Army was defeated, and was only saved by the Heroism of Dunkirk. However, they had to abandon most of their equipment. Operation Sealion, the invasion of Britain, was cancelled because the RAF defeated the luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. Without this Hitler could have invaded. That is how the RAF saved Britain, as was ackowledged by Churchill's famous comment, 'Never was so much owed by so many to so few'. however, the Luftwaffe offensive obliterated muchg of Southern England, and without american assistance and forces D-Day would have been impossible, and therefore the Allies could not have won the War. Here endeth the lesson
Finally. You claim that I am unaware of the meaning of bias. What I stated was that your original post showed significant bias, that is my opinion. Bearing in mind the mass of contradictions, fallacies, facile commnts, and inaccuracies in the original post, I believe that the accusation of bias is substantiated.
This post is not an attempt to protray America as perfect, but I feel that ill-informed Anti-Americanism is unfair. There are legitimate questions bout Camp X-Ray, but this sort of attack on all things American does not contribute to that discussion
[hr]In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke
-
Ewan MacDonald
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:32 pm
TANKS for the memory
by KateBush on Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:46 pm
One word, Ewan: TANKS. (short for septic tank, of course). Rhymes with Yank, and both are full of shit!
Bikey--if it was Britain doing all these things, you'd have no objections, but because it's our companions from across the pond, you're in a strop.
I shall see you both at the solatium debate tomorrow, and either bang your heads together or beat you to death with your own shoes.
Much love,
Kate Bush x x
[hr]a red rose is not selfish because it wants to be red rose. It would be selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red, and roses. -Oscar Wilde
Bikey--if it was Britain doing all these things, you'd have no objections, but because it's our companions from across the pond, you're in a strop.
I shall see you both at the solatium debate tomorrow, and either bang your heads together or beat you to death with your own shoes.
Much love,
Kate Bush x x
[hr]a red rose is not selfish because it wants to be red rose. It would be selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red, and roses. -Oscar Wilde
Intelligence can leap the hurdles which nature has set before us- Livy
-
KateBush
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:51 pm
Re:
by Guest on Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:06 pm
Honestly, the people in Guantanamo Bay are there for a reason and its the best place for them.
In my view it was wrong in releasing the British detainees. These were British citizens who were picked up in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan. What the hell were they doing there in the first place???
Surely if they were there for a valid and innocent reason they would have proper documentation to certify that. If not, they entered the country illegally. Therefore committing a crime.
If they thought enough to go to Afghanistan to help the Taliban and Al Quaeda, then perhaps it would have been better to put them back to the centre of Kabul and let the now free people of Afghanistan deal with them!!
To be honest if these people were in any way involved with any terrorist organisations then they don't deserve human rights. They were involved with taking away the human right of life from the thousands of innocent people their organisations murdered.
In my view it was wrong in releasing the British detainees. These were British citizens who were picked up in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan. What the hell were they doing there in the first place???
Surely if they were there for a valid and innocent reason they would have proper documentation to certify that. If not, they entered the country illegally. Therefore committing a crime.
If they thought enough to go to Afghanistan to help the Taliban and Al Quaeda, then perhaps it would have been better to put them back to the centre of Kabul and let the now free people of Afghanistan deal with them!!
To be honest if these people were in any way involved with any terrorist organisations then they don't deserve human rights. They were involved with taking away the human right of life from the thousands of innocent people their organisations murdered.
-
Guest
history
by reza on Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:09 pm
whilst i don't want to get drawn into a huge destructive arguament, usa did not win ww2, neither did the raf, france, canada, greece or albania. no other nations contribution and sacrifice gets anywhere near thaty made by the soviet union (even if it was unwilling. if the enitre german army had not been exhausted by the russian front d-day could never have happened. in ww1 american troops did not arrive in large numbers until after the tide had turned in the spring offensive and germany was on the retreat
also on the subject of free speech and human rights its all relative. different people have different views on what essential human rights consist of and what free speech entails. the current us admin either holds views that not everyone deserves human rights or does not agree with me on what essential human rights are, and no country in the world offers absolute free speech
also on the subject of free speech and human rights its all relative. different people have different views on what essential human rights consist of and what free speech entails. the current us admin either holds views that not everyone deserves human rights or does not agree with me on what essential human rights are, and no country in the world offers absolute free speech
-
reza
Re:
by Plette on Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:17 pm
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 12:52, 16th Mar 2004:
Honestly, the people in Guantanamo Bay are there for a reason and its the best place for them.
In my view it was wrong in releasing the British detainees. These were British citizens who were picked up in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan. What the hell were they doing there in the first place???
Are you insane? Is being in Pakistan or Afghanistan automatically proof that someone is a terrorist? What about people with family there, who go for a visit, and end up in the wrong place at the wrong time? Your comment is so completely ignorant that it's alarming.
Surely if they were there for a valid and innocent reason they would have proper documentation to certify that. If not, they entered the country illegally. Therefore committing a crime.
What documentation could you produce to prove that you were in Pakistan visiting your uncle, and not there to blow things up? Last time I checked, governments don't issue travel certificates confirming that you're entering a country for non-terrorist reasons. What "proper documentation" could they prove their innocence with? They had their British passports, but that clearly wasn't enough.
Also, I'd like to remind you that in many remote areas, the borders between countries are not marked. You could be travelling in an isolated region and not realise that you had crossed right over the border until it was too late.
To be honest if these people were in any way involved with any terrorist organisations then they don't deserve human rights. They were involved with taking away the human right of life from the thousands of innocent people their organisations murdered.
Just to play devil's advocate, what if a 10 year old child had been recruited to hand out flyers encouraging people to kill Americans, or some such thing. Is that child also entitled to no human rights? What about people who were involved in the organisation 5 years ago, but had no direct involvement with the recent terrorist acts? The lines are a lot less defined than some people might like.
I'm not saying that IF someone is responsible for mass murder, they should be let go or treated like a king. I'm saying that mere suspicion of wrongdoing is NOT enough to warrant
people being mistreated and robbed of their rights. If we're going to adopt this "if they were arrested they must have been doing something wrong" attitude, perhaps we should do away with fair trials altogether. The reason the judicial system does have so many checks and balances is to try and prevent innocent people from being convicted and punished. Can you then start punishing them before they even reach the judicial system? I think not.
These people may have been guilty. But if they were, why were they not charged? Why were they not prosecuted under law? Perhaps because the accusations were so flimsy that they would not have stood up in court.
Honestly, the people in Guantanamo Bay are there for a reason and its the best place for them.
In my view it was wrong in releasing the British detainees. These were British citizens who were picked up in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan. What the hell were they doing there in the first place???
Are you insane? Is being in Pakistan or Afghanistan automatically proof that someone is a terrorist? What about people with family there, who go for a visit, and end up in the wrong place at the wrong time? Your comment is so completely ignorant that it's alarming.
Surely if they were there for a valid and innocent reason they would have proper documentation to certify that. If not, they entered the country illegally. Therefore committing a crime.
What documentation could you produce to prove that you were in Pakistan visiting your uncle, and not there to blow things up? Last time I checked, governments don't issue travel certificates confirming that you're entering a country for non-terrorist reasons. What "proper documentation" could they prove their innocence with? They had their British passports, but that clearly wasn't enough.
Also, I'd like to remind you that in many remote areas, the borders between countries are not marked. You could be travelling in an isolated region and not realise that you had crossed right over the border until it was too late.
To be honest if these people were in any way involved with any terrorist organisations then they don't deserve human rights. They were involved with taking away the human right of life from the thousands of innocent people their organisations murdered.
Just to play devil's advocate, what if a 10 year old child had been recruited to hand out flyers encouraging people to kill Americans, or some such thing. Is that child also entitled to no human rights? What about people who were involved in the organisation 5 years ago, but had no direct involvement with the recent terrorist acts? The lines are a lot less defined than some people might like.
I'm not saying that IF someone is responsible for mass murder, they should be let go or treated like a king. I'm saying that mere suspicion of wrongdoing is NOT enough to warrant
people being mistreated and robbed of their rights. If we're going to adopt this "if they were arrested they must have been doing something wrong" attitude, perhaps we should do away with fair trials altogether. The reason the judicial system does have so many checks and balances is to try and prevent innocent people from being convicted and punished. Can you then start punishing them before they even reach the judicial system? I think not.
These people may have been guilty. But if they were, why were they not charged? Why were they not prosecuted under law? Perhaps because the accusations were so flimsy that they would not have stood up in court.
Sola lingua bona est lingua morta.
-
Plette
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 6:11 pm
Re:
by Pussycat on Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:20 pm
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 12:52, 16th Mar 2004:
They were involved with taking away the human right of life from the thousands of innocent people their organisations murdered.
And what if people in Afgahnistan or Iraq had imprisoned Americans in a similar camp in similar conditions on the suspicion that they had something to do with all the innocent people who died in bomb attacks by the Americans and other countries? Do you think then the American government would be saying that those detained had no rights to legal or humanitary aid?
Many people have been released, those to the UK have been able to speak out about but what of those who were returned to Afgahnistan? Will their voices ever be heard by the Western world? Being in Afganistan, having a dark skin colour and owning a British passport were enough for those people to be arrested. This is almost understandable, but to then be detained in unfit conditions on non-American soil so that they have even less rights, for their families to not be allowed contact, for no lawyers to be reached, to be denied basic human rights then released 2 YEARS later with no apology and to suffer some tabloids claiming they deserve no apology as "this is war and innocent people get caught up, get over it", and all this not from some politically backwards or terrorist ridden country but from the high and mighty land of the free itself, the USA, it beggars belief.
This has nothing to do with whether you like America or not and everything to do with the hypocricy of their "good guys" image and their pledge to rid the world of terror and injustice. Very much a case of do as I say, not what I do, and it is bloody terrifying that just because they are a Western country and the USA at that they can get away with something that if a "lesser" country did the USA would no doubt either declare war or send it's troops in to sort them out. It is absolutely disgusting, and I am horrified that they will get away with it just because other countries won't stand up to them. If I was American I would not be justifying the actions of my country, and if this had been done by Britain I would have been deeply ashamed.
Innocent until proven guilty is the way the law is supposed to work, but in this case it is guilty without needing any proof. Disgusting. And yes, it would be just as horrifying if the people had been guilty.
They were involved with taking away the human right of life from the thousands of innocent people their organisations murdered.
And what if people in Afgahnistan or Iraq had imprisoned Americans in a similar camp in similar conditions on the suspicion that they had something to do with all the innocent people who died in bomb attacks by the Americans and other countries? Do you think then the American government would be saying that those detained had no rights to legal or humanitary aid?
Many people have been released, those to the UK have been able to speak out about but what of those who were returned to Afgahnistan? Will their voices ever be heard by the Western world? Being in Afganistan, having a dark skin colour and owning a British passport were enough for those people to be arrested. This is almost understandable, but to then be detained in unfit conditions on non-American soil so that they have even less rights, for their families to not be allowed contact, for no lawyers to be reached, to be denied basic human rights then released 2 YEARS later with no apology and to suffer some tabloids claiming they deserve no apology as "this is war and innocent people get caught up, get over it", and all this not from some politically backwards or terrorist ridden country but from the high and mighty land of the free itself, the USA, it beggars belief.
This has nothing to do with whether you like America or not and everything to do with the hypocricy of their "good guys" image and their pledge to rid the world of terror and injustice. Very much a case of do as I say, not what I do, and it is bloody terrifying that just because they are a Western country and the USA at that they can get away with something that if a "lesser" country did the USA would no doubt either declare war or send it's troops in to sort them out. It is absolutely disgusting, and I am horrified that they will get away with it just because other countries won't stand up to them. If I was American I would not be justifying the actions of my country, and if this had been done by Britain I would have been deeply ashamed.
Innocent until proven guilty is the way the law is supposed to work, but in this case it is guilty without needing any proof. Disgusting. And yes, it would be just as horrifying if the people had been guilty.
-
Pussycat
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:36 pm
Re:
by Guest on Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:49 pm
I fear, Mr. MacDonald, that you have not read properly my thread. The word CONTROL in the context of America's control of trade in the entire Americas means that America, but only America, can dictate prices for commodities in those marketpalces. Therefore, that is NOT a free market, but one along the lines of the Soviet command economy. I hardly call that a free and fair access to goods and services - do you?
However, it's pointless trying to reason with you, as you are clearly inable to see anyone else's viewpoint. The mark of a true, prize-winning Debater. As "Ms K. Bush" says, I'll see you tomorrow at the Debate! - though I think you need the beating more than I!
However, it's pointless trying to reason with you, as you are clearly inable to see anyone else's viewpoint. The mark of a true, prize-winning Debater. As "Ms K. Bush" says, I'll see you tomorrow at the Debate! - though I think you need the beating more than I!
-
Guest
Re:
by Ewan MacDonald on Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:20 am
Presumably this is tintin writing, if not please let me know and I will apologise.
I fear that the one who is unable to realise the flaws in their position is not me. In your original post you made several assertions, most of which you had contradicted by your second post. In respose to this I am told that I have misrepresented one sentance made by Colin Powell.
: Our objective with the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is to guarantee our North American companies control of the entire territory from the North Pole to Antarctica - free access with no obstacles or difficulties for our products, services, technology and capital...Colin Powell, US Secretary of State
Even considering that, if you bother to read this properly you will notice that the reason for the vaunted control is so that american companies can trade in these countries without barriers bein put up, which is, oh yes free trade. If that is the decisive reason for my inability to be reasonable then you need to find an even more obscure quote, take it out of context and then justify your case with it.
I do not quite see this as being crushing evidence that America is an imperialistic evil nation bent on world domination and imposing their evil morality upon the world. Unless you can prove beyond doubt the evils of america, then there is no reason for me to change my opinion.
Much as I am sure this is an unpopular view, I believe that America, despite its flaws (and I don't approve of the cessation of Habeus Corpus in Guantanomo Bay) is a force for good in this world. If it is not then who is? So basically prove your point, and I will agree, don't just write I hate America and expect everyone to agree.
Oh, and after knowing me for four years I think it is a trifle unfair to be sarcastic and claim I am unwilling to listen to others points of view. This isn't personal, I just dislike ill-informed rants about the U.S, so please don't go down the insults road.
[hr]In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)
I fear that the one who is unable to realise the flaws in their position is not me. In your original post you made several assertions, most of which you had contradicted by your second post. In respose to this I am told that I have misrepresented one sentance made by Colin Powell.
: Our objective with the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is to guarantee our North American companies control of the entire territory from the North Pole to Antarctica - free access with no obstacles or difficulties for our products, services, technology and capital...Colin Powell, US Secretary of State
Even considering that, if you bother to read this properly you will notice that the reason for the vaunted control is so that american companies can trade in these countries without barriers bein put up, which is, oh yes free trade. If that is the decisive reason for my inability to be reasonable then you need to find an even more obscure quote, take it out of context and then justify your case with it.
I do not quite see this as being crushing evidence that America is an imperialistic evil nation bent on world domination and imposing their evil morality upon the world. Unless you can prove beyond doubt the evils of america, then there is no reason for me to change my opinion.
Much as I am sure this is an unpopular view, I believe that America, despite its flaws (and I don't approve of the cessation of Habeus Corpus in Guantanomo Bay) is a force for good in this world. If it is not then who is? So basically prove your point, and I will agree, don't just write I hate America and expect everyone to agree.
Oh, and after knowing me for four years I think it is a trifle unfair to be sarcastic and claim I am unwilling to listen to others points of view. This isn't personal, I just dislike ill-informed rants about the U.S, so please don't go down the insults road.
[hr]In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke
-
Ewan MacDonald
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:32 pm
Re:
by camel club on Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:47 am
Its really great to see so many people who feel strongly on this issue.. just as i do.
But it's all well and good us complaining about it here, I want to *do* something about it.
With that in mind, I am considering subjecting myself to a weeks sensory deprivation, during the summer. I would be restrained, gagged, blindfolded and have my ears muffed. Similar to the treatment the guantanamo prisoners were subjected to. I just dont have to worry about being woken by soldiers and beaten.
Hopefully this will get quite a bit of media attention and will encourage other people to do similar protests around the world.
If enough people protest, the US government will have to listen.
Thoughts?
But it's all well and good us complaining about it here, I want to *do* something about it.
With that in mind, I am considering subjecting myself to a weeks sensory deprivation, during the summer. I would be restrained, gagged, blindfolded and have my ears muffed. Similar to the treatment the guantanamo prisoners were subjected to. I just dont have to worry about being woken by soldiers and beaten.
Hopefully this will get quite a bit of media attention and will encourage other people to do similar protests around the world.
If enough people protest, the US government will have to listen.
Thoughts?
-
camel club
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 1:59 pm
Re:
by Pandora on Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:32 am
How can you say you are experiencing what the prisioners are experiencing? Newspaper reports of what went on there are not nesicerily accurate. To truly hnow what went on there you would have to have been there either as a prisoner or as a gaurd.
I personally take these articles at the begining of the thread with a pinch of salt. The former prisoners are not likely to mention anything resonable about what happened there and if they did the newspaper would probably not print them because it wants a story about cruelty. Anyway there are 2 sides to every story i.e. perhaps they were forcefully restrained due to the fact that they started a fight.
Personally I hope that when they catch the teroists responsable for the Madrid bombing that after a trial they are not detained in luxury conditions (like with a TV like the Lockerbie bomber) but basic ones.
I personally take these articles at the begining of the thread with a pinch of salt. The former prisoners are not likely to mention anything resonable about what happened there and if they did the newspaper would probably not print them because it wants a story about cruelty. Anyway there are 2 sides to every story i.e. perhaps they were forcefully restrained due to the fact that they started a fight.
Personally I hope that when they catch the teroists responsable for the Madrid bombing that after a trial they are not detained in luxury conditions (like with a TV like the Lockerbie bomber) but basic ones.
-
Pandora
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 10:04 pm
Re:
by tintin on Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:42 am
They say that the BBC offers impartiality and objectivity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3518412.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/speci ... ndex.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3518412.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/speci ... ndex.shtml
-
tintin
no sympathy what so ever at all.
by surfingsimon on Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:37 am
they are scum and deserve all they get.
i don’t believe a single one is innocent, each has been to the al-queda training camps and each is therefore a trained terrorist who would gladly give away his own life in order to take a couple of hundred westerners with them to hell.
if the yanks were selling tickets to be able to torture those guys I’d be on the waiting list.
kill them all
i don’t believe a single one is innocent, each has been to the al-queda training camps and each is therefore a trained terrorist who would gladly give away his own life in order to take a couple of hundred westerners with them to hell.
if the yanks were selling tickets to be able to torture those guys I’d be on the waiting list.
kill them all
-
surfingsimon
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:23 pm
Re:
by Pender Native on Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:40 am
[s]surfingsimon wrote on 10:37, 17th Mar 2004:
they are scum and deserve all they get.
i don’t believe a single one is innocent, each has been to the al-queda training camps and each is therefore a trained terrorist who would gladly give away his own life in order to take a couple of hundred westerners with them to hell.
if the yanks were selling tickets to be able to torture those guys I’d be on the waiting list.
kill them all
Are you being sarcastic?
they are scum and deserve all they get.
i don’t believe a single one is innocent, each has been to the al-queda training camps and each is therefore a trained terrorist who would gladly give away his own life in order to take a couple of hundred westerners with them to hell.
if the yanks were selling tickets to be able to torture those guys I’d be on the waiting list.
kill them all
Are you being sarcastic?
"I have seen flowers come in stony places
And kind things done by men with ugly faces,
And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races,
So I trust, too."
And kind things done by men with ugly faces,
And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races,
So I trust, too."
-
Pender Native
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:46 pm
Re:
by surfingsimon on Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:44 am
[s]Pender Native wrote on 10:40, 17th Mar 2004:
Are you being sarcastic?
not in the slightest.
Are you being sarcastic?
not in the slightest.
-
surfingsimon
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:23 pm
Re:
by Pussycat on Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:02 am
Then you are in fact a maniac, saying what many crazed terrorists would say of captured Americans or Europeans. Difference being that they would not be allowed to get away with treating humans like animals.
Have you even read the articles from both sides of the argument? I highly doubt any sane person would condone imprisoning people without trial and in conditions that are in fact against international laws. And if they did then they have no right to complain when terrorists do the same to our innocent or otherwise countymen/women.
Have you even read the articles from both sides of the argument? I highly doubt any sane person would condone imprisoning people without trial and in conditions that are in fact against international laws. And if they did then they have no right to complain when terrorists do the same to our innocent or otherwise countymen/women.
-
Pussycat
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:36 pm
58 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests