The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ middle_east/2396613.stm
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> If the CIA is ordered to take actions against
> another country then it may do, because those actions are ultimately
> authorised by the President who was elected fairly. The leader you
> refer to, Allende, who was overthrown, was in the process of setting
> up what amounted to a socialist state that promised a fairer division
> of wealth amongst the people. Great if you're joe public, not so great
> for the rich and wealthy, and those who hold power.
Scratch my last post, this is a cracker.
As far as I am aware neither the CIA nor the President was elected by the people of Chile. Allende was. His socialist state was chosen by the Chilean people, presumably because US neo-imperialism wasn't really working for them anymore. Allende wasn't part of some dark Communist plot, he wasn't about to replay Stalin's purges, he wasn't a dictator: he won an election.
And this socialist state, which you have presumably deployed as a term of abuse, hoping that a small glint of Latin American independence will be tarred with the Soviet Union brush, was it really so terrible? Health care? The right to join a union? Land reform? A bit of nationalisation - though less than our own post-war governments did - was it all so bad? Did it require the CIA to back and encourage a bloody coup and years of purges, thousands of disapperaed?
"Great if you're Joe Public"? Wake up! You ARE Joe Public.
> If the CIA is ordered to take actions against
> another country then it may do, because those actions are ultimately
> authorised by the President who was elected fairly. The leader you
> refer to, Allende, who was overthrown, was in the process of setting
> up what amounted to a socialist state that promised a fairer division
> of wealth amongst the people. Great if you're joe public, not so great
> for the rich and wealthy, and those who hold power.
Scratch my last post, this is a cracker.
As far as I am aware neither the CIA nor the President was elected by the people of Chile. Allende was. His socialist state was chosen by the Chilean people, presumably because US neo-imperialism wasn't really working for them anymore. Allende wasn't part of some dark Communist plot, he wasn't about to replay Stalin's purges, he wasn't a dictator: he won an election.
And this socialist state, which you have presumably deployed as a term of abuse, hoping that a small glint of Latin American independence will be tarred with the Soviet Union brush, was it really so terrible? Health care? The right to join a union? Land reform? A bit of nationalisation - though less than our own post-war governments did - was it all so bad? Did it require the CIA to back and encourage a bloody coup and years of purges, thousands of disapperaed?
"Great if you're Joe Public"? Wake up! You ARE Joe Public.
Whoa Nelly!
I'll read that after I'm done with the Bible.
I'll read that after I'm done with the Bible.
This is a one off, as I'm not letting Mr Light here think he's somehow driven me off;
Light wrote:
> Yes, it applies to the actions of US citizens too. Am I to understand
> that your view of due process is equal to "Someone in the US
> Govt. approved"? Incidentally, excellent use of semantics there;
> "to all but the dumb". A wonderful implication, and clearly
> designed to throw someone off the scent of your argument by winding
> them up.
At some point you, I and everyone else has to get off the fence and actually decide whose version of 'right' we believe. I believe in the decisions of those who are elected by the public, and not those who decide the way to get their objectives is to form a terrorist group that targets mainly civlians. I'm not saying you have sided with them, just that I believe the US is right to do such things as this. Winding you up ? I seriously do not expect anyone to get wound up by the use of the word "dumb", neither would I expect it to do anything else. It's a phrase, nothing more. Make of it what you wish.
> As to the difference; okay, if you can explain why those 6 men flying
> planes into a building is worse than a few CIA agents inciting revolt
> against a country's legitimate leader which led to that leader's
> murder, the murder of thousands, and a dictatorship that any fascist
> would be proud of then I'm all ears (I'm referring to Chile in case
> you're unaware of the US government's role in that little horror;
> co-incidentally, that happened on Sept 11th as well)
Firstly, 19 men were involved in the 9/11 hijackings, but I suppose by pointing that out that I'm trying to throw you off the "scent".... If the CIA is ordered to take actions against another country then it may do, because those actions are ultimately authorised by the President who was elected fairly. The leader you refer to, Allende, who was overthrown, was in the process of setting up what amounted to a socialist state that promised a fairer division of wealth amongst the people. Great if you're joe public, not so great for the rich and wealthy, and those who hold power. Opposition to his programme of reforms was strong from his initial entering of office, BEFORE US INTERVENTION. When the CIA probed in 1973 for ways of inspiring a coup Allende had already created the possibility himself by alienating many in power and the military. The CIA helped, but did not provide forces for actual fighting. Pinochet was a dictator, fair enough, but he was friendly to the NATO allies during the Cold War and during the Falklands conflict. What he did wasn't right, but nobody tried to stop him either, and the coup would still have happened a couple of years down the line anyway, the CIA mainly sped things along. Yes, America is guilty, but so are the other nations that stood by.
> Al-Quaida is indeed rejected by many of the governments in the arabic
> world (so called because it's people are of arabic decent; for
> example, Iran is not a part of the arabic world as it's people are of
> persian descent. Israel is not because it is predominantly Jewish. At
> least have the sense to check someone's definition before blundering
> in with a half thought through condemnation of it).
The arabic world was a term first used by the colonial powers who decided that all the people were arabs, so it was their "world". The term is a creation, a way of seperating the 'arabs' from us, making the arabs sound seperate and apart from the rest of the world. They aren't, this is one world. Arab nations maybe, but again it's overly simplifying.
>All of those
> governments did indeed condemn Sept 11. Are you saying that all of
> those governments are represenative of the people?
Depends who the "people" is ? In a way they are, because they remain in power despite their pro US actions and statements. However much they protest they need the US as much as the US needs them. No point having oil if there's no one to sell it to, and the US is the biggest consumer of oil. No government can ever represent all the people really, the best you can hope for is that a government who has a general interest in all it's citizens. I think you'd find only a small hardcore in those countries would actively celebrate the 9/11 attacks, and those that do celebrate them may not fully understand the scale of what happened. Are they doing so because of those killed, or because America was attacked ? There is an important difference between those two.
>Or would you like a
> brief rundown of the many, well supported and well funded, Islamic
> seperatist groups in
> Egypt, Saudi, Yemen etc?
No thanks, already know a fair few. Whilst you mention them, all the Islamic groups hold views inconsistent with true Islam, and as such are not truly Islamic, but splinter groups of the faith. In mainly Christian states there are a fair few groups who take the Christian faith and use it to justify actions, or commit actions inconsistent with the tenants of their faith - such as the Catholic Priest in America accused of child abuse - yet no one in the media suggests that all Christians are child abusing scum, do they ? Yet terrorists who use their own versions of Islam get the "Islamic" moniker. If they're not following true Islam then it isn't Islam, they are not Islamic seperatists groups, they're just seperatist groups. And I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning them anyway, every nation on the earth has homegrown terrorists no matter what their history - In the UK we have Combat 18, IRA, PIRA, ULF, UVF, numerous Nazi/White supremacist groups, in the USA their is the whole survival cult, religous cults e.t.c. Yes, Middle East terrorist groups are well funded and supported, but that does not prove much in terms of their popularity as I think you are suggesting. Their benefactors, such as Saddam, are from oil rich nations and consequently have ample capital, therefore the terrorist groups do not have tons of support, just a minority rich supporting them. For the time being anyway.... Already terrorist bank funds are being cut off every day, assets frozen and seized, and financiers arrested.
>Or would you like to discuss how people
> celebrated on the streets of Cairo when Hussein bombed Israel in the
> Gulf War, despite the fact that Egypt was a part of the coalition to
> defeat him?
They weren't celebrating the fact Iraq did it, they were celebrating the fact it was Israel, and jews. Again, it's all very well to quote this as an example, but it really illustrates my point that there are those in terrorist groups in the Middle East who will not come to the negotiating table, and need to be dealt with. The fact is that this was a hollow and ignorant celebration; Israel was kept in check by America and without external pressuere Iraq's main population centres would have disappeared under mushroom clouds, fracturing the coalition and sparking a potential Middle East war.
>As to helping the US; not a single one of those country's
> has supported the coming war on Iraq. They have supported a UN led
> initiative that may lead to war (and, for the record, that's my view
> as well), but none of them have supported unilateral US action.
Oops. 15 - 0 UN security council vote today, including Syria. The resolition allows for action to be taken in the circumstances of Iraqi non compliance, or should I say Saddm's non-compliance ?
>Saudi
> (one of the US's staunchest allies in the middle east) has gone so far
> as to refuse permission to use the country as an airbase.
Wrong again. Saudi Arabia has refused permission for the bases to be used for offensive actions, but this does not mean no use at all. It will let the US and allies use the bases for defensive, support, CSR and surveillance operations.
>This applies
> even if the UN do support a war. Hardly the action of a nation that
> fully supports the US.
See above.
> More, I would say, the actions of a nation that
> is well aware that a huge number of it's people are opposed to a US
> presence in the country.
They were back in 1991, didn't see it stop F117's launching out of Saudia Arabia.... More likely the actions of a nation that knows it has several terrorist groups operating domestically and does not want to give them anything with which they can further inflame public opinion in certain areas. However, the actions of nations in public, and in private, are different. Saudi Arabia has to appear hesitant in public, but in private it is a different story. And by the way, you're analysis of it as "the actions of a nation that is well aware that a huge number of it's people" contradicts what you said earlier about such governments rarely representing the people anyway. Which is it ?
>Which is, in fact, one of Al-Quaida's main
> aims (removing the US presence from Saudi). Do you see?
Yes, but the aim isn't valid. Al Queda is an illegal organisation and as such they're aims are not recognised as valid. They want to remove anyone who doesn't share their twisted version of Islam, period. Given the opportunity they'd make the nazi's look like Kindergarten.
> Yeah, combatting terrorism is indeed the right thing. Care to discuss
> a list of US supported terrorist actions across the globe?
The US sopports, and suported, various factions in history and today, that share views similar to its own and have objectives that are pro American. Why do you not criticise Iraq, the Palestinians, Libya, Chechenya and so on ? They're doing the same, or are their fundings justified in your eyes ? Sure, criticise and take the moral high ground, but don't selectively choose your example, and leave out the rest.
>oes this
> mean that you support the right of a Central American country to plant
> a car bomb in a CIA operative's car if it only kills him? I'm not
> arguing that combatting terrorism is a bad thing. I'm saying that the
> US (indeed, every nation on earth) is being hypocritical in the
> extreme when they say that that is what the coming war is about.
I support the right of America and the UK to take actions they believe are in the interest of national security. You can argue and get examples for every nation you want, but it comes down to what I have said before. Get off the fence.
> Why not? Because you don't agree with their justification? Neither do
> I. But neither do I agree with the simplistic view that "If a
> government do it, it's okay". For example, was it alright that
> the US government launched cruise missile's at a supposedly legitimate
> target in the Sudan? Al-Quaida's attack on the US embassy there killed
> many hundreds of innocents. As did the US government sanctioned cruise
> missile attack. What, apart from who ordered it, is the difference?
Legitimate target ? You believe that rubbish about it being a kids medicine factory ? Come on ! That excuse was designed to appeal to people like you in the first place. It was right, and those who worked in that factory were not innocent - they manufactured illegal explosives for use by terrorist groups. Later investigations matched trace elements of exlplosives to the Embassy bombings. Case proven. If nations, and terrorists, wish to carry out acts against world powers, then they had better be prepared to take what follows as well. By your reasoning terrorists can strike repeatedly, yet the US and others should not strike back, kill, bomb, but negotiate.
> "Civilised nations...catch them legally". So...Carlos the
> Jackel should be released then? Or was his kidnap from Africa by
> French paratroopers a "legal deportation" in your mind?
Yes, Carlos had committed terrorist actions against France, and Africa showed unwillingness to co operate with extradition. France knew where he was, and had the will to get him. I do not mourn the capture of a man like this. The fact is, France could have just sent in a special forces unit and killed him outright. They didn't, they captured him alive.
>r
> would this be an example of the end justifying the means?
> You then go on to say "not a bullet through the windscreen".
> But you're arguing that the assassination of 6 men by the US is
> legitimate. So is a bomb alright then? It's a nice point you've made,
> but it effectively weakens your overall argument that the US did the
> right thing. By the standards you've just applied, the US is not a
> civilised nation.
The US is civilised because it does not always kill. Those men killed others, and would have killed again. America found them, could not extract them safely, so killed them. Those men were terrorists, they knew the risks, they died. Again, you have double standards, terrorists can kill, maim and do what they wish, yet in fighting back the targeted nations cannot do anything.
>
> Oh, and the too many cold war books thing; again, a lovely attempt to
> try and rile in order to distract attention from the poorly
> constructed argument. But, seeing as you were good enough to at least
> try and address the point, I'll return the favour. Who do you think
> collates the intelligence gathered? Who do you think gets it back to
> the home nation? Oh, that's right; the embassy staff.
Oh that's WRONG. Langley collates the information using proper analysts who are trained and have high academic backgrounds. Langley holds the sum of all gathered intelligence, not just pieces, which is all embassy staff get, pieces of the puzzle. During the Cold War things were easy; Russia was the enemy and embassy staff could evaluate information more. Now, it's passed to Langley. Post 9/11 procedures emphasis the need to the CIA to get a more complete picture. The Embassy staff do not get it back home either, again is this the old Cold War image of diplomatic pouches and immunity ? It's transmitted by satellite using encryption routines that vary in strenght depending on the kind of information it is.
>If HUMINT (nice
> use of acronym to insinuate that you know more about this kind of
> thing) is indeed from the native population, then where is it going to
> go? Will they approach a random westener and just tell them?
I used the abbrieviation because its easier than typing Human Intelligence, kinda the point of abbrieviations, and I assumed you'd knowwhat it meant. Sorry if I offended you by thinking you were knowledgeable.....then again I suppose that sentence offends as well ? Most of the time sources are approached by intelligence agencies because something about them - background, political motivation, situation - means they could be of use. Promises of money, goods e.t.c. can appeal to those who have little yet can, because of who they are, access information intel people cannot. In Black Hawk Down the taxi guy positions his car to mark the target location, in the book you find his weakness was money. So in fact intel agencies carefully choose those who supply information, and don't accept it from anyone for obvious reasons.
> Oh, and one last point; "(American's) stand out a mile in the
> middle east" What, like John Walker Lindh?
Well he would have stood out from his fellow Al Queda and Taliban, so what is your point ?
> One could very easily say that "It's about
> stopping the US Government and those who support them because of
> what
> they have done, and what they will do if not stopped." Not that I
> entirely agree with that, but it's another viewpoint that is equally
> as valid as your own.
It's only seen that way if you wish to, and if you are more concerned with stopping a democratic nation who has no intention of using WMDS in offense against a terrorist organisation who has actively sought and tried to develop WMDS then I'd say that's onw warped viewpoint.
Finally, you have had great fun in dissecting my argument and trying to prove how supreme and logical your points of view are, however I don't agree, and in part it is because you, and all those who share the point of view did not address;
>Belldandy wrote:
>Can anyone of you please explain how we negotiate with that point of >view ? While you're there, explain to me why the US war in Afghanistan >was not justified despite the fact the Taliban had nearly four weeks >of negotiations with the US in which they simply had to hand over Bin >Laden and throw out AL Queda ?
>
>I keep asking these questions time and time again, on every topic like >this, and no one ever answers them.....strangely.
>
>Come on, everyone out there whose exasperated with my point of view on >this, give me an alternate solution to the aftermath of 9/11 that >forces the Taliban from power and kills/captures thousands of Al Queda >members and scatters them across the globe, as well as destroying >their supplies and removing all but Iraq's support for them.
>
>Go on, try.
>
>Whilst your there, tell me an alternative to missiling this car, that >removes these six from 'play' to prevent further attacks.
See, I still don't have an answer, do I.
No doubt Light, and others, will delight in again selectively picking parts to criticise, but they wont answer my questions, and that means I still won't be listening.
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Yes, it applies to the actions of US citizens too. Am I to understand
> that your view of due process is equal to "Someone in the US
> Govt. approved"? Incidentally, excellent use of semantics there;
> "to all but the dumb". A wonderful implication, and clearly
> designed to throw someone off the scent of your argument by winding
> them up.
At some point you, I and everyone else has to get off the fence and actually decide whose version of 'right' we believe. I believe in the decisions of those who are elected by the public, and not those who decide the way to get their objectives is to form a terrorist group that targets mainly civlians. I'm not saying you have sided with them, just that I believe the US is right to do such things as this. Winding you up ? I seriously do not expect anyone to get wound up by the use of the word "dumb", neither would I expect it to do anything else. It's a phrase, nothing more. Make of it what you wish.
> As to the difference; okay, if you can explain why those 6 men flying
> planes into a building is worse than a few CIA agents inciting revolt
> against a country's legitimate leader which led to that leader's
> murder, the murder of thousands, and a dictatorship that any fascist
> would be proud of then I'm all ears (I'm referring to Chile in case
> you're unaware of the US government's role in that little horror;
> co-incidentally, that happened on Sept 11th as well)
Firstly, 19 men were involved in the 9/11 hijackings, but I suppose by pointing that out that I'm trying to throw you off the "scent".... If the CIA is ordered to take actions against another country then it may do, because those actions are ultimately authorised by the President who was elected fairly. The leader you refer to, Allende, who was overthrown, was in the process of setting up what amounted to a socialist state that promised a fairer division of wealth amongst the people. Great if you're joe public, not so great for the rich and wealthy, and those who hold power. Opposition to his programme of reforms was strong from his initial entering of office, BEFORE US INTERVENTION. When the CIA probed in 1973 for ways of inspiring a coup Allende had already created the possibility himself by alienating many in power and the military. The CIA helped, but did not provide forces for actual fighting. Pinochet was a dictator, fair enough, but he was friendly to the NATO allies during the Cold War and during the Falklands conflict. What he did wasn't right, but nobody tried to stop him either, and the coup would still have happened a couple of years down the line anyway, the CIA mainly sped things along. Yes, America is guilty, but so are the other nations that stood by.
> Al-Quaida is indeed rejected by many of the governments in the arabic
> world (so called because it's people are of arabic decent; for
> example, Iran is not a part of the arabic world as it's people are of
> persian descent. Israel is not because it is predominantly Jewish. At
> least have the sense to check someone's definition before blundering
> in with a half thought through condemnation of it).
The arabic world was a term first used by the colonial powers who decided that all the people were arabs, so it was their "world". The term is a creation, a way of seperating the 'arabs' from us, making the arabs sound seperate and apart from the rest of the world. They aren't, this is one world. Arab nations maybe, but again it's overly simplifying.
>All of those
> governments did indeed condemn Sept 11. Are you saying that all of
> those governments are represenative of the people?
Depends who the "people" is ? In a way they are, because they remain in power despite their pro US actions and statements. However much they protest they need the US as much as the US needs them. No point having oil if there's no one to sell it to, and the US is the biggest consumer of oil. No government can ever represent all the people really, the best you can hope for is that a government who has a general interest in all it's citizens. I think you'd find only a small hardcore in those countries would actively celebrate the 9/11 attacks, and those that do celebrate them may not fully understand the scale of what happened. Are they doing so because of those killed, or because America was attacked ? There is an important difference between those two.
>Or would you like a
> brief rundown of the many, well supported and well funded, Islamic
> seperatist groups in
> Egypt, Saudi, Yemen etc?
No thanks, already know a fair few. Whilst you mention them, all the Islamic groups hold views inconsistent with true Islam, and as such are not truly Islamic, but splinter groups of the faith. In mainly Christian states there are a fair few groups who take the Christian faith and use it to justify actions, or commit actions inconsistent with the tenants of their faith - such as the Catholic Priest in America accused of child abuse - yet no one in the media suggests that all Christians are child abusing scum, do they ? Yet terrorists who use their own versions of Islam get the "Islamic" moniker. If they're not following true Islam then it isn't Islam, they are not Islamic seperatists groups, they're just seperatist groups. And I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning them anyway, every nation on the earth has homegrown terrorists no matter what their history - In the UK we have Combat 18, IRA, PIRA, ULF, UVF, numerous Nazi/White supremacist groups, in the USA their is the whole survival cult, religous cults e.t.c. Yes, Middle East terrorist groups are well funded and supported, but that does not prove much in terms of their popularity as I think you are suggesting. Their benefactors, such as Saddam, are from oil rich nations and consequently have ample capital, therefore the terrorist groups do not have tons of support, just a minority rich supporting them. For the time being anyway.... Already terrorist bank funds are being cut off every day, assets frozen and seized, and financiers arrested.
>Or would you like to discuss how people
> celebrated on the streets of Cairo when Hussein bombed Israel in the
> Gulf War, despite the fact that Egypt was a part of the coalition to
> defeat him?
They weren't celebrating the fact Iraq did it, they were celebrating the fact it was Israel, and jews. Again, it's all very well to quote this as an example, but it really illustrates my point that there are those in terrorist groups in the Middle East who will not come to the negotiating table, and need to be dealt with. The fact is that this was a hollow and ignorant celebration; Israel was kept in check by America and without external pressuere Iraq's main population centres would have disappeared under mushroom clouds, fracturing the coalition and sparking a potential Middle East war.
>As to helping the US; not a single one of those country's
> has supported the coming war on Iraq. They have supported a UN led
> initiative that may lead to war (and, for the record, that's my view
> as well), but none of them have supported unilateral US action.
Oops. 15 - 0 UN security council vote today, including Syria. The resolition allows for action to be taken in the circumstances of Iraqi non compliance, or should I say Saddm's non-compliance ?
>Saudi
> (one of the US's staunchest allies in the middle east) has gone so far
> as to refuse permission to use the country as an airbase.
Wrong again. Saudi Arabia has refused permission for the bases to be used for offensive actions, but this does not mean no use at all. It will let the US and allies use the bases for defensive, support, CSR and surveillance operations.
>This applies
> even if the UN do support a war. Hardly the action of a nation that
> fully supports the US.
See above.
> More, I would say, the actions of a nation that
> is well aware that a huge number of it's people are opposed to a US
> presence in the country.
They were back in 1991, didn't see it stop F117's launching out of Saudia Arabia.... More likely the actions of a nation that knows it has several terrorist groups operating domestically and does not want to give them anything with which they can further inflame public opinion in certain areas. However, the actions of nations in public, and in private, are different. Saudi Arabia has to appear hesitant in public, but in private it is a different story. And by the way, you're analysis of it as "the actions of a nation that is well aware that a huge number of it's people" contradicts what you said earlier about such governments rarely representing the people anyway. Which is it ?
>Which is, in fact, one of Al-Quaida's main
> aims (removing the US presence from Saudi). Do you see?
Yes, but the aim isn't valid. Al Queda is an illegal organisation and as such they're aims are not recognised as valid. They want to remove anyone who doesn't share their twisted version of Islam, period. Given the opportunity they'd make the nazi's look like Kindergarten.
> Yeah, combatting terrorism is indeed the right thing. Care to discuss
> a list of US supported terrorist actions across the globe?
The US sopports, and suported, various factions in history and today, that share views similar to its own and have objectives that are pro American. Why do you not criticise Iraq, the Palestinians, Libya, Chechenya and so on ? They're doing the same, or are their fundings justified in your eyes ? Sure, criticise and take the moral high ground, but don't selectively choose your example, and leave out the rest.
>oes this
> mean that you support the right of a Central American country to plant
> a car bomb in a CIA operative's car if it only kills him? I'm not
> arguing that combatting terrorism is a bad thing. I'm saying that the
> US (indeed, every nation on earth) is being hypocritical in the
> extreme when they say that that is what the coming war is about.
I support the right of America and the UK to take actions they believe are in the interest of national security. You can argue and get examples for every nation you want, but it comes down to what I have said before. Get off the fence.
> Why not? Because you don't agree with their justification? Neither do
> I. But neither do I agree with the simplistic view that "If a
> government do it, it's okay". For example, was it alright that
> the US government launched cruise missile's at a supposedly legitimate
> target in the Sudan? Al-Quaida's attack on the US embassy there killed
> many hundreds of innocents. As did the US government sanctioned cruise
> missile attack. What, apart from who ordered it, is the difference?
Legitimate target ? You believe that rubbish about it being a kids medicine factory ? Come on ! That excuse was designed to appeal to people like you in the first place. It was right, and those who worked in that factory were not innocent - they manufactured illegal explosives for use by terrorist groups. Later investigations matched trace elements of exlplosives to the Embassy bombings. Case proven. If nations, and terrorists, wish to carry out acts against world powers, then they had better be prepared to take what follows as well. By your reasoning terrorists can strike repeatedly, yet the US and others should not strike back, kill, bomb, but negotiate.
> "Civilised nations...catch them legally". So...Carlos the
> Jackel should be released then? Or was his kidnap from Africa by
> French paratroopers a "legal deportation" in your mind?
Yes, Carlos had committed terrorist actions against France, and Africa showed unwillingness to co operate with extradition. France knew where he was, and had the will to get him. I do not mourn the capture of a man like this. The fact is, France could have just sent in a special forces unit and killed him outright. They didn't, they captured him alive.
>r
> would this be an example of the end justifying the means?
> You then go on to say "not a bullet through the windscreen".
> But you're arguing that the assassination of 6 men by the US is
> legitimate. So is a bomb alright then? It's a nice point you've made,
> but it effectively weakens your overall argument that the US did the
> right thing. By the standards you've just applied, the US is not a
> civilised nation.
The US is civilised because it does not always kill. Those men killed others, and would have killed again. America found them, could not extract them safely, so killed them. Those men were terrorists, they knew the risks, they died. Again, you have double standards, terrorists can kill, maim and do what they wish, yet in fighting back the targeted nations cannot do anything.
>
> Oh, and the too many cold war books thing; again, a lovely attempt to
> try and rile in order to distract attention from the poorly
> constructed argument. But, seeing as you were good enough to at least
> try and address the point, I'll return the favour. Who do you think
> collates the intelligence gathered? Who do you think gets it back to
> the home nation? Oh, that's right; the embassy staff.
Oh that's WRONG. Langley collates the information using proper analysts who are trained and have high academic backgrounds. Langley holds the sum of all gathered intelligence, not just pieces, which is all embassy staff get, pieces of the puzzle. During the Cold War things were easy; Russia was the enemy and embassy staff could evaluate information more. Now, it's passed to Langley. Post 9/11 procedures emphasis the need to the CIA to get a more complete picture. The Embassy staff do not get it back home either, again is this the old Cold War image of diplomatic pouches and immunity ? It's transmitted by satellite using encryption routines that vary in strenght depending on the kind of information it is.
>If HUMINT (nice
> use of acronym to insinuate that you know more about this kind of
> thing) is indeed from the native population, then where is it going to
> go? Will they approach a random westener and just tell them?
I used the abbrieviation because its easier than typing Human Intelligence, kinda the point of abbrieviations, and I assumed you'd knowwhat it meant. Sorry if I offended you by thinking you were knowledgeable.....then again I suppose that sentence offends as well ? Most of the time sources are approached by intelligence agencies because something about them - background, political motivation, situation - means they could be of use. Promises of money, goods e.t.c. can appeal to those who have little yet can, because of who they are, access information intel people cannot. In Black Hawk Down the taxi guy positions his car to mark the target location, in the book you find his weakness was money. So in fact intel agencies carefully choose those who supply information, and don't accept it from anyone for obvious reasons.
> Oh, and one last point; "(American's) stand out a mile in the
> middle east" What, like John Walker Lindh?
Well he would have stood out from his fellow Al Queda and Taliban, so what is your point ?
> One could very easily say that "It's about
> stopping the US Government and those who support them because of
> what
> they have done, and what they will do if not stopped." Not that I
> entirely agree with that, but it's another viewpoint that is equally
> as valid as your own.
It's only seen that way if you wish to, and if you are more concerned with stopping a democratic nation who has no intention of using WMDS in offense against a terrorist organisation who has actively sought and tried to develop WMDS then I'd say that's onw warped viewpoint.
Finally, you have had great fun in dissecting my argument and trying to prove how supreme and logical your points of view are, however I don't agree, and in part it is because you, and all those who share the point of view did not address;
>Belldandy wrote:
>Can anyone of you please explain how we negotiate with that point of >view ? While you're there, explain to me why the US war in Afghanistan >was not justified despite the fact the Taliban had nearly four weeks >of negotiations with the US in which they simply had to hand over Bin >Laden and throw out AL Queda ?
>
>I keep asking these questions time and time again, on every topic like >this, and no one ever answers them.....strangely.
>
>Come on, everyone out there whose exasperated with my point of view on >this, give me an alternate solution to the aftermath of 9/11 that >forces the Taliban from power and kills/captures thousands of Al Queda >members and scatters them across the globe, as well as destroying >their supplies and removing all but Iraq's support for them.
>
>Go on, try.
>
>Whilst your there, tell me an alternative to missiling this car, that >removes these six from 'play' to prevent further attacks.
See, I still don't have an answer, do I.
No doubt Light, and others, will delight in again selectively picking parts to criticise, but they wont answer my questions, and that means I still won't be listening.
~~Belldandy~~
Dr Duck wrote:
> UK, i'm not sure you've grasped my point. Given that i wasn't clear on
> it meyself, if you haven't it's most likely my fault :^)
>
> To (try to) clarify:
>
> I'm not comparing Goatboy's political posts to Belldandy's.
>
> I'm comparing
> Goatboy's condemnation of Belldandy for his unwillingness to accept
> peoples' different opinions
> to
> Belldandy's condemnation of people disagreeing with his politics.
I don't object to Belldandy - or anyone else - having strong opinions; but I did take exception to his 100% moral certainty that he (or more accurately George Bush) was right, and that any criticism was tantamount to supporting terrorists.
I'm happy to admit that I don't know what I would have done about Afghanistan after 9/11 because it was a country where the Taleban government and Al Queda's (still not sure how to spell that :)) terrorism were inseperable. All I know is this:
*We killed innocent AND guilty people with the ostensible aim of stopping terrorism
*The innocent people had no say in being made a sacrifice for our war
*We fought at arms length and by proxy, so we were only willing to lay Afghan lives on the line not our own
*None of the politicians who made these momentous decisions would have been prepared to sleep in downtown Kabul
I don't have an alternative solution to offer, but I know that what we did doesn't sit right with me. Belldandy couldn't accept that, nor the fact that I was against the war on Iraq on moral grounds. There are arguments for war (they don't convince me but I understand the logic behind them) but Belldandy wasn't debating as such, he was stating the gospel truth - something none of us has access to.
> UK, i'm not sure you've grasped my point. Given that i wasn't clear on
> it meyself, if you haven't it's most likely my fault :^)
>
> To (try to) clarify:
>
> I'm not comparing Goatboy's political posts to Belldandy's.
>
> I'm comparing
> Goatboy's condemnation of Belldandy for his unwillingness to accept
> peoples' different opinions
> to
> Belldandy's condemnation of people disagreeing with his politics.
I don't object to Belldandy - or anyone else - having strong opinions; but I did take exception to his 100% moral certainty that he (or more accurately George Bush) was right, and that any criticism was tantamount to supporting terrorists.
I'm happy to admit that I don't know what I would have done about Afghanistan after 9/11 because it was a country where the Taleban government and Al Queda's (still not sure how to spell that :)) terrorism were inseperable. All I know is this:
*We killed innocent AND guilty people with the ostensible aim of stopping terrorism
*The innocent people had no say in being made a sacrifice for our war
*We fought at arms length and by proxy, so we were only willing to lay Afghan lives on the line not our own
*None of the politicians who made these momentous decisions would have been prepared to sleep in downtown Kabul
I don't have an alternative solution to offer, but I know that what we did doesn't sit right with me. Belldandy couldn't accept that, nor the fact that I was against the war on Iraq on moral grounds. There are arguments for war (they don't convince me but I understand the logic behind them) but Belldandy wasn't debating as such, he was stating the gospel truth - something none of us has access to.
I see your point, but it doesn't compare in my opinion.
Getting annoyed and saying "You have to listen to other people" isn't the same as getting annoyed and saying "You have to believe what I'm saying"
One is an infuriated plea to not be so blinkered and consider the fact that you may not be correct and the other is an infuriated demand that everyone pays attention to your words and accept them as gospel.
I may have grasped the wrong of this completely though,I've got a pounder of a headache and this rain is making my head full of noise.
To be honest, I dont care anymore.
I've said throughout this thread "I dont know the answer here, I wish I did, it frustrates me".
All I do know is that someone standing on a soapbox shouting down anyone that tries to say "hang on a moment, maybe you're not 100% correct?" isn't quite the same as someone standing on a soapbox saying "You have to consider the possibility that others may feel differently and are equally justified"
Ah who cares, Vice City calls meh
Getting annoyed and saying "You have to listen to other people" isn't the same as getting annoyed and saying "You have to believe what I'm saying"
One is an infuriated plea to not be so blinkered and consider the fact that you may not be correct and the other is an infuriated demand that everyone pays attention to your words and accept them as gospel.
I may have grasped the wrong of this completely though,I've got a pounder of a headache and this rain is making my head full of noise.
To be honest, I dont care anymore.
I've said throughout this thread "I dont know the answer here, I wish I did, it frustrates me".
All I do know is that someone standing on a soapbox shouting down anyone that tries to say "hang on a moment, maybe you're not 100% correct?" isn't quite the same as someone standing on a soapbox saying "You have to consider the possibility that others may feel differently and are equally justified"
Ah who cares, Vice City calls meh
UK, i'm not sure you've grasped my point. Given that i wasn't clear on it meyself, if you haven't it's most likely my fault :^)
To (try to) clarify:
I'm not comparing Goatboy's political posts to Belldandy's.
I'm comparing
Goatboy's condemnation of Belldandy for his unwillingness to accept peoples' different opinions
to
Belldandy's condemnation of people disagreeing with his politics.
And while we may agree completely with Goatboy's reasoning and see no scope for it to be wrong, equally Belldandy has the same strngth of belief in his political view.
If Belldandy can be wrong despite this conviction, maybe we can be too.
Hope that's clearer.
To (try to) clarify:
I'm not comparing Goatboy's political posts to Belldandy's.
I'm comparing
Goatboy's condemnation of Belldandy for his unwillingness to accept peoples' different opinions
to
Belldandy's condemnation of people disagreeing with his politics.
And while we may agree completely with Goatboy's reasoning and see no scope for it to be wrong, equally Belldandy has the same strngth of belief in his political view.
If Belldandy can be wrong despite this conviction, maybe we can be too.
Hope that's clearer.
For me, Belldandy was the only person in my (brief) time here whom I got the impression would never, ever admit to any change in his initially posted opinion. I don't get the feeling I'm talking to a brick wall with any of the other posters here. I expect to have disagreements with people who post here, and maybe the arguments will rage and burn. But at the end of it, I would expect it to have been a two way exchange of information. Belldandy's tone indicates he only cares about what others say in terms of how he can insult them.
Maybe I would find Goatboy as aggravating and obstinate as Belldandy if I didn't broadly agree with his political views. But I doubt it. At least when arguing Goatboy (and forum wunderkind Light) address the issues at hand, and counter the ACTUAL opinions of those they disagree with. Belldandy doesn't. S/he swerves around the issues, dithers about with semantics and flings mud.
I distinctly remember posting something about CIA involvement in funding and supporting Islamic fundamentalism. Not blaming them for 9/11, or justifying terrorism: just pointing out some facts. Belldandy's response was that the mujahedeen were a tribe, not a modern invention, and therefore my entire post was wrong and worthless. The fact that mujahedeen is Arabic for holy warriors (ie, not a tribe at all) seemed to mean very little.
Similarly when I had the temerity to suggest that the Palestinians deserved some small measure of justice, I was accused of conspiring to drive Israel into the sea. When I quoted an Amnesty report on human rights abuses I was told that after suicide bombings they stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the terrorists - despite the fact that the report criticised both Israel and Palestine extensively.
To be honest, I got sucked in by Belldandy's trolling more often than I should have. It never really bothered me, because - although I don't know much - I know enough to counter the regurgitated rantings of Bush et al. What DID bother me was this: most people on this forum are quite young and are either too busy or sensible to read long dull political books; if they dared to post a political opinion Belldandy ranted and raved and tried to blind them with acronyms. Just bullying really.
I distinctly remember posting something about CIA involvement in funding and supporting Islamic fundamentalism. Not blaming them for 9/11, or justifying terrorism: just pointing out some facts. Belldandy's response was that the mujahedeen were a tribe, not a modern invention, and therefore my entire post was wrong and worthless. The fact that mujahedeen is Arabic for holy warriors (ie, not a tribe at all) seemed to mean very little.
Similarly when I had the temerity to suggest that the Palestinians deserved some small measure of justice, I was accused of conspiring to drive Israel into the sea. When I quoted an Amnesty report on human rights abuses I was told that after suicide bombings they stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the terrorists - despite the fact that the report criticised both Israel and Palestine extensively.
To be honest, I got sucked in by Belldandy's trolling more often than I should have. It never really bothered me, because - although I don't know much - I know enough to counter the regurgitated rantings of Bush et al. What DID bother me was this: most people on this forum are quite young and are either too busy or sensible to read long dull political books; if they dared to post a political opinion Belldandy ranted and raved and tried to blind them with acronyms. Just bullying really.
Glad it's not just me then :^)
Oh absolutely.
I think what I attempt to do is try and explain why I feel the way I do about a subject, not tell others how they should feel.
I'm confused now.
I think what I attempt to do is try and explain why I feel the way I do about a subject, not tell others how they should feel.
I'm confused now.
Page: