Burn in Hell Al Queda (Margaret Hassan murdered)

Moriarty

bonkey wrote:

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.

True. Have they been proven to have circumvented or disobeyed the geneva conventions? Are the geneva conventions applicable/in force in Iraq? How exactly do the geneva conventions have people decide the above?

Memnoch wrote:

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

I don't think I've ever supported the invasion of Iraq on this board. Could you show me where I supported it?

Memnoch wrote:

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.

How is it hypocritical? Fair enough you obviously don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it hypocritical all on its own.

Memnoch wrote:

i'm sure the same could be said of the nazi's? They were just doing their job right?

Unless you can show me how it's in any way fair to compare the US military to the wehrmacht, I'll discard this as the Required Memnoch Vilifcation™ it appears to be.

Memnoch wrote:

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.

I saw it. I didn't see them doing anything wrong either. Or did I miss the part where they were raping and pillaging while I sneezed? Is it illegal to sing along to a song, Memnoch?

Memnoch wrote:

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.

It's all fine and dandy no matter who is pointing the gun. That's how the real world operates Memnoch. If you don't like that, there's always the option of making up some fantasy world where human life is universally valued and live there instead.

Memnoch wrote:

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?

The US isn't explicitly justified to be carrying out these military actions. They're able to carry them out because they're the most powerful country in the world. It isn't necessarly right or fair, but that doesn't change the reality of it. It's a happy coincedence that the most powerful country in the world is, by and large, a decent one.

Memnoch wrote:

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.

Pakistan was going to hell in a handbasket when Musharraf conducted the coup in 1999. The government of the time was in the process of turning the country into another islamic fundamentalist state while lining their own pockets all along the way. The general population knew that too and didn't like where it was going either. When they tried to assassinate Musharraf, he took power in a military coup. The nuclear program was begun under that elected government, not by Musharraf. Musharraf has since recieved a vote of confidence from parliament to stay in power until 2007. Infact, Musharraf appears to be just what the country needed when it was starting to slide. I'll reserve total judgement until I see how it plays out over there, but I remain hopeful that he'll continue to restore a true democracy in pakistan.

Memnoch wrote:

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.

Perhaps not, but my opinions and what the US actually does differs in many areas. By no means do I support every decision they've taken.

Memnoch wrote:

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.

If you want to be, work ahead. I was (almost) completely serious when I asked you earlier were you going out to Iraq to assist the "resistance".

Memnoch wrote:

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?

Ah, the race card. Nice one. If I support military intervention I'm obviously a racist too. Give me a break.

Memnoch wrote:

What if a family dies due to an american bomb and they were innocent? So its okay because it was an accident? 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?

If it actually was an accident and nothing more could have been reasonably done to prevent it then, yes, its ok. Unfortunate, a complete fùckup, whatever you want to call it.

I don't know if they'd be justified. Unless I was put in that situation I wouldn't honestly be able to answer any better. If I was put in that position, I'd hope that I'd be able to recognise that the army guy driving down the road in front of my house didn't come to this country to explicitly kill my family. There'd be no point in me killing others and just bringing misery to yet more families.

Memnoch wrote:

Where is the justice for the iraqis the US have murdered for their greed?

That's presuming they were killed for greed. You don't know that for certain any more than I do. They certainly wouldn't have been directly killed for greed, they would have been killed by mistake. The larger picture is irrelevant to the situation you or I would be faced with.

Memnoch wrote:

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.

I don't subscribe to the notion that they're all terrorists. I never have. Some, many, most are undoubtably just pissed off people for various reasons. There's nothing inherently wrong in them fighting back, I just shed no tears for anyone that willfully picks up a rifle to shoot somone and then gets killed for his troubles.

Memnoch wrote:

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

What, you mean like the past five hundred years? It's nothing new, nothing has really changed.

Memnoch wrote:

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.

That's not what I said or meant, but if that's what you want to believe I meant then work away.

Memnoch wrote:

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.

They're a product of an entire century of short sighted US policy. Direct military intervention has very little if anything to do with that.

jaysus, how did this reply get so long

chill

Memnoch wrote:

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

Well I do.. and history supports it.

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.

Sounds like you are the hypocrite. You appear to have been willing to allow Saddam stay in power for another decade and slaughter, rape and torture his people.

i'm sure the same could be said of the nazi's? They were just doing their job right? Sorry thats not good enough.

Your ignoring of the extermination camps and mass murder policy of the Nazis is symptomatic of your arguments.

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?

On the contrary he is on excellent moral ground. Your argument is patronising, ignores all the facts about the contrasting actions of both sides and adds up to little more than a one sided fantasy.

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.

A worthless argument as this can be applied to almost all countries at some point in their history. Your convenient ignoring of all of their monumental actions and sacrifice on behalf of freedom and the free world is unsurprising and leaves your contribution in tatters.

And as i've pointed out, they have shown a blatent disregard for civillian life.

They have not. They are not the ones blowing up people with car bombs, slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians and murdering unarmed Iraqi police with gun shots to ther back of the head. The US and UK armies have shown more regard for civilian life than any army in the histor of mankind.

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?

Wow... you really know nothing of what you are talking about do you. Saddam didn't have the bomb. Pakistan does. Pakistan never threatened it's neighbours or the rest fo the world other than it's long running feud with India.
If you cannot understand or appreciate the differences in these situations then you are beyond any kind of rational argument imho.

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

You really ARE making this up... now it's proven. Pakistan.... America's greatest ally ? whare do you get this crap ?

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.

The US and UK armies have shown more regard for civilian life than any army in the histor of mankind. Their liberation of the Iraqi people was well worth it and will be shown to be so by history and the people of Iraq when they have complete democratic control of their lives ins spite of people with your indifferent, callous, and amoral views.

But its much easier to villify the muslims isn't it?

The Muslim terrorists, yes.

After all they are the terrorists.

The Muslim Terrorists....Yes they are. 100% true.

They use bombs to kill 3000 people,

Yes they did. 100% true.

while the US have killed 30 times that many in iraq alone.

Wrong Wrong Wrong and a complete fiction.

but hey the US doesn't intentionally kill all these civillians, in fact its trying to liberate them. Unfortunately there will always be casualties....

100% correct.

i'm sure the innocents who died as a result are happy that the US are liberating them?

Maybe they are maybe they aren't. It's not important. Freedom for 25 million people is what is important.

What if a family dies due to an american bomb and they were innocent? So its okay because it was an accident?

In a word, Yes..

Where is the justice for the iraqis the US have murdered for their greed?

They haven't murdered anyone.

Off course when these people fight back, they are terrorists.

They are not fighting back. The vast majority of those fighting are not even Iraqis.

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.

Pathetic nonsense.

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.

Wrong again, as usual.
We need a new world where forceful regime change of murdering dictators becomes a regular action by those democratic nations willing to bring freedom to the people of the world instead of wringing their hands in convenient indifferent and adherence to their dubious and deeply offensive and one sided morality.

its always the innocent who pay the price

.
They always have and they always will. That is the price of freedom. Those willing to pay it will stay free, those who are unwilling will remain or return to oppression.

Memnoch

in reply to chill's post....

hahahahahahahahah...


hbahahahaahahahahaha roflmao

i'm gonna copy/paste that one to the humor board

have you got a dictionary handy chill? look up "S A R C A S M"

MeatProduct

chill wrote:

Well I do.. and history supports it.

War really is not an answer Chill. Who has the right to kill anyone? Why should a soldier have the right to kill anyone? Why should a terrorist have the right to kill anyone?

Death is not the answer. It's certainly the easy option. That's the mentality of the modern age; take the easy route and deal with the consequences later. Utterly lacking in responsibility.

Nick

PS: How does history show that violence has accomplished anything? I would have thought that history proves that when the peaceful path is followed it is far more rewarding.

sovtek

MeatProduct wrote:

PS: How does history show that violence has accomplished anything? I would have thought that history proves that when the peaceful path is followed it is far more rewarding.

I'm just going to sit back and wait for the inevitable "Neville Chamberlain" comeback.

MeatProduct

sovtek wrote:

I'm just going to sit back and wait for the "Neville Chamberlain" comeback.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are situations where violence has worked but on the whole I'd argue that the lesson to take from history is that violence isn't the best answer.

Nick

sovtek

MeatProduct wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are situations where violence has worked but on the whole I'd argue that the lesson to take from history is that violence isn't the best answer.

Nick

I didn't mean that I would agree with that argument though.

GreeBo

MeatProduct wrote:

War really is not an answer Chill. Who has the right to kill anyone? Why should a soldier have the right to kill anyone? Why should a terrorist have the right to kill anyone?
I would have thought that history proves that when the peaceful path is
followed it is far more rewarding.

Unfortunately a large portion of the world dont understand anything other than violence...
They see peaceful negotiation as a weekness to be exploited.

sovtek

GreeBo wrote:

Unfortunately a large portion of the world dont understand anything other than violence...
They see peaceful negotiation as a weekness to be exploited.

They may very well be true, on the other hand I often see that used as an excuse where very little diplomacy has even been tried.

MeatProduct

GreeBo wrote:

Unfortunately a large portion of the world dont understand anything other than violence...
They see peaceful negotiation as a weekness to be exploited.

Yes, that's also the case on an individual level. The automatic reaction to a negative event is often revenge and hate. The actions of certain countries are simply reflecting the mentalities of the individuals mentaility. I see it in myself quite often.

For example, if someone attacked my girlfriend my first reaction would be to get the person(s) that did it and extract some sort of revenge through hate. Of course that's the wrong thing for me to do and after some thought I would realise that(ideally before I went to get that person ) perhaps trying to understand why the person did take that action and if there is anyway I could help that person.

Nick

ionapaul

MeatProduct wrote:

Yes, that's also the case on an individual level. The automatic reaction to a negative event is often revenge and hate. The actions of certain countries are simply reflecting the mentalities of the individuals mentaility. I see it in myself quite often.

For example, if someone attacked my girlfriend my first reaction would be to get the person(s) that did it and extract some sort of revenge through hate. Of course that's the wrong thing for me to do and after some thought I would realise that(ideally before I went to get that person ) perhaps trying to understand why the person did take that action and if there is anyway I could help that person.

Nick

Fair play to you for the above, but I don't think this has a chance in hell of working in the real world. As mentioned above (by Sovtek no less!), Chamberlain's kid-gloves treatment of Hitler merely emboldened him. Likewise, the Northern states repeated capitulation to Southern demands in the decades preceeding the American Civil War only led to louder and more agressive demands as time went on. Finally a (Republican!! w00t w00t! ) President was elected who was unwilling to let the minority continue to dictate terms to the majority.`

I would like to categorically state I see very little comparison between Churchill / Lincoln and Bush / Blair, and the historical situations alluded to and Iraq - but am arguing that violence, though regrettable, IS sometimes justified and indeed the morally correct choice.

MeatProduct

ionapaul wrote:

Fair play to you for the above, but I don't think this has a chance in hell of working in the real world.

Like yourself I would see very little hope of this happening (in my lifetime). I have very little faith in humanity being able to sort itself out within the next 50 years or so. There's a good chance we'll start destroying large parts of the world if things carry on in this manner.

Nick

chill

MeatProduct wrote:

War really is not an answer Chill.

Well first off you should read what was said. I was responding to a point about "Violence" not war.

Who has the right to kill anyone? Why should a soldier have the right to kill anyone? Why should a terrorist have the right to kill anyone?

Oppressed people have a right to defend themselves and fight and kill for their freedom. History has shown that the vast majority of free people in the world gained their freedom by violence. Clearly that is an accomplishment even it is not an ideal solution.

Death is not the answer. It's certainly the easy option. That's the mentality of the modern age; take the easy route and deal with the consequences later. Utterly lacking in responsibility.

There's nothing modern about it. People were fighting and killing for their freedom thousands of years ago and they will be doing it in the future again ! Don't you read history ?

MeatProduct

chill wrote:

Well first off you should read what was said. I was responding to a point about "Violence" not war.

Oppressed people have a right to defend themselves and fight and kill for their freedom. History has shown that the vast majority of free people in the world gained their freedom by violence. Clearly that is an accomplishment even it is not an ideal solution.

There's nothing modern about it. People were fighting and killing for their freedom thousands of years ago and they will be doing it in the future again ! Don't you read history ?

Hi Chill,

Sorry about the confusion, I know you meant violence and not war
so I apologise for that error. I would completely agree that people should have the right to defend themselves. What I would like to see is a situation where people have no need to exercise that right since there would be no aggressor.

When I say modern I mean the last 50 years. I think the reasons for war have changed over time, not a lot but a bit. It strikes me that in recent times there as been a lot more room for negociation but the easier path of invasion was preferred. Regarding you comment about me not reading history, well I'm certainly not historian and I would never claim to have any great knlowldge of the subject.

Nick

Superman

they shouln't of taken her in the first place , she was an aid worker, not a soldier/greedy pig working on an oil pipeline!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

elivsvonchiaing

I think the most important thing in this case is that the perpetrators are revealed. Only, then can any good come from this case... i.e. their destruction/dissollution.

This case of western captives has to be the worst so far: Who is assumed to have done it? Who did it? What gain could the perpetrators possibly have?

SkepticOne

Superman wrote:

they shouln't of taken her in the first place , she was an aid worker, not a soldier/greedy pig working on an oil pipeline!

Moraly, I don't think it makes much difference if they take an aid worker, an English electrician, an Iraqi or even a soldier. There's very little to suggest that the kidnappers represent proper Iraqi resistance given the lack of discrimination they excercise and the barbarity of their methods.

Magnolia_Fan

dathi1 wrote:

absolutely.....The Bathist regime used to throw these types from the roof tops and or blow them up with their own bombs. Thank George Bush for giving Tawhid / Al Quida a second breeding ground in Iraq.

So pro invasion people above...better the devil you know than the one you don't.... Sadam could have and was being contained......... this crowd now have free reign.

oh...I forgot...we have to bomb the other victims into elections in January to defeat the Jihadists and Terrorists. This simplistic bad guys good guys scenario will save the world. God is great etc...

Jaysus people biatch about the U.S leaving Sadam in power and then you complain when he's removed

sceptre

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

Jaysus people biatch about the U.S leaving Sadam in power and then you complain when he's removed

Not when. How. Even the most fervently anti-war people I've heard wouldn't have objected if Saddam Hussein had fallen in his shiny bath and hit his head on a gold tap.

Magnolia_Fan

I hate to use the dreaded "What If"...but "What If" it was you and you were being informed that this brutal dictator had horrible weapons and was developing more and would have intent to use them, "what if" you were being hounded for not have protected America from 9/11, if you look at it in that light well to me at least I can see why Bush would want to eliminate the threat of not only Iraq but Iran,North Korea and other harbour terrorists or intent to attack America

sceptre

Ah, the "what if" I was the generally regarded leader of the free world question. Obviously I'm not a politician. I'm also far too blunt (and occasionally bluntly honest) at the best of times to be a politician, let alone a successful one.

I could write pages of a meandering reply to that one if only I had the time (at the moment and for the reasonable future unfortunately I don't), including feeding poor people, increasing productivity, international relations encompassing dealing with rogue states and undesirable leaders, when to micromanage, when to sit on your toddy and do nothing, the dangers of closed democracies and why secret deals are bad and come back to bite you in the arse. Most of my comments might well be nothing short of total rubbish.

I'll tell you though. If I'd been told about this guy with horrible weapons and the intent and ability to develop more and if I'd invaded another country using that as the public basis for my invasion I'd be feeling pretty inadequate right now and concerned that I was never going to come up with the evidence. Because I couldn't just sweep that primary reason under the carpet you see (it's my bluntness again) and say the real reason I invaded was that the fearless leader of the other state just wasn't a very nice bloke who killed people before breakfast. I'd have a buttock torn off the intelligence guy who made me look the fool and I'd probably have resigned to boot for two failures. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, well, I'm not going to be fooled twice by the same guy. Frankly I'd feel like a plonker. Oh, a victorious plonker, but then I get that little victory every day I'm not knocked down by a truck as well. If someone told me there was a danger of my being attacked by a nuke/chemical weapons/an asteroid I'd probably ask for pictures. In the absence of pictures and going on trust I'd have to rely on that buttock tearing and goodbye telly address in the event of my relying on something and making a public statement - and going to war with another state in the hope of digging something surprising up in the world's largest sandpit. Hence why I wouldn't be a very successful politician. I'm the guy who tells on people.