Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
What a free world we live in...

It's nice to know that, should I ever feel threatened by evil, terror, or similar buzzwords, that armed forces will raid the houses of everybody in entire towns right across the countries that threaten me, and shell refugee camps, in order to locate these weapons of evil and bring to justice everybody who might possibly use them against me.

All in the name of freedom, too. Gosh darnit, it makes me so patriotic to know that my country secretly condones this sort of action...

You know, somebody at work recently said something really funny to me. We were talking about the situation in the world today, and I was giving my opinion - that is to say, I was explaining that I'm opposed to violence as a solution (this wasn't with regard to the Middle East, this was about the Afghanistan thing, but it's still a valid reflection of the idiotic views people have). The conversation went something like this (bear in mind he was deadly serious) -

Me: It's ridiculous, it's not solving anything
Him: But what alternative is there?
Me: Well we could try talking first
Him: That never works, action is what we need
Me: Well we didn't try it, so how would we know?
Him: That's because you have to blow things up to make these people take notice of what you're trying to say

Now somebody tell me - is that the view of somebody against terrorism, or somebody who is for it (when it aids their beliefs), but has been sufficiently brainwashed by the media that they think they're in the right? The hysteria over terrorism seems to allow people to justify any ridiculous idea that comes into their heads....

I really need to stop reading the news, it's just depressing......

  • 1
Right, didn't we try talking first when we demanded that the Taliban handed over Bin Laden, to which they refused...that gained us so much progress didn't it? Whilst Al'Qaieda were busy planning new attacks on america, italy, france, GB and canada....Nice one!

"We think this guy that you support is bad, he might have done bad things but we can't prove any of it, and we want him. Go back on your promises to him, and give him to us or we'll bomb you"

That's not talking. In fact, isn't that... why, yes, I think it is.... that's terrorism. Funny old world, isn't it?

We can't prove it..apart from the videos of him smirking at how well it was planned..

If such videos exist, they certainly weren't available before we stormed Afghanistan. We had no evidence at the time, and whether he did it or not, we had no right to just assume he did and demand that he be handed over without question.

If such videos exist??? Looks like someone hasn't been watching the news....oh dear!

I tend to avoid the propaganda media and stick to AP and Reuters, neither of which has cited any proof of an admission of guilt. I know of footage where he was laughing about it, and having some joke about crashing planes into buildings, but at no point did he say it was him. I'm sorry, did the biased media not make it clear that it wasn't him saying he did it?

Wrong again! The video clearly showed that he talked about his plans, and how he'd it had been "more successful than he'd hoped"..he even went into the detail of what was meant to have happened..what more proof do you want??

the video you mention is not conclusive; experts from various national and international media sources studied the video and concluded that it was not sufficient evidence to place the blame of bin laden's shoulders. bin laden's just one of however many unpleasant extremist militants in the world; just so happens he was scapegoated (and he probably was responsible, but in most "democratic" countries there used to be this phrase; "innocent until proven guilty").

Bin Laden was scapegoated??? do come up with some tripe....he kills 3000 ppl in one foul swoop, plans further nuclear and chemical attacks, has been near the top of the FBIs most wanted list for a long time, and he's scapegoated....

You did write that when you were drunk i take it? :0)

He is a scapegoat though. The media seems to hold him responsible for all terrorism throughout the world since the dawn of time. Whatever else he is guilty of, he's not guilty of that...

I think it's more of a case that he's alerted the world to the destruction that terrorism can do. Before this attack, we couldn't really imagine how much damage one person could it's been shown to be possible, there's no real alternative but to stamp it out

Wrong. He hasn't alerted the world to it. He's alerted America to it. The rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism for years. The British have had to deal with the Irish, the Israelis have had to deal with the Palestinians, Spain has had Eta (or however you spell it), the rest of the world has had terrorism inflicted on them for a long time, and typically a lot of these things stem from one person. All Bin Laden did was make America aware of it so that they'd finally do something about it (like stopping them from funding it themselves, which they'd been doing up to then).

EDTA (sp?) and the IRA can't be compared to Al'Qaieda...that's the difference...the first two are small time operatives (in comparison) in one country, Al'Qaieda is a global network (stretching from Africa to the far east) and the world has been alerted hence the arrests in Somalia and Phillipines by their own governments. I can't even remember what my original point was...but your comparison is totally out of proportion, and the world has been alerted.

in addition to what Jamie has already said (i.e. there was *zero* proof presented that al-Qaeda were actually responsible), how do you know "new attacks" were being planned? that's a genuine point of curiousity. and in any case... shortly after america started carpet bombing afghanistan, the taliban offered to hand over osama bin laden to a "neutral" third party country - like pakistan. america refused, and thanks to the media a hunt for an international terrorist was transformed into a witch-hunt against the taliban. not that i'm sorry the taliban are gone, but i am saddened by what was done to that country.

How do i know? Because its common fact that plans were found to target London, that really high building in Canada, poison the sewage works in Italy, um...Eiffel tour...isn't that enough

what sort of plans? feasible ones? or just ideas? who found them? where'd you hear about them? who made it "common fact"?

Ok, well i haven't had brilliant access to the news, but i know that the ones in London, Paris and Canada were at the planning given more time they'd be put into for the sewer ones in Italy...from what i call it was stopped just as it was about to put into plan

his view actually looks like that of someone endorsing terrorism. "That's because you have to blow things up to make these people take notice of what you're trying to say" - guess how many folks say that of america?

I would imagine that it's quite a popular belief - that actions speak louder than words. The morons ;o)

"We have to show them that we won't tolerate their behaviour"

"We have to destroy the mechanisms by which they inflict evil on us"

"When our goals are achieved, we'll stop our attacks"

The words of a nation defending itself? Or the words of a terrorist organisation? Or is there no distinction? :o)

And as I recall, my response to him saying that was something akin to

"Isn't that what the IRA used to say?"

The conversation quickly died as he realised that, despite being a good ten years younger than him, I'm a good deal better at arguing. He'd been patronising me up to that point, and after that, he suddenly stopped ;o)

Probably just got irritated and gave up with your smugness and arrogantness

or maybe he just realised that his arguments were as self-defeating as yours are.

Coming from someone who actually doesn't appear to have any proper arguments, apart from to agree in tandem with his friend, is quite ironic really

Well if we're both right, it's going to be hard to make much of a distinction between us... ;o)

"differ seldom fools"...hmm i'm trying to make a sentence out of that...any chance of some help?

Yeah, you want to write "differ fools seldom". Happy to help :o)

actually, jamie and i differ heavily over stuff like this. it's mainly in distrust of the total bollocks trotted out by the mainstream media (which, more often than not, are drip-fed their scraps by national governments, which couldn't *possibly* be biased now, could they?) that we share opinions.
all you've done is trot out a few unconvincing statements to try and justify a statement you made which we've already pointed out to be erroneous.
besides, we're apparently far wittier than you, so it's hardly surprising that we'd tag-team. now face the people's elbow!

"besides, we're apparently far wittier than you"........if that's the case, why don't you either show it, or even explain why my statement is "erroneous"

We've shown it consistently.

And we explained that talking really wasn't tried, and after we pounded them into submission with heavy firepower and they wanted to talk, we wouldn't listen. These are facts. Your whole point hinged around us trying to talk to the Taliban first, which we didn't do (save for a quick "Hand him over without us giving proof, or die", which isn't exactly talking)

That's just simply false..they were willing to prepare evidence, but no matter what the Taliban wouldn't hand him over...and also if the police come round to my house and say they'd like to take me into custody, then i don't make them give all the evidence first...that's what courts are for surely?

That wasn't the case. The Taliban asked for evidence, and the US didn't provide them with anything even resembling proof.

And yes, that is what the courts are for. However, if you're under the protection of another country, the US can't just demand that you get sent to them for trial. That's what extradition treaties are for, and if you don't have them, you can't just waltz into another country and take somebody. American courts have no jurisdiction in other countries, simply because law differs from country to country, and the American way isn't always the right way.

The point remains, the US couldn't provide sufficient proof for anybody (the UN never said that the US had proved that it was Bin Laden who did it, for starters), so they just bombed the country into submission and did whatever they pleased.

On this occasion, yes, he almost certainly was responsible, I have no doubt of that. However, the US still acted wrongly. You can't charge into another country, topple their government, bring the place to the bring of famine, bomb civilians (accidental or not), and then submit your proof that your actions were justified. What if he hadn't done it? Nobody knew he'd done it, otherwise they could have had proof beforehand. What if he was innocent, and the US did all that on a hunch? That's why it shouldn't be allowed - maybe next time they go on a witch hunt, they'll get the wrong person.

Much prefer your friend's arguments....bring him back! Anyway the fact is that we're both going on speculation...neither of us know how much evidence was available, and if it was all offered to the Taliban...that's the nature of's meant to be secret, or it's not very intelligent. So it's kind of a fruitless argument...besides..if you don't take a video of him giving his plans as "proof", then the Taliban would have had an even more narrow definition of proof.

My point is that the Americans had to do what they did to prevent further attacks, i'm not saying it was legally correct, but neither was Sept 11th. Under your solution, adhering to legal extradition proceedings..we would have dialogue with the Taliban, who were quite obviously hiding him and not willing to give him up, this would have continued with them stalling until a bigger army was built up, and more terrorist attacks planned. Surely leading to a larger loss of life.

Sure your idea is a great theoretical concept..wait for 100% proof, then they'd have given him up, world a safer place..but it was just never going to happen

I dunno, I would say we have a fair idea of how much evidence there was available at the time. If there had been sufficient evidence, the US would have said so. As it was, there was a general understanding among the media that it was only suspected. The US had a hard time getting support initially because of that fact, and if they had had evidence, it would have been well known.

And it was a video recorded after the event, when he was gloating. One can imagine that he'd be very happy about what happened, whether he had anything to do with it or not. I'm not saying he didn't do it - just that him boasting on a video proves nothing. His mental state is such that it would be inadmissible in a court.

As for the Taliban, they did try to give him up, at least once or twice, but the US wouldn't listen. They tried to give him up to a neutral country to stand trial with a neutral jury, but the US had by that time decided that the Taliban were also terrorists, and had to be destroyed. The point is, the US, Britain, and all the other countries involved had no right to just go in there and take him, not under existing law.

Now, if they just told the truth, said that they had officially declared war on Afghanistan, had officially invaded it, and taken him captive (or, you know, tried to) as a citizen of their new country, then perhaps it would have been okay. If they'd said "Look, we've stolen this country, everybody in it is now ours" then perhaps it would have been okay for them to ship those guys over to Cuba. And if they'd admitted "We don't care about the human rights of people we consider to be bad", then it would have been okay (by their definitions) to tre treat those prisoners as they did.

The problem is, they're still pretending that they're the ones in the right, who are doing good to the world, when all they're doing is throwing their weight around.

(sorry, for some reason there was a character limit when I posted that comment and the end got cut off)

Either that or he was a stupid fuck who thought violence was the answer to problems. Sound familiar?

Not really, the use of swear words to mask an incoherent argument does though

I'm sorry, would "moron" in place of "fuck" have made my point any more valid to you?

You should realise that swearwords are used to emphasise arguments rather than replace them.

Thats bollocks! :)

The infrastructure of terrorist organizations must be destroyed. If it is not destroyed, we will all suffer. The reason why the US entered Afghanistan is to destroy Al'Queda structure...not to kill civilians. In fact, they try very hard not to kill innocents, unlike fucking jerkoffs terrorist fucked up messed up assholes. (sorry for my language)

There is no other solution but to destroy these organizations at all costs, be it to destroy their financial structure, logistics, and "human resources". Same goes for Israel. Israel is after criminals...not after civilians. And there's no way to catch these losers unless Israel enters the fricking places where these cowards hide like lamers behind their children. They are losers who dont give a fuck about their lives, nor their children's lives. ISRAEL NEVER INTENTIONALLY KILLS INNOCENTS. There are unfortunate accidents, but its never intentional. ISRAEL DOES KILL CRIMINALS...BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE RUN. (Police shoot criminals who run from's a way of life) EVERY AL QUEDA, HAMAS, AND ALL OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS DO KILL INNOCENTS. That's a FACT.

I've decided that you and I are simply not going to see eye to eye on this one ;o)

However, I will point out a couple of things:

(Police shoot criminals who run from's a way of life)

Way of life or not, it's wrong. There is no justification for taking another person's life except in a case where there is direct proof that if you don't take their life, they will inevitably kill others. The suspicion that if somebody gets away they might kill people isn't justification enough - you have to be able to say categorically that if you hadn't shot them that second, then in a couple more seconds, innocent people would be dead.

And whether Israel intentionally killed civilians or not, the fact remains that civilians are being killed or injured, and the Israelis are making it impossible for the emergency services to get to them. The fact that civilians are being hurt is accidental - the fact that they're not being allowed treatment because of the "threat" that ambulances pose is tantamount to murder.

And as for Israel deeming it necessary to carry out house-to-house raids, well, see my recent update for what I think on that... I've decided to turn my indignation and outrage into satire and parody instead.... :o)

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account