Burn in Hell Al Queda (Margaret Hassan murdered)

Christian_H

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Your point is?

Judging by the amount of anti-American, snap decisions on here, I wouldn't want to hand over my troops to foreign war courts who'd likely be biased against them either.

I think you have answered your previous question. My staments are not anti-american they just happen to side with anti-aggression and a no war world. It just so happens that right now the US is the most globaly active miltarized state.

Most short-sighted arguement in the history of boards. Of course some wars aren't right/legal but you can't dismiss all wars. There are examples of where war was fought for the greater good.

I love this, every time. When someone suggests WAR is wrong and bad there will always be someone else to argue against it. You must feel so enlivened by such clarity of mind. How does it feel to argue on the side of death, rape, inhuman butchering and torture. Opression of the weak. Killing of Women children, men.

Come how does it feel!

When you hand is forced to avoid death and assimilation through an illegal invasion perhpas war will ensue!

All Wars are started for gain/supremacy. Its not a walk in the park or some moralistic crusade ;-).....

Explain to me how Ireland is on that list?

Possibly because they have an embacy here with some military personnel. Aslo perhps of shannon. Either way 75% f the states in this world I believe have US military personnel, equipment bases etc.. be it 1 person or an entire base. Sounds like an empire to me...

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

DU is less of a risk in the environment than naturally occouring uranium in the ground.[/size]

You have a link for that? From what I read it is extremly toxic and outside of military use all owners have to return the material to the suppliers (they only lease it).

Where as DU shells are left scattered through Afganistan/Iraq.

... As for the UN. It was made to stop wars, not a place to canvas to start one. Generally even if you can show a country has wronged another (and assuming the US doesn't veto any action) the action tends to be more the along the lines of sanctions.

Forces are only normally sent in to stablize an area. Not to remove its current leaders.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

You have a link for that? From what I read it is extremly toxic and outside of military use all owners have to return the material to the suppliers (they only lease it).

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml

It's as toxic as any other heavy metal (fairly toxic), but the radiation exposure is negligable.

Nuttzz

Christian_H wrote:

Your point is?

Possibly because they have an embacy here with some military personnel. Aslo perhps of shannon. Either way 75% f the states in this world I believe have US military personnel, equipment bases etc.. be it 1 person or an entire base. Sounds like an empire to me...

WOW!!!!! So do the Irish Officers in Vienna attached to the OSCE or the officers attached to the WEU in Brussels consititute the growing Irish Empire in Europe :rolleyes: A couple of US Army officers sitting in an office in Ballsbridge hardly makes us an outpost of the US Empire now does it.....

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

It's as toxic as any other heavy metal (fairly toxic), but the radiation exposure is negligable.

I wasn't talking about how radioactive it was. I already know it is minally radioactive. I was talking about how dangerous to the environment it was.

In commerical applications there are strict measures put in place to stop contamination. This isn't apparent with DU shells.

Rock Climber

Christian_H wrote:

"No international or national law or policy legalizes these attacks on Afghanistan. No resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could provide a legal justification for these attacks and none do."

The above is a quote from a website you can find it here, http://www.canadianliberty.bc.ca/liberty-vs-security/gail-davidson-war-on-afghanistan.html.

Thats an opinion piece Christian,it's not a declaration of illegality,I asked where iit was declared illegal-It wasn't.

Osam Bin Laden, is not a Head of any state. Therefore by international law (which the IS would expected to be treated by)the war is illegal as no soverign state declared war or attacked america.

Again you are giving your opinion, on illegality and not fact.
Where was it declared illegal? and what actions did the body responsible for making such a declaration do after the war instead of declaring it illegal?
Answer: They went about arranging the conditions for some form of democracy and human rights to Afghanistan

We can give opinions so heres mine:
The Taliban were in breach of Un security council resolution 1373

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

Now could we go back on topic please or adjourn to the forums board pleading for the tin hat board

Memnoch

Christian_H wrote:

Your point is?

I love this, every time. When someone suggests WAR is wrong and bad there will always be someone else to argue against it. You must feel so enlivened by such clarity of mind. How does it feel to argue on the side of death, rape, inhuman butchering and torture. Opression of the weak. Killing of Women children, men.
.

hypocrites and self-centered ego maniacs are always happy to sacrifice others for their own beliefs. Its okay that people are being murdered, raped, tortured, as long as its not them or their families. In that case its always a "worthy sacrifice". Then when some terrorist comes and sacrifices their friends etc for their own cause they complain the loudest. Its the utter height of hypocrisy.

These are the same people that were cheering on when the US funded the taliban to fight the USSR. These are the same people that were cheering when the US put saddam in power to fight iran, and these are the same people who looked the other way when Saddam was murdering his own countrymen.

Today its the same people, who talk about those gassed kurds, as justification for this invasion and murder of countless more innocents. All in a good cause right? Yes, as long as its not their family or themselves that pay the price.

I despise people like that. They are worse than any terrorist.

I'm not religious, and don't believe in religion, but every day I hope and pray that I am wrong, that there is a god and that there is a heaven and a hell and an after life. Because I will gladly take my place in hell and wait for these hypocrites to join me.

Memnoch

Rock Climber wrote:

Thats an opinion piece Christian,it's not a declaration of illegality,I asked where iit was declared illegal-It wasn't.


Again you are giving your opinion, on illegality and not fact.
Where was it declared illegal? and what actions did the body responsible for making such a declaration do after the war instead of declaring it illegal?
Answer: They went about arranging the conditions for some form of democracy and human rights to Afghanistan

We can give opinions so heres mine:
The Taliban were in breach of Un security council resolution 1373


Now could we go back on topic please or adjourn to the forums board pleading for the tin hat board

rock climber, your arguement is based purely on semantics. Its obvious that what they have done is illegal. But they are the ones with power. I mean its really ignorant to ask the ones committing the crimes to declare themselves as criminals? Because thats what you are asking here.

By your standards... no war criminal/dictator /mass murderer should be considered to act illegally unless they declare themselves to be in contravention of the law. Which is a load of bollocks really.

sovtek

Christian_H wrote:

Kofi Anann has declared the War illegal. People who spend there lives interpreting international law have declared it illegal. the Dogs on the street feel its illegal... but

Yes but you have to admit that Kofi's saying something and an international court finding something illegal are two different things altogether.
You might believe it to be illegal but that doesn't change the fact that the UNSC put forward a resolution sanctioning it.
Not that I disagree that it was still the wrong thing to do, especially considering that the Taliban tried negotiating the turnover of Bin Laden just like any other civilized nation in the world is expected to do when they are requested to turn over someone accused of a crime. That Bush then said "we do not negotiate" lost them any moral backing for the invasion (IMHO anyway) as well as showing that their intentions were more than likely not to necessarily capture Bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda.

Here is a list of all the countires the US has a military presence in, troops, bases etc.

South Africa
Zimbabwe

I'm not aware of any military presence in either of these countries. Especially South Africa, which is where I'm living now.
Actually South Africa just lifted a ban on their defense contractors selling to America because of their history of support for the Apartheid era government.

Rock Climber

Memnoch wrote:

By your standards... no war criminal/dictator /mass murderer should be considered to act illegally unless they declare themselves to be in contravention of the law. Which is a load of bollocks really.

What you are saying is the UN is a load of bolloks, yet you would use it to declare the standard?

Memnoch

Rock Climber wrote:

What you are saying is the UN is a load of bolloks, yet you would use it to declare the standard?

no,
i'm saying that the UN security council is a load of bollocks

if we take the iraq war for example, we have the US and UK who are permenant members of the securty council with veto's

they are the criminals.

You want them to declare themselves in contravention of the law? You expect them to NOT veto anything that incriminates them?
Not to mention how they bribe and cajole the smaller countries that get to sit on the security council for a year.

THIS is their legitimacy, the legitimacy of POWER, aided by the REAL politik.

its really a load of bollocks, and purposeful ignorance to PRETEND that there is anyway these guys COULD be held accountable for their crimes.

Hell when someone tried to bring a case against general tommy franks in the belgium international criminal court. the us leaned on the belgium authorities to prevent it from happening.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

no,
Not to mention how they bribe and cajole the smaller countries that get to sit on the security council for a year.

Hey!
We sat on the unsc recently ...
We were probably bribed and cajoled too when we were on it,I suppose we were with maybe a 100,000 jobs here and countless downstream jobs stemming from U.S investment.
Thats the real politik for you in action.
You see the humming and hawing in Bertie over a few thousand votes up near the airport...
You can imagine how he feels( and the rest of them) about the jobs here from U.S companies...
Theres votes in it.
I guess thats democracy for you

Memnoch

yes it is isn't it? it goes down to the base selfish nature of most people. As long as they have something to gain from it they will look the other way, let someone else suffer and pay the price.

The irony is the complete and utter hypocrisy of a so many of people.

The same ones who condemn the terrorists and those who follow them.

How are we in the western/first world any different? When we follow the line of Bush and his chimps as they sluaghter countless innocents for their greed.

But its okay, its not our friends families being bombed into obvlivion by american warplanes.

ionapaul

So....

when are we getting that forum for the tin foil brigade? Only those registered and peer-certified could post. It would be amazingly entertaining. Can't you just think of the possibilities?
Sample threads:
"How Bush = Hitler reincarnated"
"OBL: Misunderstood Genius?"
"How to defeat the Great Satan while watching MTV and eating McDonalds"
"The Black Helicopters are circling my apartment! My hamster ratted to the CIA"
and
"Texas Gold: The Hidden Story of how the Bush family murdered the Beverly Hillbillies for their oil"

Ahh. Man that would rock.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

But its okay, its not our friends families being bombed into obvlivion by american warplanes.

Well you see thats life, memnoch, thats human nature for you.
You are never going to take selfishness away from human nature, it's the way we were made.
100,000 people marched the streets protesting at the Iraq war yet only 500 turned up for the patients together rally the other day...

I find that utterly amazing, we care rightly about what happens in a major war overseas but we've no get up and go when it come to protesting against a mess costing lives right on our own doorstep.

Christian_H

I find that utterly amazing, we care rightly about what happens in a major war overseas but we've no get up and go when it come to protesting against a mess costing lives right on our own doorstep.

This is a good point, says a lot about our day to day worries.

WAR however is the most brutal act we can inflict on each other and in that sense it will warrant a larger than usual response/outpouring of concern.

I'd say Bono and all who have campaigned for a debt free third world are rightly pissed off now since they just wipped billions of the Iraq national Debt. Obviously a pay off in there somewhere for the creditors.

Heres an interesting quote from eisenhowers farwell address to people of the US,

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Prophectic, clever whatever you want to call it the fact is that the oppositte has happened in an orwellian 1984 type scenario.

Its an interesting speech, worth a look,

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Memnoch

ionapaul wrote:

So....

when are we getting that forum for the tin foil brigade? Only those registered and peer-certified could post. It would be amazingly entertaining. Can't you just think of the possibilities?
Sample threads:
"How Bush = Hitler reincarnated"
"OBL: Misunderstood Genius?"
"How to defeat the Great Satan while watching MTV and eating McDonalds"
"The Black Helicopters are circling my apartment! My hamster ratted to the CIA"
and
"Texas Gold: The Hidden Story of how the Bush family murdered the Beverly Hillbillies for their oil"

Ahh. Man that would rock.

yes a constructive contribution to the debate.

if you have any real points to argue please feel free.... otherwise keep the veiled insults to your self, and shove that tin foil hat back up your own *** where it belongs... k thanks

mycroft

Earthman wrote:

Well you see thats life, memnoch, thats human nature for you.
You are never going to take selfishness away from human nature, it's the way we were made.
100,000 people marched the streets protesting at the Iraq war yet only 500 turned up for the patients together rally the other day...

I find that utterly amazing, we care rightly about what happens in a major war overseas but we've no get up and go when it come to protesting against a mess costing lives right on our own doorstep.

Yeah the flip side is that the mass protests in towns around Ireland at local hospitial closure. Tried googling but not remembering the name of the town or hosipital didn't help. But I believe a crowd of 20,000 + demostrated recently.

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

Well you see thats life, memnoch, thats human nature for you.
You are never going to take selfishness away from human nature, it's the way we were made.
100,000 people marched the streets protesting at the Iraq war yet only 500 turned up for the patients together rally the other day...

I find that utterly amazing, we care rightly about what happens in a major war overseas but we've no get up and go when it come to protesting against a mess costing lives right on our own doorstep.

oh i'm sure most people agree the irish health system is a shambles. That however is a far cry from the sanction pillaging, rape and murder of countless innocents.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

I wasn't talking about how radioactive it was. I already know it is minally radioactive.

Fair enough, but you didn't make that clear. I suspect the majority of people have problems with DU more because the word 'uranium' is in there rather than any other aspect.

Hobbes wrote:

I was talking about how dangerous to the environment it was.

Has war ever been environmentally friendly?

Hobbes wrote:

In commerical applications there are strict measures put in place to stop contamination. This isn't apparent with DU shells.

True enough, but then people could argue that measures which are deemed important or even necessary in civilian life often don't necessarly equate over to a wartime situation well.

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

True enough, but then people could argue that measures which are deemed important or even necessary in civilian life often don't necessarly equate over to a wartime situation well.

true, when one is condoning murder, harm to the environment is but a minor concern.

Moriarty

So tell me memnoch, when are you heading over to Iraq to assist the glorious resistance?

Soon, I do hope.

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

So tell me memnoch, when are you heading over to Iraq to assist the glorious resistance?

Soon, I do hope.

and I will accopmlish what by adding to the violence? other than to be branded as a terrorist and be uncerimoniously killed by the vastly overpowered US military?

No I think I'll try and talk sense into people's heads instead, and hope for a more fundamental change.

You see, your still thinking along the same lines as any agressor. You believe violence is the solution to everything.

I see the resistance in iraq as inevtiable, and the fact that they have been given no choice other than to submit. I will protest in my own way and help by educating as many people as I can about the issues. The real problem isn't just the american bombs, its the masses of ignorants who think that they achieve some good.

p.s. on the flip side, why don't you move over to the US and sign up for a tour of duty in iraq? i'm sure they won't mind.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Has war ever been environmentally friendly?

To a point yes, except WMD which are generally frowned apon (at least if your not the US using them).

True enough, but then people could argue that measures which are deemed important or even necessary in civilian life often don't necessarly equate over to a wartime situation well.

Isn't that what the geneva convention is for?

Moriarty

You could always take potshots at the marines at the embasy in ballsbridge, no doubt they've raped and pillaged some place recently enough.

It's intresting that I'm automatically an aggressor simply because I don't agree with you. This all sounds suspiciously like a 'with us or against us' mentality, from where I'm sitting. You also seem to be using up your quota of moral indignation at a ferocious pace, try pacing yourself lad. Your rhetoric of "I value life, but those pigdog rightists, militarists and fascist selfish hypocritical nutjobs enjoy shooting people in the head and then raping the dead body for kicks" grew tired within your first ten posts.

I also find your constant villification of the US military (note: I couldn't care less about the political abuse, that's different) tiring. There is the odd bad apple, like in any other organisation, but in general they are decent people who've been put into this situation and are trying to cope with it in the best way they can. They don't lust after shooting civilians and reducing hospitals to rubble, no matter how much you may imagine they do.

I don't believe violence is the answer to everything. Far from it. Read that line again just so that we're clear, please. Then read the following, bearing that first sentance in mind. Military action is a necessary part of the world we live in. Some people, organisations and governments will not respond to anything less than somone putting a gun to their head. I recognise this fully and have no problem with it due to the imperfect position we are in. I truely wish that it was different and everyone could value and respect everyone else's opinions and beliefs without causing harm to each other, but that's a fantasy for the next while. Until such a time, we have to be stronger and more forceful than anyone who would cause ourselves or others harm.

<edit: I've given serious thought to joining either the US or UK armed forces, but I suspect I probably won't due to 1) not liking the idea of possibly being ordered into a war I wouldn't agree with some time in the future and 2) (more practical) certain medical problems that would almost certainly preclude me from actual combat.>

Hobbes wrote:

To a point yes, except WMD which are generally frowned apon (at least if your not the US using them).

Well done hobbes, you got the 'US military use WMD' fiction into another thread. Give yourself a slap on the back.

Hobbes wrote:

Isn't that what the geneva convention is for?

Partially, but the conventions are rather antiquated and should be rewritten for the modern day imo. Would you be of the opinion that they are perfectally applicable in todays war zones?

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

and shove that tin foil hat back up your own *** where it belongs... k thanks

/me points meaningfully at the charter.

jc

mycroft

mycroft wrote:

Yeah the flip side is that the mass protests in towns around Ireland at local hospitial closure. Tried googling but not remembering the name of the town or hosipital didn't help. But I believe a crowd of 20,000 + demostrated recently.

Ennis I believe it was, theres a difference though mycroft between protesting the closure/downgrade of a hospital and protesting at the rank incompetence(in my view) that has the health service the way it is.
I'm sure theres patients waiting months for important procedures in Ennis too as there are probably loads of people on trolleys down there.

bonkey

Moriarty wrote:

Partially, but the conventions are rather antiquated and should be rewritten for the modern day imo. Would you be of the opinion that they are perfectally applicable in todays war zones?

Doesn't matter.

Until they are re-written, then they are as they are....and you are either abiding by them, or you are not.

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

You could always take potshots at the marines at the embasy in ballsbridge, no doubt they've raped and pillaged some place recently enough.

how philosophical. And again no thanks. I don't believe that violence accomplishes anything.

It's intresting that I'm automatically an aggressor simply because I don't agree with you. This all sounds suspiciously like a 'with us or against us' mentality, from where I'm sitting. You also seem to be using up your quota of moral indignation at a ferocious pace, try pacing yourself lad.

your the aggressor because you support aggression? Or has your support for the US led "liberation" suddenly waned?

Your rhetoric of "I value life, but those pigdog rightists, militarists and fascist selfish hypocritical nutjobs enjoy shooting people in the head and then raping the dead body for kicks" grew tired within your first ten posts.

I don't care about them being rightists. Tony blair isn't a rightist is he? I do care about innocent people being murdered however to further their greed and profit. And yes they are hypocritical. Your rhetoric about how its "tragic but necessary" is also as hypocritical.

I also find your constant villification of the US military (note: I couldn't care less about the political abuse, that's different) tiring. There is the odd bad apple, like in any other organisation, but in general they are decent people who've been put into this situation and are trying to cope with it in the best way they can. They don't lust after shooting civilians and reducing hospitals to rubble, no matter how much you may imagine they do.

i'm sure the same could be said of the nazi's? They were just doing their job right? Sorry thats not good enough. And I'm sure they don't do it for kicks. As for them being decent... I think Terry pratchet put it best when he said..

"there are no crazed excesses of the most deranged psychopath that can't be reproduced by a decent honest man with a family to feed and a job to do". Their decency unfortunately only extends to those they care about. Would be nice if it extended to those they were dropping bombs on. And to re-iterate. I don't imagine they enjoy it, or do it for kicks, but that isn't relevant.

Oh btw I'm sure you saw the video of US soldiers singing "We don't need no water let the mutherfukers burn.... burn mutherfuker... burn mutherfuker"

while they were attacking iraqi towns? I'm sure thats just pure professionalism though. (the clip was shown on F911 btw)

I don't believe violence is the answer to everything. Far from it. Read that line again just so that we're clear, please. Then read the following, bearing that first sentance in mind. Military action is a necessary part of the world we live in. Some people, organisations and governments will not respond to anything less than somone putting a gun to their head.

how magnanimous of you. And thats all fine and dandy as long as YOU are the one pointing the gun isn't it? I'm sure al queda say the exact same to the moderate muslims? Listen we are peace loving muslims, but these fascist westerners don't care about that, the only way to make them stop is by violence. So really you loose all moral ground when u start making claims like that. Even if I agree with you, how can you say that the US is the one justified by carrying out military action? Why should ANYONE trust them? If one were to look at their history, there is a long and exhaustive list of countries that they have supported corrupt regimes in, and taken part in oppression of the local populace. They have even tried to oust democratically elected regimes when it suits them. And as i've pointed out, they have shown a blatent disregard for civillian life.

An interesting current example is Pakistan. Its a muslim fundamentalist state, that has sponsered and trained fanatical terrorists for decades, currently run by a dictator who came to power by assassinating the democratically elected leader of the country. And it posses nuclear weapons. OMG wait a minute!?!?!?!? isn't the exactly the critera used to justify the invasion of iraq? WMDs... dictator... terrorism?

And this is america's greatest ally in the fight for freedom? GIVE ME A BREAK.

So EVEN IF WE take your point that military action may be necessary in some cases, that doesn't justify what the US is doing. And this is backed up by the completely callous disregard for iraqi lives that the US has clearly demonstrated.

I recognise this fully and have no problem with it due to the imperfect position we are in. I truely wish that it was different and everyone could value and respect everyone else's opinions and beliefs without causing harm to each other, but that's a fantasy for the next while. Until such a time, we have to be stronger and more forceful than anyone who would cause ourselves or others harm.

so then we should be stronger and more forceful against the US since they are causing others harm and have been doing it throughout the world for a good few decades now. But its much easier to villify the muslims isn't it? After all they are the terrorists. They use bombs to kill 3000 people, while the US have killed 30 times that many in iraq alone. but hey the US doesn't intentionally kill all these civillians, in fact its trying to liberate them. Unfortunately there will always be casualties.... i'm sure the innocents who died as a result are happy that the US are liberating them?

What if a family dies due to an american bomb and they were innocent? So its okay because it was an accident? Tell me if the US accidentally bombed some part of dublin in order to kill "terrorists" what reaction do you think there would be? What about the person whose family/loved ones are killed? Would they be then justified in wanting revenge? Would you want revenge if your family/loved ones were killed? Would you want justice? Where is the justice for the iraqis the US have murdered for their greed? Off course when these people fight back, they are terrorists. No, they have it all wrong. They should send flowers and letters of praise to george bush for killing their families. Yes that makes sense.

You're solution is no solution at all... its simply an endless circle of violence that will only cause more loss of life.

Partially, but the conventions are rather antiquated and should be rewritten for the modern day imo. Would you be of the opinion that they are perfectally applicable in todays war zones?

perhaps the conventions for war zones are antiquated and should be rewritten for the modern day? I guess in war its okay to suicide bomb new york then? When you start rewriting the rules to suit yourself, then don't complain when others do the same.


in the end the biggest problem with supporters of "forceful intervention and unilaterla regime change" is that they are completely blind to history and their own failed reality.

Saddam Hussain
The Taliban
and Al Queda
are ALL products of the very doctrine that the US continues to engage in to this day. Eventually their own dogs come back to bite them, but its always the innocent who pay the price.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.