Just trying to shake the hornet's nest here...

1) Osama wants the world to become one big fundy Muslim state. The only way he can be appeased is by giving him that state. Israel and the US doing "bad stuff" is just an excuse used to gain popular support.

2) Osama is not a political dissident. He is an enemy, trying to destroy civilization as we know (and like) it. Political dissent is one thing, terrorism is quite another.

3) I don't give a rat's arse how desperate anyone is; terrorism (as in: blowing up innocent civilians, on purpose) is wrong, period. If it's the only way you can fight, then DON'T FIGHT. Take a look at non-violent solutions, like Gandhi did, for example. Terrorism is just taking the easy (and evil) way out.

Well said Dragonlich. Those who would say otherwise and try to humanize and legitimize terrorists are no better in my eyes, as well as being equally dangerous.

exactly. I feel the same way about bush's invasion of iraq.

I'm glad we're on the same side for once. :) :)

Funny how you can twist my words to suit your argument, even though it's perfectly obvious I didn't even come close to saying that.

Or are you suggesting the US military deliberately blew up innocent civilians?

Crusades, the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.

{sigh} Only if they had done it right then. :p

JBX, you forgot to mention that the crusades were a direct response to the Muslim invasion of Europe...

...which is often ignored by people accusing Christianity/the west of being evil/having been evil.

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

Sorry to burst into your masturbation circle, you two, but justifying the crusades? :crazy:

Yes.

Also, note that the USA had reasonable non-violent (or at least less violent) solutions available in Iraq that were supported by the rest of the free world.

I'm glad to hear you support non-violent options during wartime.

It won't be just the United States that would vote against something like that. Russia would vote against making terrorists combatants because of their situation with Chechnya. Great Britain would vote against it because, well let's face reality, we tell the Brits what to do (I say that tongue-in-cheek because our policies are very similar, very rarely do we differ). France, I'm not sure about because I don't read too much of their policies. China, who knows, they can be a wild card sometimes. Trust me, it wouldn't be just the United States voting against making terrorists combatants.

Yes, we are justifying the crusades...

What, you think it's okay for Muslims to invade Europe, and then think it's unreasonable for Europeans to kick them out again? *THEY* started it... And now they're bitching about us defeating them.

And Harmlessrabbit:
1) stop twisting my words around.
2) The US did NOT deliberately target civilians. Your suggestion that they did is rather insulting, actually.
3) The US did not have reasonable "solutions" to the problem of Saddam Hussein - or do you think the UN would have voted to remove him?
4) Of course I support non-violent options during wartime. That does not mean that I think countries should *always* refrain from violence, if the situation warrents it. However, *deliberate* attacks against innocent civilians are wrong.

<b>And Harmlessrabbit:
1) stop twisting my words around.</b>

Sorry, it's hard to me for follow you when you advocate non-violence in some cases and not in others. I just got confused.

<b>2) The US did NOT deliberately target civilians. Your suggestion that they did is rather insulting, actually. </b>

Your suggestion that they didn't is rather amusing. Quiz: The military has an approval process for approval of bombing raids in Iraq when there is a chance that civilans might be killed. How many requests for approval using this process were denied approval?

<b> 3) The US did not have reasonable "solutions" to the problem of Saddam Hussein - or do you think the UN would have voted to remove him?</b>

yes, I think the UN would have removed him with much less death, destruction, and cost to the Iraqi people.

<b> 4) Of course I support non-violent options during wartime. That does not mean that I think countries should *always* refrain from violence, if the situation warrents it. However, *deliberate* attacks against innocent civilians are wrong.</b>

I agree.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam and his Baathist paramilitary group, place civilians in positions where they knew the U.S. was going to bomb, so as to stack the stats and make us look bad. So later on, if Saddam is alive he can say "Look! The U.S. kills civilians *aside to one of his advisors* pretty smart putting them there with armed guards to make sure they don't leave and survive." Bush isn't being totalitarian, we've had worse people than Ashcroft and Bush out there (McCarthy, HUAC, a whole nation paranoid of red haired people who might be communists) and we've made it through before. I didn't agree with Bush moving so fast, I thought that was a mistake, we probably should have waited until late September for better weather conditions, and more than likely, more international support. I want peace, but I don't want it at any cost, I'd like to have a backup plan incase some insane person decides to attack us again so that the options that are brought before the POTUS aren't just negotiations.

Sorry archer but McCarthy was removed pretty much because he fucked up by targetting the army, Eisenhower and what not had enough, plain and simple.

Bush doesn't have the ability to remove Ashcroft or whatever else just becuase he set em up there and he's willing to listen to them. Unless Ashcroft does something totally wild that the entire country is in an uproar about, it won't happen because people are buying into the shit. Its that simple.

And Dragonlich... you're trying to justify actions of centuries ago?

Come on, are you really that desperate sire? Putting the blame on anyone is just a waste of time.

"Oh no they attacked us so we must attack them back and butcher them 10x worse!!!"

see what happens in the world when it occurs? And in the end, the crusades failed. Sure they attacked Europe first, but guess what, they lost, we tried to take their land back, and in the end still lost.

What most people hate to acknowledge though is that the treatment the Crusaders gave to others compared to what the Muslims did at that time is very very different (well it partially depends on who was in charge for isntance Saladin..)


And in the end i think a point to all this though is that Bush was being just plain stupid in his word choice - "crusade" in other words he hints at a holy war or as many muslim extremists say, jihad

Wow look who is being the hypocrite there? "We'll stop your little jihad with our own"

Just a friendly note to say I'm watching...:D

/me waves at lebell

:)

There is a vast difference between targeting civilians, and bombing legitimate military targets that happen to be near civilians.


Again, when did US commanders sit down and decide to attack a bunch of civilians?

Why would you expend costly ordinance on a target that would gain you nothing by it's destruction, and hurt the standing of your country, and the prestige of your organisation.
Really?

So he would have just stepped down? Or would the UN forces bullets and bombs magically caused less "death, destruction, and cost" than US/British bullets and bombs? :rolleyes:

McCarthy was worse than Ashcroft will ever be. Bush does have the ability to remove Ashcroft from the seat of Attorney General. The question is, will he do it? Probably not. I was just pointing out the fact that we have major swings in government going from left, right, to the middle, and back again, and we're still here aren't we? My point is that we won't become totalitarian, despite what many may be crying wolf about. And debaser, wow, you and I agree, man is that ever a first.

:D

i really fear for the rule of law...this has been a carefully created idea, that has grown over the years...and the whole point is to create a society that cannot be torn apart by the fiat of a few individuals.

That said...i don't think it's fair sport to compare terrorism with totalitarianism. Bush is making some totalitarian moves, but it is only his abuse of the English language that links such a concept to terrorism. They are two distinct evils.

Injustice in Guantanomo
 

Bush says that those locked in Camp X-Ray are terrorists, "the worst of the worst". If this is the case why can't he simply prosecute them under US or international law. My government in Australia says that the two Aussies there, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, cannot be brought home because we cannot prosecute them in Australia and they would simply be set free. This is complete crap. If they have violated international law, then we can prosecute them in the supreme court. If they haven't violated international law or Australian law, or even Afghani law, then what right do the Amercian armed forces have to pick them up in Afghanistan and try them in an illegal court that even the general in charge of says won't grant fair and unbiased trials. The British have managed to convince Bush to release their nationals, and most of these are now free in the UK. Why can't Howard do the same here, or is he truly Bush's lapdog? :confused:

Agreed......and thus I continue to lurk

Examples of US targeting civilians

Hiroshima
Nagisaki
Dresden

We will gladly kill lots of civilians if it suits our purpose. Don't doubt this for a second.

here are some pictures of those terrorists were killing

**WARNING GRAPHIC PICTURE WARNING**

Terrorists

It violates human rights.

How so?

At any rate, I could honestly careless. The US hasn't kept everyone who has come in there, many have been released. As for the rest, they can rot in a cell for the rest of their natural lives.

article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

you can argue that they are not POWs, but then they are normal criminals and should be put on trial. detention them for years without charge is illegal and a shame for the so called "leader of the free world"

so your in favor of a lifelong sentence without a trial?

The USA only cares for human rights or the Geneva Convention when they want to. ..

Wow this is a bit of an old thread.

I want to address the issue of the guys rotting in Gitmo. Basically, they are damn lucky they aren't dead already. Military justice states that any armed combatant in disguise or out of uniform can be considered spies and aren't granted the rights a POW recieves. They can be tried by a military tribune and executed. The Administration won't give it a green light though, because they know there would be a massive uproar about it. The basic idea is don't wear a uniform and fight, then fight to the death. If you get captured, you're basically fucked.

A side note about the crusades. The first crusade started because the Byzintine emperor went to the pope and asked him to help fight off the Muslims, mainly the Turks. The pope saw a chance for Christians to reclaim the "holy" land, or Antioch, Tripoli, Edessa, and Palestine, nowadays know as Israel, Lebanon, the western coast of Syria and a little bit of Turkey. So the crusaders gathered up and headed out in a few different bands, the plan was to meet in Constantinople and go from there. Peter the Hermit roused what was basically a peasant crusade containing some 20,000 people, and his was the first to cross in to Turkey, without waiting for the real crusaders. Well, they encountered a Turkish army, and some 17 to 18 thousand of them were slaughtered. Most of the rest, young boys and girls, were sold into slavery, with a few escaping, including Peter the Hermit. Don't feel sorry about that lot, however. They generally acted like a bunch of thugs and dicks, and basically got what was coming to them. Anyway, when the real crusaders arrived and heard about what happened, they were a bit upset. Now the whole thing is off to a bad start and the crusaders have some scores to settle, bloody vengence being a quite expected thing during the early medieval period. So they took Antioch first, which was in Turkish territory. They proceeded to kill every Turk in the city. Edessa was taken without a fight, but later had to survive a series of attacks by the Turks. Jerusalem was taken after roughly a month long seige, even though the crusaders were vastly outnumbered by the city's defenders. Before the crusaders arrived, all Christians had been expelled from the city, only Jews and Muslims remained. Well, the crusaders killed them all, but for a couple of the Muslim leaders. Tripoli held out for 6 years before surrendering, and there was no slaughter once they gave in.

Well, that was rather long winded and just a bit off topic, wasn't it. My basic point is that in that time period, brutality was the rule, not the exception. Neither side was in the right, and each did horrible things. After one took prisoners or a city, it was normally an all or nothing affair. Either you killed everyone or no one. However, the past is the past, and it is silly to point fingers and accuse one another for transgressions that occured almost a millenia ago. One might as well argue with the wind.

The Patriot Act was supported by both sides of the aisle. It is now being portrayed as Bush's Patriot Act by those who are willing to sacrifice security for absolute freedom. Absolute freedom has never existed and cannot in a civilized society. I am on the side who says, I have nothing to hide and am willing to trade some of the privacy rights of those who do for my increased security.

What, you're not going to list the cities Japan, Germany, Russia, and the UK bombed in WWII? It was just us doing that, right?

That war was 60 years ago, in a different era when strikes against civilians were more acceptable and widely practiced. It was the horrors of that war that keep civilized nations from doing that again.

Yes, we've killed civilians in combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every war since WWII. The difference is that they are not primary targets. We don't plan airstrikes that are designed to kill thousands of civilians in an attempt to demoralize our enemies. Terrorists still do that, though. I suppose I could dig up pictures of what's left of Israeli children and show you the "Zionist crusaders" or 9/11 victims, the "Great Satan".

Remember when we nuked/firebombed Tripoli and killed tens of thousands of civilians following Libya's funding and support of terrorists? Or Teheran after they took hostages? Or Beirut after the Marine barracks was destroyed? Oh right, we didn't. And that was under Reagan, who did far more to turn the US into a global power than Bush ever did or could.

Go ahead and believe that our President, my Commander in Chief, or our military leaders wake up every morning and wonder how many civilians they can kill by suppertime. I know it's "cool" to go against the government, and dissent for the sake of dissenting. If you want to take the stand that invading Iraq was wrong, I disagree but at least respect that point of view as the debate can easily be made. But trying to take the position that Bush and his cabinet are nothing more than wannabe dictators who wipe their asses with the Constitution is insane. We face a new threat from al-Qaida that requires new methods to defend ourselves against. A released Gitmo detainee has already stated his intent to rejoin the fight against the Russians in Chechnya. But I guess it's a good thing we let him go, right? Since now he can go blow up a school or bus or airplane full of Russian civilians to try to get those Russian imperialist dogs out of Chechnya, right? Because it's okay for TERRORISTS to kill civilians by the dozens. Besides, he's gotta be the only one who intends to return to his former life as a terrorist. The rest of the detainees who were released, I'm happy to report, have returned to their former countries and taken up gardening and crocheting.

-Mikey

I just can't wait for Kerry to get elected. With W out of the way, we'll never be attacked by terrorists as long as he's in charge. Just like when Clinton was President. Well, except for the USS Cole. And the barracks at Dhahran. And our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the first WTC attack.

Oh wait...

-Mikey

first, he never said that.
second, does it make it better if someone else did it too? why cant you admit that you did something wrong without pointing the finger at others?

No, you just make sure that there is a "shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. this could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease"
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassd...11rept_91.html

The "bombing of of all major dams, most major pumping stations and many sewage treatment plants so that Sewage flowed directly into the Tigris River, from which civilians drew drinking water" is of course much better then target them directly...

no, just about 60.

Exactly, and for all you who piss and moan there is no such status, do yourself a favor and read some of the post threads were this has came up
Rekna's: what's a terrorist? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ighlight=hague

Anywho, to pull up this old shit.

Ex Parte Quirin 1942:

What has he done to try and spread Islam to other parts of the world? I wasn't under the impression that "turn the USA Muslim" was part of his game plan.

This was a sniping thread then and I don't see that it has changed any.

Locked.