The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Taken from AOL News thingy. Quite interesting. Well, I think so....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WAR IS TERRORISM, BENN TELLS PROTESTERS
VETERAN Labour left-winger Tony Benn has told thousands of peace protesters at a London rally that the war in Afghanistan is "terrorism".
Police estimated that around 15,000 demonstrators had gathered although organisers of the protest claimed the figure was 50,000.
Mr Benn received a huge cheer as he told the demonstrators they were present at the birth of a new world peace movement.
Among the demonstrators were a number of British Muslims, who held prayers for peace on mats placed on the grass.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the demonstration was peaceful and that there had been no arrests.
The crowd stood beneath a sea of multi-coloured banners in Trafalgar Square as it heard speeches from prominent anti-war campaigners.
Mr Benn told the crowd: "What is happening now in Afghanistan is terrorism. Everybody knows that. We know very well that this is a war for resources, for oil.
"We recognise that, after British imperialism ended, American imperialism is coming to take its place."
He said parliament was "passive" and Tony Blair's cabinet was "cringing" in its failure to question the UK's role in the bombing campaign.
Rebel Labour MP Paul Marsden accused Tony Blair of being "drunk with power" in his handling of the war on terrorism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WAR IS TERRORISM, BENN TELLS PROTESTERS
VETERAN Labour left-winger Tony Benn has told thousands of peace protesters at a London rally that the war in Afghanistan is "terrorism".
Police estimated that around 15,000 demonstrators had gathered although organisers of the protest claimed the figure was 50,000.
Mr Benn received a huge cheer as he told the demonstrators they were present at the birth of a new world peace movement.
Among the demonstrators were a number of British Muslims, who held prayers for peace on mats placed on the grass.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the demonstration was peaceful and that there had been no arrests.
The crowd stood beneath a sea of multi-coloured banners in Trafalgar Square as it heard speeches from prominent anti-war campaigners.
Mr Benn told the crowd: "What is happening now in Afghanistan is terrorism. Everybody knows that. We know very well that this is a war for resources, for oil.
"We recognise that, after British imperialism ended, American imperialism is coming to take its place."
He said parliament was "passive" and Tony Blair's cabinet was "cringing" in its failure to question the UK's role in the bombing campaign.
Rebel Labour MP Paul Marsden accused Tony Blair of being "drunk with power" in his handling of the war on terrorism.
Page:
Bonus wrote:
That is exactly why you screwed your arguement totally..
Hmm, maybe.
As for the rest, i still disagree on the relevance, but i guess we'll have to agree to differ there : )
That is exactly why you screwed your arguement totally..
Hmm, maybe.
As for the rest, i still disagree on the relevance, but i guess we'll have to agree to differ there : )
What I mean is, before Sept 11th, what right did the US (or any
> other country) have to go into Afghanistan and say "You're doing this
> wrong, you should do what we tell you". Answer? None.
Not being funny,
> but it's their country, their religeon, their way of life - one that we know
> nothing of. Why should we (being us, the US, anyone really...) go in their and
> tell them how to live their life?
But it is not the way the people wanted to be ruled is it? Various religions banned (those people arrested for preaching christianity) and so much other stuff used to educate people banned, and women with no rights. The point I mean is that in this 'civilised' world we live in the big powers should not just let dictatorships and corrupt governments continue ruling places. Okay, maybe we should sort out our own dumb@ss governmuents first, but at least we are (relatively) free, while as people under these rules have virtually no rights.
I'm pretty annoyed at some of the stuff
> that we're being told to do by Europe. My view is "Excuse me, this is our
> country, why should we do what a bunch of politicians a few hundred miles away
> tell us?".
But that is different. I disagree with it, but I mean getting rid of corrupt governments and/or leaaders and letting the people decide. Not setting up our own puppet governments for our benefit. The EU shouldn't tell us how to run our country, but if our government were taking away our rights as people and basically killing us for having freedom of minds then I would be glad if the EU intervened, as long as it gave the people a choice.
Another reason why America didn't go into Afghanistan before
> (and probably the main reason, to be honest) is that the US and the UK have been
> selling weapons to them.
I won't quote facts and figures, as I don't know
> them, but I believe that Goaty has some more information on that side of
> things.
Didn't know that, but then I'm just trying to make points about what I DO know, so sorry if I sound ignorant or anything. Hope no one is wondering who the idiot in the corner (me) is.
> other country) have to go into Afghanistan and say "You're doing this
> wrong, you should do what we tell you". Answer? None.
Not being funny,
> but it's their country, their religeon, their way of life - one that we know
> nothing of. Why should we (being us, the US, anyone really...) go in their and
> tell them how to live their life?
But it is not the way the people wanted to be ruled is it? Various religions banned (those people arrested for preaching christianity) and so much other stuff used to educate people banned, and women with no rights. The point I mean is that in this 'civilised' world we live in the big powers should not just let dictatorships and corrupt governments continue ruling places. Okay, maybe we should sort out our own dumb@ss governmuents first, but at least we are (relatively) free, while as people under these rules have virtually no rights.
I'm pretty annoyed at some of the stuff
> that we're being told to do by Europe. My view is "Excuse me, this is our
> country, why should we do what a bunch of politicians a few hundred miles away
> tell us?".
But that is different. I disagree with it, but I mean getting rid of corrupt governments and/or leaaders and letting the people decide. Not setting up our own puppet governments for our benefit. The EU shouldn't tell us how to run our country, but if our government were taking away our rights as people and basically killing us for having freedom of minds then I would be glad if the EU intervened, as long as it gave the people a choice.
Another reason why America didn't go into Afghanistan before
> (and probably the main reason, to be honest) is that the US and the UK have been
> selling weapons to them.
I won't quote facts and figures, as I don't know
> them, but I believe that Goaty has some more information on that side of
> things.
Didn't know that, but then I'm just trying to make points about what I DO know, so sorry if I sound ignorant or anything. Hope no one is wondering who the idiot in the corner (me) is.
Dr. Duck wrote:
Not sure why you brought pearl harbour into it. Also not sure how
> much more it is possible to dumb this down to make you understand.
That is exactly why you screwed your arguement totally, you dumbed down both events to basic points, took them out of context and tried your hardest to accuse the American's of mass genocide. You could simply have said, America are no angels, look what they did to Japan in World War 2, but you CANNOT compare the attack on September 11th to any event which occured during any war, because the context is so much different.
Not sure why you brought pearl harbour into it. Also not sure how
> much more it is possible to dumb this down to make you understand.
That is exactly why you screwed your arguement totally, you dumbed down both events to basic points, took them out of context and tried your hardest to accuse the American's of mass genocide. You could simply have said, America are no angels, look what they did to Japan in World War 2, but you CANNOT compare the attack on September 11th to any event which occured during any war, because the context is so much different.
1) The Japanese provoked the Americans and declared war by attacking Pearl Harbour. The Americans ended that war with the atomic bomb, that's where Pearl Harbour fitted in. The attacks on September the 11th were acts of terrorism by an organisation. Pearl Harbour and the Atomic Bomb being dropped were acts of war by two opposing countries.
2) As for me not understanding, it's because you aren't making sense. The Atomic Bomb being dropped is wrong, but it has no parallels in this situation. There is no war between two nations, but a war between a terrorist network, and the "alliance".
3) If you are trying to say that America are hipocrates, why not just come out with it? They landed the most devastating weapon in their arsenal and faltened two civilian cities, something I strongly disagree with. But trying to say that I don't understand what you are saying because you struggle to write a coherent sentence is just plain idiotic. If I had such a lack of understanding, I wouldn't have qualifications in politics would I??
2) As for me not understanding, it's because you aren't making sense. The Atomic Bomb being dropped is wrong, but it has no parallels in this situation. There is no war between two nations, but a war between a terrorist network, and the "alliance".
3) If you are trying to say that America are hipocrates, why not just come out with it? They landed the most devastating weapon in their arsenal and faltened two civilian cities, something I strongly disagree with. But trying to say that I don't understand what you are saying because you struggle to write a coherent sentence is just plain idiotic. If I had such a lack of understanding, I wouldn't have qualifications in politics would I??
Bonus wrote:
Sept 11 - mass slaughter of civilians for political belief.
Nagasaki & Hiroshima - mass slaughter of civilians for political belief.
Not sure why you brought pearl harbour into it. Also not sure how much more it is possible to dumb this down to make you understand.
If you don't agree with me, fair enough, but if you're going to make an issue out of it, at least use reasoned argument, not arrogant dismissal of anything you don't understand / agree with as just being wrong.
Sept 11 - mass slaughter of civilians for political belief.
Nagasaki & Hiroshima - mass slaughter of civilians for political belief.
Not sure why you brought pearl harbour into it. Also not sure how much more it is possible to dumb this down to make you understand.
If you don't agree with me, fair enough, but if you're going to make an issue out of it, at least use reasoned argument, not arrogant dismissal of anything you don't understand / agree with as just being wrong.
Sibs wrote:
We can't sit back and say, oh they haven't
> done anything bad to our country or any other major power so theres no point in
> being against them. If someone does something wrong in the world justice SHOULD
> be done, however far away from our 'civilised' societies it is.
Why?
It can be argued that if America had, shall we say, handled their foreign affairs "differently" Sept 11th may have just been a normal day.
What I mean is, before Sept 11th, what right did the US (or any other country) have to go into Afghanistan and say "You're doing this wrong, you should do what we tell you". Answer? None.
Not being funny, but it's their country, their religeon, their way of life - one that we know nothing of. Why should we (being us, the US, anyone really...) go in their and tell them how to live their life?
I'm pretty annoyed at some of the stuff that we're being told to do by Europe. My view is "Excuse me, this is our country, why should we do what a bunch of politicians a few hundred miles away tell us?".
Another reason why America didn't go into Afghanistan before (and probably the main reason, to be honest) is that the US and the UK have been selling weapons to them.
I won't quote facts and figures, as I don't know them, but I believe that Goaty has some more information on that side of things.
We can't sit back and say, oh they haven't
> done anything bad to our country or any other major power so theres no point in
> being against them. If someone does something wrong in the world justice SHOULD
> be done, however far away from our 'civilised' societies it is.
Why?
It can be argued that if America had, shall we say, handled their foreign affairs "differently" Sept 11th may have just been a normal day.
What I mean is, before Sept 11th, what right did the US (or any other country) have to go into Afghanistan and say "You're doing this wrong, you should do what we tell you". Answer? None.
Not being funny, but it's their country, their religeon, their way of life - one that we know nothing of. Why should we (being us, the US, anyone really...) go in their and tell them how to live their life?
I'm pretty annoyed at some of the stuff that we're being told to do by Europe. My view is "Excuse me, this is our country, why should we do what a bunch of politicians a few hundred miles away tell us?".
Another reason why America didn't go into Afghanistan before (and probably the main reason, to be honest) is that the US and the UK have been selling weapons to them.
I won't quote facts and figures, as I don't know them, but I believe that Goaty has some more information on that side of things.
Dr. Duck wrote:
> One thing that always puzzles me is how nobody seems horrified/disgusted at
> america's use of nuclear weapons against japan in WW2.
I sometimes think that i
> must be missing something...
Most people would agree that this is wrong, as I have said I already do.
I still think that this has nothing constructive to add to the current debate and merely changes the subject to an act of war which was carried out over 50 years ago.
Pearl Harbour began World War 2 for the Americans, September the 11th was an act of terrorism carried out by an organisation, not a country. Comparisons cannot be drawn between the two for that very reason, and this point adds nothing to the debate.
> One thing that always puzzles me is how nobody seems horrified/disgusted at
> america's use of nuclear weapons against japan in WW2.
I sometimes think that i
> must be missing something...
Most people would agree that this is wrong, as I have said I already do.
I still think that this has nothing constructive to add to the current debate and merely changes the subject to an act of war which was carried out over 50 years ago.
Pearl Harbour began World War 2 for the Americans, September the 11th was an act of terrorism carried out by an organisation, not a country. Comparisons cannot be drawn between the two for that very reason, and this point adds nothing to the debate.
Bonus wrote:
Two, it
> has nothing to do with this discussion, and should not have been brought to
> change the subject.
An instance where the squeaky clean victim country, taking moral high ground, could be argued to have committed a similar atrocity for their political goals, but on a far larger scale than sept 11. Not relevant at all, is it?
I just didn't expect you would need to have it explained quite so thoroughly.
Also, please don't take that kind of attitude with me. Reasoned discussion, with some mutual respect.
I'll stop 'changing the subject' now.
Two, it
> has nothing to do with this discussion, and should not have been brought to
> change the subject.
An instance where the squeaky clean victim country, taking moral high ground, could be argued to have committed a similar atrocity for their political goals, but on a far larger scale than sept 11. Not relevant at all, is it?
I just didn't expect you would need to have it explained quite so thoroughly.
Also, please don't take that kind of attitude with me. Reasoned discussion, with some mutual respect.
I'll stop 'changing the subject' now.
Ben Hodgetts wrote:
> the taliban had a get out clause of all this though they had 3 weeks to hand
> laden over but they didn't.
For a formal extradition of a suspected criminal. The country seeking extradition must follow set guidelines, and supply a coherent case which would stand up in a court of law against the accused. America carried out no such process, and the Taleban were not bound to hand Bin Laden over, just because America said so.
Was Pinochet extradited from Britain because someone else told us it was essential? Did they bomb us when we deceided that he was not healthy enough to qualify for extradition, even though the Home Office accepted that all other extradition criteria had been met?
Double standards make us no better than our, so called enemies. If we are to seek a higher moral ground, and feel as though we are better than them, we need evidence to prove our case, something which we do not have.
> the taliban had a get out clause of all this though they had 3 weeks to hand
> laden over but they didn't.
For a formal extradition of a suspected criminal. The country seeking extradition must follow set guidelines, and supply a coherent case which would stand up in a court of law against the accused. America carried out no such process, and the Taleban were not bound to hand Bin Laden over, just because America said so.
Was Pinochet extradited from Britain because someone else told us it was essential? Did they bomb us when we deceided that he was not healthy enough to qualify for extradition, even though the Home Office accepted that all other extradition criteria had been met?
Double standards make us no better than our, so called enemies. If we are to seek a higher moral ground, and feel as though we are better than them, we need evidence to prove our case, something which we do not have.
Page: