The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm surprised to see there's not loads of topics about this already (sorry if there already is one - couldnt find one) but I think it's a pretty important issue.
So America, growing colder and more distant that ever, have let two of their citizens be executed. Why? Because America have a few Iraqi women held in their custody and are refusing to hand them over. Now I can see why they wouldn't want to hand over these women, they're potentially terrorists (after all they probably wear head-scarves!) but they didn't try and strike some sort of alternate deal, they simple said "so be it". I haven't seen any rescue attempts being made for these men, nor any Police-Camera-Action style stinger operations where they smuggle look-a-like women out in order to try and reclaim their lost citizens - oh no - Bush has done absolutely nothing.
Now this isn't an Anti-American rant, I beleive that a lot of American people are as discomforted by this matter as I am, and want something to be done. However there is a simple question of "what else could they do?"
Can Bush stand to let America be seen was weak to the rest of the world by conceding to a lesser-developed nation? No chance. This means the only viable alternatives are foreful tactics, such as sending special forces into the country to track down the hostages and reclaim them or some clever plot to delude the Iraqis into handing over the prisoners - and lets face it, clever plots are hardly the USA's forte.
For those of you who haven't seen or heard about these beheading videos, they are particularly gory. Not simply one swipe with a katana or guiloteen, but instead a series of butcherous hacks with a saw-like blade and a foot to the top of the spine as the head is wretched off. The guy is still screaming as it is done and seemingly alive for about 2/3 of the time. Imagine the fear in those poor men's hearts, and imagine the terror inside the English Guy's head now as he waits for his pending death, unless somehow America decide to save one of our citizens but not two of their own. Isn't the American constitution all about protecting civil liberties and human rights? Doesn't being beheaded contravene a human right? I beleive so.
So why aren't they doing anything? To be honest it baffles me. Surely conceding in this case and losing a bit of respect to save three innocent men is more respectable that sending three men to a gruesome death in order to stick to their guns on the issue. In my case I see America as colder, distant and more uncaring than before - and that's saying something.
Who's betting Kerry will use this in his election campaign to downsize Bush?
So America, growing colder and more distant that ever, have let two of their citizens be executed. Why? Because America have a few Iraqi women held in their custody and are refusing to hand them over. Now I can see why they wouldn't want to hand over these women, they're potentially terrorists (after all they probably wear head-scarves!) but they didn't try and strike some sort of alternate deal, they simple said "so be it". I haven't seen any rescue attempts being made for these men, nor any Police-Camera-Action style stinger operations where they smuggle look-a-like women out in order to try and reclaim their lost citizens - oh no - Bush has done absolutely nothing.
Now this isn't an Anti-American rant, I beleive that a lot of American people are as discomforted by this matter as I am, and want something to be done. However there is a simple question of "what else could they do?"
Can Bush stand to let America be seen was weak to the rest of the world by conceding to a lesser-developed nation? No chance. This means the only viable alternatives are foreful tactics, such as sending special forces into the country to track down the hostages and reclaim them or some clever plot to delude the Iraqis into handing over the prisoners - and lets face it, clever plots are hardly the USA's forte.
For those of you who haven't seen or heard about these beheading videos, they are particularly gory. Not simply one swipe with a katana or guiloteen, but instead a series of butcherous hacks with a saw-like blade and a foot to the top of the spine as the head is wretched off. The guy is still screaming as it is done and seemingly alive for about 2/3 of the time. Imagine the fear in those poor men's hearts, and imagine the terror inside the English Guy's head now as he waits for his pending death, unless somehow America decide to save one of our citizens but not two of their own. Isn't the American constitution all about protecting civil liberties and human rights? Doesn't being beheaded contravene a human right? I beleive so.
So why aren't they doing anything? To be honest it baffles me. Surely conceding in this case and losing a bit of respect to save three innocent men is more respectable that sending three men to a gruesome death in order to stick to their guns on the issue. In my case I see America as colder, distant and more uncaring than before - and that's saying something.
Who's betting Kerry will use this in his election campaign to downsize Bush?
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
>> And as tragic as this hostage thing is, why is it getting such
> saturated media coverage? A bomb went of killing 11 and injuring
> almost 100 in a marketplace on Tuesday (I think?), yet we saw
> nothing.
> Because it was just a bunch of Arabs. Nevermind they are just as
> innocent as these 3 Westerners.
I believe it was a more innocent, but equally wrongly decided 'human interest' aspect that most media fixes on these days. Three blokes, one of them from England and with family they could all jump on and interview in a 'frank and caring' manner.
>> And as tragic as this hostage thing is, why is it getting such
> saturated media coverage? A bomb went of killing 11 and injuring
> almost 100 in a marketplace on Tuesday (I think?), yet we saw
> nothing.
> Because it was just a bunch of Arabs. Nevermind they are just as
> innocent as these 3 Westerners.
I believe it was a more innocent, but equally wrongly decided 'human interest' aspect that most media fixes on these days. Three blokes, one of them from England and with family they could all jump on and interview in a 'frank and caring' manner.
Goatboy wrote:
>> It sucks that 2 Americans are dead and this English guy is facing
> that - it shouldn't happen.
> But at the same time, this situation would never have occured if we
> had not indulged in a phony "war" and still not
> explained/justified/apologised invasion.
>
I saw someone, possibly Blair, the other day saying; 'It's not about whether the war was justified anymore - it's about stopping these insurgents, and on that note, it's impossible to be not sure where you stand'.
har.
Actually, on a side note, the funniest (if there is anything funny about it at all) thing is that these extremist idiots are demandig the release of women....and yet these are Islamic extremists - Islam being a religion that at the best of times is perhaps not the most gender-equal religion, and yet these are the fools who take the religion far to far and take the (or rather their readings of the) doctrines of Islam to its extremes!
>> It sucks that 2 Americans are dead and this English guy is facing
> that - it shouldn't happen.
> But at the same time, this situation would never have occured if we
> had not indulged in a phony "war" and still not
> explained/justified/apologised invasion.
>
I saw someone, possibly Blair, the other day saying; 'It's not about whether the war was justified anymore - it's about stopping these insurgents, and on that note, it's impossible to be not sure where you stand'.
har.
Actually, on a side note, the funniest (if there is anything funny about it at all) thing is that these extremist idiots are demandig the release of women....and yet these are Islamic extremists - Islam being a religion that at the best of times is perhaps not the most gender-equal religion, and yet these are the fools who take the religion far to far and take the (or rather their readings of the) doctrines of Islam to its extremes!
Nw paradox although we have our differences about poetry I think you have a valid point, however watching snuff films isnt my forte.
I cant speak with any authority over whether special forces are already trying their best to reach these people for that chaps sake i really hope they do. But i would just like to show what some members of the british public think in their naivity. I quote.
loki
"everything flows"
Staff Regular stats
Today at 9.48AM AUXRADAR wrote:
> yep. we do have time off sometimes from putting our lives at risk its
> true.
I love the way that people in the forces keep pointing out that they're 'putting their lives at risk'. What do you want, another dumb little medal? Like we owe them any favours for the job they chose to do.
You know what, people who are prepared to kill people for money do not rate very highly in my opinion.
end quote..
I dont condone violence or go medal hunting but sometimes it has to be done. My only hope is that the innocent dont get vapourised.
I cant speak with any authority over whether special forces are already trying their best to reach these people for that chaps sake i really hope they do. But i would just like to show what some members of the british public think in their naivity. I quote.
loki
"everything flows"
Staff Regular stats
Today at 9.48AM AUXRADAR wrote:
> yep. we do have time off sometimes from putting our lives at risk its
> true.
I love the way that people in the forces keep pointing out that they're 'putting their lives at risk'. What do you want, another dumb little medal? Like we owe them any favours for the job they chose to do.
You know what, people who are prepared to kill people for money do not rate very highly in my opinion.
end quote..
I dont condone violence or go medal hunting but sometimes it has to be done. My only hope is that the innocent dont get vapourised.
This is the situation as I understand it.
3 hostages were taken by this terrorist bloke.
The terrorist's demands were to have all female prisoners released.
As there were only two, the women who played a huge part in the chemical and biological weapon development (when they were actually being developed) and who were keen supporters of the Saddam regime of terror (that's undenyable, and should have been the only reason given for going to war...as no weapons of mass destruction have been found), it was decided those must be who the terrorists were demanding get released.
As America and Britain stood firm, the two Americans were beheaded.
Suddenly, it is reported that the minister in charge of certain things (I can't remember what, but involving the prisoners) had said that they were scheduled for review and possibly release by Friday.
The Iraqi Prime Minister then denies that they were going to be released, supposedly under no western influence.
Jack Straw has made it clear that Britain wont be giving in to terrorist demands.
And that's the latest.
The way I see it, Britain is taking the right step. I don't want to see anyone get killed, but if Britain and America really want to save the hostage, they'll send in special forces to attempt to find and rescue him.
The policy has always been never to negotiate with terrorists. The second they do is the moment they say, "Take one of our's hostage and we'll meet your every demand." It's not about looking weak against a smaller, less advanced nation. It's about preventing a worldwide revolution caused by saying yes to terrorists.
And I agree with what Goatboy said...What about those car bomb attacks that barely get mention on the news? Surely they're more tragic than one man?
3 hostages were taken by this terrorist bloke.
The terrorist's demands were to have all female prisoners released.
As there were only two, the women who played a huge part in the chemical and biological weapon development (when they were actually being developed) and who were keen supporters of the Saddam regime of terror (that's undenyable, and should have been the only reason given for going to war...as no weapons of mass destruction have been found), it was decided those must be who the terrorists were demanding get released.
As America and Britain stood firm, the two Americans were beheaded.
Suddenly, it is reported that the minister in charge of certain things (I can't remember what, but involving the prisoners) had said that they were scheduled for review and possibly release by Friday.
The Iraqi Prime Minister then denies that they were going to be released, supposedly under no western influence.
Jack Straw has made it clear that Britain wont be giving in to terrorist demands.
And that's the latest.
The way I see it, Britain is taking the right step. I don't want to see anyone get killed, but if Britain and America really want to save the hostage, they'll send in special forces to attempt to find and rescue him.
The policy has always been never to negotiate with terrorists. The second they do is the moment they say, "Take one of our's hostage and we'll meet your every demand." It's not about looking weak against a smaller, less advanced nation. It's about preventing a worldwide revolution caused by saying yes to terrorists.
And I agree with what Goatboy said...What about those car bomb attacks that barely get mention on the news? Surely they're more tragic than one man?
cookie monster wrote:
> They had tagged it on only to try and appear as if they had some sort
> of legitimate agenda rather than a nasty case of bloodlust, no doubt
> induced after a sesh of Manhunt.
Ah you see when this is all over some journalist will find a few copies of Doom 3 and Manhunt in their little house allowing the Daily Mail to once again jump upon it's moral highstool and fun shall be had by all, either that or everyone will just despair at the tripe that little rag turns out each day.
> They had tagged it on only to try and appear as if they had some sort
> of legitimate agenda rather than a nasty case of bloodlust, no doubt
> induced after a sesh of Manhunt.
Ah you see when this is all over some journalist will find a few copies of Doom 3 and Manhunt in their little house allowing the Daily Mail to once again jump upon it's moral highstool and fun shall be had by all, either that or everyone will just despair at the tripe that little rag turns out each day.
That's because they can't do much really - the detainees are under imprisonment by the US.
May want to look a little closer to home before criticising Bush and co. I don't see Blair and the British government doing anything either.
Well i suppose it depends on what you are watching/reading/listening to as to how you interpret the situation, but as far as im aware the terrorists demands were a load of horseshit (thanks goaty) anyway.
They had tagged it on only to try and appear as if they had some sort of legitimate agenda rather than a nasty case of bloodlust, no doubt induced after a sesh of Manhunt.
They had tagged it on only to try and appear as if they had some sort of legitimate agenda rather than a nasty case of bloodlust, no doubt induced after a sesh of Manhunt.
Paradox: wrote:
> (after all they probably wear head-scarves!)
Quite marvellous.
The American Government has not real care for it's citizens, what about that conspiracy theory that they planned 9/11. Nasty.
> (after all they probably wear head-scarves!)
Quite marvellous.
The American Government has not real care for it's citizens, what about that conspiracy theory that they planned 9/11. Nasty.
Bare/bear with me here if I'm wrong, but hearing the news on the radio today, could make out this:
Woman, 'Dr Germ' possibly, was due to be released and had nothing to do with the terrorist demands. Judge rules she's to be released on bail, and is announced.
After terrorist demand is made, America turns around and says 'Actually, no, she's not being released because then they'll think we're listening to them', and puts this guy's life in even more danger.
Now, these are the facts I have. They make little sense in humanity logic, so they're probably correct.
A woman that was going to be released anyway is then kept back, because of fears that it'll appear they're negotiating with terrorists?
Maybe I've not got the whole story, or maybe I'm blind to some massive bit of importance that I'm really failing to notice, but something deep inside me is telling me this is wrong.
Woman, 'Dr Germ' possibly, was due to be released and had nothing to do with the terrorist demands. Judge rules she's to be released on bail, and is announced.
After terrorist demand is made, America turns around and says 'Actually, no, she's not being released because then they'll think we're listening to them', and puts this guy's life in even more danger.
Now, these are the facts I have. They make little sense in humanity logic, so they're probably correct.
A woman that was going to be released anyway is then kept back, because of fears that it'll appear they're negotiating with terrorists?
Maybe I've not got the whole story, or maybe I'm blind to some massive bit of importance that I'm really failing to notice, but something deep inside me is telling me this is wrong.
Page: