Military Tribunals

You're a tool of the devil

Just joking :grin:

 

Dammit! Are my sayings that good that people feel the need to steal them? I mean, come on fellas :grin:.

 

I as than member of the replubician party is
total against secret MT trail for anyone it let
any government hide certain fact. May be there are certain part of our government who carry out
the attack on the world trade center or knew about the attack but did nothing about it. Remember WaterGate breaking by the Nixon White House.
You cannot win any war on terroriom the way we are doing it. Are we going to military occupt
1/3 to 1/2 of the nations of the world for the next 30 or 40 years. Look at Israel an the way
their treat the Palestion people in the Occup.
territy and are their wining their war on terrorism. I think not. It just that there control freask in our government and in other government around the world who want to control everything. I have than old saying "He
who try to control everything end up control nothing." There are people inside of our government who are Zionist who to make us than
other police state like Israel and who want to
have than witch hunt against now Islam and what will stop then from next going after Christian.

 

You can only win a war with terror by fighting back. Because when you yeld and give in they think that it works and it become more wide spread. This is what we have been fighting for the last 30 years and it has only made the terrorist stronger in that time. If you don't pound them and pound everyone supporting them they will not understand your superior abilities, physicaly, moraly, and legaly. Also it is good when presenting an arguement of actions not to take to also illuminate actions you think SHOULD be taken. Try to help when you critic. I personaly am happy with our progess so i have no more suggestions except to keep it going all the way down Saddams throat, and don't let Bin Lauden die a marter let his death be one of a fleeing coward, or catch him alive try him and give him butt buddies for life. :winknudge:

But this bring me to the fact that you are right about alot of other points you make. Yes we have given up alot of important rights in order to make this possible, and this worries me deeply. But in every war we have had to shevel certain rights, but when they return they are always less then they were for some logical reason or another. I do not like this trend but when the Hitlers, crazed dictators, and bin laudens of the world strike we all lose. :sick:

 

Okay, first of all, terrorists don't abide by laws. That's why they are terrorists and not activists. Secondly, showing them your 'legal' power isn't going to do shit, or mean shit, to them.

Secondly, Saddam is not a terrorist. Evil dictator of his country, yes, but he got his ass beaten in the Gulf War, so he won't be trying again any time soon.

 

the devil is my tool! :wink:

 

Dammit! Everyone is stealing one of my catchphrases!

 

bwaaaaaaa all mine
bwaaaaaaa

 

stop that serious stuff is being said. you are the tool you devil?

catch bin and putting him on trail would still give him the chance to be a mater. you will be sentenced to death. tim mcvaigh was for the oklahoma bombing and bins little bombing was a little bigger.

paedophilear was ok for the greeks so its ok by me. no i dont believe that. they have to be at least 12. again i dont mean that. 10. im stopping while im way bak there somewhere.
if its a 2 year old sheep dose it count. im truely sorry for my immature comments.
poo. opps

 

You unfunny, insensitive bastard! Hehehe, kidding.

Did people start persecuting Christians because of what Tim McVeigh did? No! For some reason though, everyone is getting on the arabs case, simply because those attacks were perpetrated by arabs. Admittedly, I can understand why they are doing this - the West has always regarded the Middle East pretty shiftily. Still, I don't like it when people don't use their heads and start making massive generalisations...

 

im thinking that the west needs a common enemy. what better way to bring everyone together. russian usa europe relations have definatly strenghtend.

 

As someone who has lived with the constant threat of terrorist action for long years (from the IRA) and been involved in many bomb scares, had close friends involved in actual bombings, and witnessed the progress of extend interaction/negotiation/conflict with the various terrorist groups associated with the conflict in Northern Ireland, I disagree.

We ended the war with Ireland hundreds of years ago, by doing exactly as you say. In fact, after winning that war (through the bloodshed you endorse) we replaces all their leaders with English people. Since then, there have been varios forms of military presence in the region, including policing by the British army during the last decades.

Winning the war did not achieve peace. Military action, fairly obviously in retrospect, seems unlikely to achieve peace in any circumstance (although it may limit the bloodshed in some situations). Only now, after a cease fire, disarmament, and extended peace negotiations, is an end to the problems looking nearer. It is by no means guaranteed; the hate ingrained during all the violence is not easily forgotten or forgiven.

It should be obvious to anyone that peace involves all parties refraining from violence. Use of force has to end for peace to begin.

Don't get me wrong, I believe military action against the Tiliban was the correct option, because it will reduce the presence of a major terrorist force and training facilities. However, I don't think it will end terrorism.

Terrorist organisations are not like nations. They are not linked to geography, and their leadership requires no bureaucracy or infrastructure. They recruit from people who hate. Hatred is an inevitable consequence of war and violence.

I really think you're mistaken if you believe you can convince someone of your moral superiority by killing their friends or relatives.

In fact, I think you are quite wrong to believe yourself superior, or even to raise the issue of superiority in this context. Since you've been discussing the Nazi's, it might be appropriate to consider that one of their primary aims was to demonstrate their superiority in a similar manner to the one you suggest. They beaten despite their superior army. It took a lot of countries acting together for years to do it, but they did it.

The ONLY way to achieve peace is to gain commitment from all parties to end the violence.

[qiote]
Also it is good when presenting an arguement of actions not to take to also illuminate actions you think SHOULD be taken. Try to help when you critic. I personaly am happy with our progess so i have no more suggestions except to keep it going all the way down Saddams throat, and don't let Bin Lauden die a marter let his death be one of a fleeing coward, or catch him alive try him and give him butt buddies for life.
[/quote]

I would suggest holding a very open, very fair trial if and when the Taliban leaders are captured, under international war crimes law.

I'd also suggest a program of educating the warring parties to get them to see the opposition as humans rather than targets. Of course, this includes educating US and UK citizens, but the primary focus should be the Afghans, since many of them appear to have spent years in a environment of indoctrination.

Cultural exchange may also help. Peaceful Afghans in the US/UK and peaceful westerners in Afghanistan may help the general population of both countries begin to see the other culture as just different, rather than evil.

Greater cultural exchange between the West and the Middle East in general may do a lot to foster relationships based on emotions other than fear and hatred. This would reduce the recruiting base for the terrorists. Familiarity is a source of comfort, the unknown is a source of fear.

 

sherriff fatman is absolutely right about everything. I agree with everything he's said so far!

 

I don't think it's fair to take things that I write and place them out of context in regards to what they were originally meant for. But I will say this I meant everything I have said and I think I have provided more then enough historical data to support my debate. Suffice it to say I can agree to dissagree, the suggestions you made are well noted.

I find the exchange student thing amusing seeing how we have been allowing thousands of them into our country before this and it did little good. Besides I don't know about you but I ain't sending my kid over there (If I had one that is.)

_________________
Live is Evil spelt backwards and Devil is Lived spelt backards. To let someone else LIVE your life is EVIL, if you let them you have not lived and thus belong with the Devil...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eros Rex on 2001-12-21 20:16 ]</font>

 

If you have an specific objections, just tell me which bits I have quoted out of context, and I'll be happy to consider retracting my statements.

I don't believe I have seen much, if any, historical data in this thread, although there has been a fair number of unsubstatiated claims made regarding interpretations of various historical incidences.

We could agree to disagree and both go along our merry ways, still firmly convinced we're right, even in the face of all the attempts made to persuade us to new perceptions. It'd be a shame if these 7 pages fails to convince either one of us of the slightest change to our viewpoint.

I think you misunderstood my suggestion. I wasn't talking about student exchange, I was talking about general cultural exchange, including adults. Rather than sending you kids, you would possibly go there yourself to see how Afghans live and get to know them as real people.

Such a cultural exchange could not happen until the war is well behind us, clearly. Even then, it would have to be handled very carefully if it was going to do anything helpful.

 

I'm supporting you on this one Fatman. Those are some good ideas you have there - I've actually lived in the Middle East for several years, so I fully understand what those sort of 'cultural' exchanges can do for you. They are very good, and definitely help in understanding other peoples plights on a more personal level.

 

Personally I find it all very amusing. The pretty little razor you love U.S. to dance on. "We interfer too much in the affairs of other countries, we need to butt out that's why this happened." This is your sword. "But then we need "cultural exchange" so that we can understand YOUR people better." This is your sheild.

I see both sides I honestly do and I would love to have world peace more then anything. You both say you have been to the middle east, may ask you if you have ever been to the U.S.A.? Did you know that for every comunity in the far-east that you came across there is some town big or small in the U.S. that they have relatives who have formed small communities here? We have hundreds of "little Italies, Chinias, and so on..." We are, inspite of what some would love to believe; "a peace loving nation"
We did not go looking for this, it was dealt to U.S. There is always someone willing to start something and it is we that ever end-up willing to take a stand against it. Our son's, and daughters, our borthers and sisters, ourselves. While others ever stand by ready to direct what we are doing wrong and right while their children go to school in peace. Well I will tell you Sir, you wish cultural exchange? I am here to tell you that they already have it. Thousands of my countrymen are already there risking their lives to learn this wonderful culture.
Many parents and children here are also experiancing the joy have having their loved ones learn this new and exciting culture.

But then who am I to you to complain? We snotty americans asked for this didn't we? I should just shut-up and send more of my people into danger so that we can later be told to butt out..

I will say this I have simply come to understand the fact that of those who do not want peace the majority live and prosper in that very area of misery and suffering. You tell U.S. that we have big egos and we think we know everything. Well there is one thing we do know for certain we are not God's and we can not be at the same time the answer to all the worlds problems while keeping the hell out of everyones business.

We need both a break and some credit here. At least we give a damn and what do we get for caring one way or another about events happening a world away? we get thousands of innocents killed and we get told that we diserved because we cared or because we were greedy (when in truth we were defending ourselves and our nato allies.).

No Sir. Your points fall far short of moving me from where I stand. Right now we have thousands of people in my country who are newly out of work and who's families may well go hungry tonight, yet we send plane loads of food to the country that helped give birth to our pain. And to make matters worst now we have Argentina to worry about.
To be frank I feel that their country is 10 x more diserving of U.S. help and support.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eros Rex on 2001-12-23 01:43 ]</font>

 

I have never asked the US to do anything. I merely suggeted that cultural exchange would be benficial in this situation, specifically for the people that are like you on both sides.

I believe it would help you see people as people rather than some faceless enemy/monster/target. I also believe that by removing the element of the unknown, your fear, and it's concomitant urge to strike out, would be lessened.

Please be clear on one thing you appear to have misunderstood: I am talking to you, not the USA. I do not see you as a spokesman for you government or a representative of you people. I am speaking to you as an individual US citizen who has views I strongly disagree with. Similarly, I do not speak for the UK or the international community.

I do not question your desire for peace. I question the route by which you believe it can be achieved, and perhaps something of your definition of peace.

I do not recall ever having stated that I have been to the middle east. If you use quotes to show me some of the things you claim I said, it may help.

As it happens, my wife is from the US, so half my fmaily are there, and naturally I have visited them. In addition, I worked for the UK office of a large US company, during which time many of my colleagues were Americans and I spent in excess of of 3 months working in Ohio.

All that is by-the-by though, since I am talking to you, not them, and I am talking about your views, not theirs.

I believe this to be an exaggeration. The USA is polyglot, no doubt, but is has a very definite culture of its own, several I'd say, that are different from those in the countries you have mentioned, although clearly share a common root somewhere in the past.

I have never suggested that the US was looking for this. However, the US, like all states must take responsibility for its own decisions/reactions, etc, the same as every other country, and expect consequences from them.

I have no particular criticism of you governments handling of this very difficult situation. I think (mercifiully stepping right back onto topic for a moment) that relaxing the burden of proof would set a dangerous precedent, but Bin Laden not even been caught yet, so it remains to be seen how he is dealt with by the US/UK/German governments. Like I said earlier, I am talking to you, not criticising you government.

This is the kind of inaccurate, nationalistic rhetoric I have a problem with. In what scenario do you imagine talking like this would be helpful to (a) persuading someone around to your point of view (b) achieving an amicable end to the discussion (c) furthering the reputation of your country?

UK troops are on the ground in Afghanistan, as they have been in many of the conflicts in which the US has become involved. Okay, we weren't in Grenada or Vietnam, but I'm pretty glad of that, and you guys weren't in the Falklands, which was a conflict limited to the UK-Argentina.

Also, terrorism has been occuring in Northern Ireland for decades and has received tacit approval (in the form of refusal to condemn) from some parts of the US, so I'd rather you do not misrepresent your country as fighting it wherever it is found for the benefit of all.

The real truth is that the US, like most other countries, goes to war to defend its own interests. Any other state of affairs seems unlikely and of questionable merit.

I believe citizens of my country have as much right to speak as you in this. In fact, since it is an international issue, I believe everyone has a right to speak.

To present yourself as defending my children while I sit around bitching at you, is just plain wrong and harmful to both this discussion and my relationship with you.

You do not have cultural exchange of the sort I am suggesting. In fact, since my suggestion is pretty much to have more cultural exchange, particularly with the Middle East, it is a logical impossibility for you to already have it.

In the shit of sarcasm, so the rose of relevance does bloom ...

Who are you to be saying all this? I do not quesiton your right to free speech or having an opinion (goodness knows I rely on those two myself from time to time), but you present yourself as in some way speaking for the US. Most US citizens I have met have much less aggressive views and take a more cooperative/cautious approach to the whole area under discussion.

The US can not be the answer to all the worlds problems no matter what they do. The US is part of a much larger, very diverse, international community. Staying out of that community would be a mistake. As would trying to restrict diversity. As would ignoring/overlooking the existence/desires/opinions of the rest of the community.

I believe I have already commented on this type of unhelpful, inaccurate rhetoric.

I'd like to state that the USA, as represented by its actions and words of its government, has always impressed me as humanitarian and generous.

I'd also like to state that I do not believe this is because of people with your opinions, Eros Rex.

I'd like to ask you a question, and I'd like you to (a) give it some real thought before answering (b) try to be honest with yourself and me when you answer and (c) try to give straight, pure answer, without any side-comments or attempts to rationalise.

My question:

Imagine a typical terrorist, how he (or she) feels, what opinions he has regarding foreigners, how certain he is in his belief that he is fighting for his country, how certain he is that his country's right to do what it is doing.

Now consider the opinions, attitudes and arguments used by me and you in this thread. Which of us would you say has an attitude more similar to that we might expect from the terrorist?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2001-12-23 04:46 ]</font>

 

Military force willnot bring about any long
term effect of ending terrotism, like the roman empire use of military force to destory Christian in the 1st century to 3th century. You
cannot destory than idear or belief in something
that easy. Terrorist donot engauge in battle the
way regurate armies and nation fight their regurate war. Even if we kill Bin Obwan than other one will replace him. Look at crime in America we have than war on drug for the last 30
or 40 years and we are strill not even close to wining the war on drug. Look at Israel than
the methord which are dirty and illegality by international war and their falling behind in their war on terrorism, if might be queit for
now but wait and it will heat up as Israel have the wrong type of person as PM.
What I mean by He who try to control everything end up control nothing. The United
State is trying to control all drugs in america by makeing their use illegal and yet
the drug problem is getting worth. The biggest
drug user are white american in big corporateion board rooms or other highly educt
person or every poor people who take drug to releive their pain. The middle class have their drug of choise which is either tobbac or
alcohol.
Certain action like rape or murber need to
be criminal act by than civil societry most other laws are optional. Like than most arab societry you can have up to four wifes at the
same time while in America we can have only 1 wife at a time. Than we are try our best to spead our belief of haveing one wife at a time
around the world. Yet in America we have the highter rate of wife aduse and divorso compare
to arabs nation.
You cannot change than other societry way of doing things or belief that easy especial as their see you as than outsider trying to enforce your veiw on them, their must change on their own. By way I am a America.

 

If we try to occup 1/3 of the nation of the world we will have the military manpower to do
so. In unoppose occup you need than force of at
least 10% to 5% of occup nation total population
and if the occup is resit by the people of the occup area the number can go up to 50% of the total population at it highter end. So it we try
to occup Iran, Pakistan,Maly and Indosse we would run out of manpower real quick than we could have to occup then for 30 or 40 year at least and I than not count in the cost of the America taxpayer would have to pay to support
the occup of these nation. To tax the people of than nation you occup by force is illegality by international law and by my law.