it nevertheless takes a trained soldier to drop the bomb.
Printable View
it nevertheless takes a trained soldier to drop the bomb.
I'd take option number two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Unfortunately I can't see an end to this terrorism in my lifetime :(
Valleysboy, this is a very quick reply as right now i dont have lot of time, later i'll respond in full (to everyone),
(1) ok, this is the SECOND time that i've had to mention it, you said
"Anhar, I have noticed you have not replied to my point about killing another life."
and i've replied I have already answered it, IT IS IN YOUR ORIGINAL QUOTE from me!! scroll up to my post to the exact part that you quoted me on and read it carefully.
Now heres a Challange for everyone please define Terrorism, as this is a pivotal point in this debate/discussion
(I'll buy myself a nice cake if anyone can get it right)
Anhar Hussain Miah
The definition of terrorism is in it's name. An attack designed to terrorise the populace.
This will be my last post in this forum as it has diverted from the original subject and is frankly going nowhere fast. Such discussions should be done face-to-face anyway
yea I agree with you Valleysboy, I just dont have the time either man, I'm already fallen behind on my Visual Basic project ad i've got a lotta people waiting/depending on it. Its just the motivation for it starting to weaken, its like you figure one part only to have to solve another problem, it just never ends...arrrr
Anyways
Anhar Hussain Miah
Negative. I can only presume what was said. Even in jolly old England the "Death To America" speechs echo in the streets. Are you proposing it's different in Iraq?Quote:
So demotivator you where present during the quthba by the Iman?
Thank God.Quote:
Ok let me see, I assume you (demotivator) are an American(please correct me here)
Quite a few American soldiers have been tried, and some convicted for the murder of Iraqis. Collateral damage is just that, and it's a sad occurence in most conflicts. The U.S. goes to great lengths and great expense to avoid killing innocents, unlike the terrorists you are defending. Many believe we should forget about the expense and trouble it takes it avoid collateral damage and proceed with total war. The reasoning is that striking terror in the hearts of those we are attacking by utterly destroying their cities and making everyday existence nearly impossible would cause them to fear us more than they already do and submit completely But, as a civilized people, we do not stoop to the level of terror our enemies do. Believe it or not, we respect human life despite the fact that this same respect costs us casualties.Quote:
Let me set you a situation;
American sovereign soil is under military occupation by the Chinese army. The American people natuarly have a human right to resist this occupation, as well as the right to defend yourself. In any war innocent people die that is a fact of war.
Now when the Americans kill civilians it is called "collateral damage".
Where is the 2 minutes silence, where is the intense news coverage, why is not Bush/Western leaders out there out rightly condeming these terrorists act? why is their no investigation of the people responisble for the act?
Innocent civilians are not merely "caught up" in resistance/defense attacks. They are deliberately targeted as well as simply ignored by your freedom fighters. Tell me, during Sadaams regime, when women and children were gassed and murdered on a regular basis, where were these freedom fighters then?Quote:
So when an Iraqi resists/defend himself (a right that you would grant yourself) you label him as a terrorist. when innocent civilians get caught up in an resistacne/defence attack you cannot "comprehend" how someone can do this yet "collateral damage" is "comprehendible"?
Just in case this hasn't been posted yet, they've found TATP in Leeds. LEEDS!!
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...cks/index.html
Understanding history may be important, but so is understanding the present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain
Look at what's been said in the link/verse. The context becomes different today, and is subject to interpretation on their part. What I think this link or argument fails to do is take into context the present day as well.
By the way, are you a lawyer? You certainly write like one...
Valleysboy said it right first time time round, this is diverging way off topic, and this kind off dissiccusion is best suited to face to face.
demotivator yes the entire world is aware of how "civilised" the Americans are history is a testement to that.
No, i will never defend the actions of terrorist, the unimaginable terror that was unleased in Hiroshima and Nakasaki was nearly 67 times the terror of 9/11. If the exact same event happened to America (ie Say Japan dropped a Nuclear Bomb on an American military target) what do you then think the Americans would say? Would the American people be satisfyied by thinking themselfs as "collateral damage"?
No that event would go down in history as the single most devastating terrorist act known to humanity! yet interestingly thats exactly what happened to the Japanese.
I personally have nothing against American people, (I have some great friends they happen to be Americans).
Now demotivator why the kneejerk patriotic reaction? why are you trying to defend wrong actions of America? you can love your country but that does not mean that you have to love its illegal actions too.
To the question of gassing, WHAT DID THE AMERICANS DO THEN, supported him instead because Saddam was a key allie of the US. You also asked "where was these freedom fighters then", they where being captured, tortured and put through meat grinders as well as being boiled alive.
Another point about the "freedom fighters" (you said it not me) how on can you claim that they "deliberatley" targeted innocent civilans? where you there? have you had a telephone converstion with the said person? the fact reamains you don't know and neither do I, therefore you can and I can not label him either way (notice in my post that I have not labeled him as anything)
@ mendak (Thank you for your input). I would advice you to re-read, what I wrote about how interpretations happens in Islam. The second point about context being only correct in that time is not valid, since in Islam has a unique charateristic that other religions do not, if you care to take a year off (perhaps five years?) and do some compative religion reseach you will find that all religions came for (a) for a group of people/select area ad (b) for a time period. Islam on the other hand came for (a) The whole of humanity and (b) All time periods.
So on short yes you are correct times cause change, however Islam is structuted such that the interpreations are valid for all times (past, present, and future).
Now I am going to do exaclty what Valleysboy did (a very sensible and agreeable thing to do) and try and make this my last post. But i will leave with some parting words:
I thank everyone for there input, some interesting things have been said. I hope that I have not come across as rude, impolite or offensive in any way shape of form. I have been told by my professors, lectures, and teachers that I "think out of the Box". The problem I see is that people are rigid in their mental framework, and that is understandable since a person will naturally be a product of their environment and as such people as seem to have thought patterns that are similar (the train runs in the same direction). One of my aims was to get people to break out of there rigid mindset and think laterally. I am bilingurual (can understad a further 3) and as such live between two worlds, I get to see two different mindsets, culture, values etc.
I am an Engineer (hehe now that i've graduated) and as such we (engineers) are analytical people by nature. You have to take infomation disassemble it and set aside the facts, then you have to analise the situation and rationalise with logic and finally draw your conclusions.
One of the sad thing is how Islam is protrayed either directly or indirectly in the media and throughout the general Western world in a distorted and twisted manner. This is not surprising though, again one needs to look to history why this is. During the rapid rise of Islam that swept through an area covering more than half of the civilized world stretching over three continents from the Pyrenees and Siberia in West and North Europe to the farthest end of Asia, up to China and New Guinea in the East; from Morocco in North Africa to the southern tip of Africa, covering two-thirds of the African continent. This was a natural threat to the Christians and thus launched crusades, and also started orientalism.
How did a religion manage to spread so fast? and why did it spread so fast?
It is mostly due to orientalism that much of the anti-islamic distorsions continue to this day.
There are some 1.7 billion people in the world that are muslim, thats a large part of humanity. Ask yourself what do you ACTUALLY know about Islam, and i mean truly know? Go out and study it in-depth, like you would study a for your doctorate.
Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world (from reverts?) from all walks of life, rich, poor, educated, non-eductade, black, white, chinease, Christians, Jews, Buddhas, athesits, scientists etc..
Do you even realise that modern civilastation would not have existed if the Muslims where removed from history, what humanity owes mulsims in terms of contribution is staggering, modern science, chemistry, biology, astronomy, medicine the list goes on.
I will end by saying truth doesn't need defending, it will defend itself.
Good luck
Anhar Hussain Miah
As objective as you make yourself, it is almost impossible to be seen as neutral. People will always naturally want to take sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain
Without going into too much detail :p I am in a similiar situation. I have seen how both sides codemn each other for what they do and realise how similiar they are. While the cultures and values are different the attitudes are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain
On the other hand I think we need to keep discussions pitting religions against religions out of the thread. Let's not forget that is one of the reasons how the things that triggered this discussion were started in the first place. So I think I will make this my last post in here too. My views are here and I've said enough.
You're defending terrorism every time you post. And are you really comparing World War II to terror attacks of today? Give me a break, that's so far out there I don't even know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain
It's not knee jerk, that's the way it is. No illegal actions by America have been discussed, so not sure what you mean by that.Quote:
Now demotivator why the kneejerk patriotic reaction? why are you trying to defend wrong actions of America? you can love your country but that does not mean that you have to love its illegal actions too.
Key ally may be a tad strong, but I understand your point. And the torture and meat grinder thing is exactly what I was alluding to in a prior post. Where were the martyrs then? Why weren't they rising against Sadaam? Or is it the case that as long as it's the "wrong" kind of muslim being killed it's ok?Quote:
To the question of gassing, WHAT DID THE AMERICANS DO THEN, supported him instead because Saddam was a key allie of the US. You also asked "where was these freedom fighters then", they where being captured, tortured and put through meat grinders as well as being boiled alive.
I guess the guy didn't see the scores of kids that were grabbing up candy from the American patrol before detonating himself in the middle of them, killing 18 Iraqi kids, 9 other Iraqis and wounding 70 more. One American killed, and three injured. Again, give me a break. You're defending actions that have no defense. And as a matter of fact, I personally know a great deal of people that are currently in Iraq and hear first hand accounts almost everyday. You're attempts to justify the actions of fanatical islamofacists are, frankly, laughable.Quote:
Another point about the "freedom fighters" (you said it not me) how on can you claim that they "deliberatley" targeted innocent civilans? where you there? have you had a telephone converstion with the said person?
Anyhoo - I agree this should probably end here. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. I know who's right and who's not. Semper Fi, Anhar.
Anhar Hussain, you keep mentioning the a-bomb and Hiroshima...if the military target is a city...wipe out it's infrastructure, communications blah blah then it's a good target. It just happens that the a-bomb had the advantage of taking out anything else in it's path, which put the heebie-geebies up the Japanease.
I really don't think that they sat there and thought "right, which group of civvies should we take out today?"
You also have to think about societly back then. No one gave that much of a rats arse about civvies...did you hit the target? Yes. Well done. Woohoooo. Times have changed.
Also...it ended the war. How many innocents would have continued to die, on either side, if the war had raged on...remembering that the US was only defending itself, even though it allowed Perl Harbour to be bombed.
The was a story from the 2nd world war where some head gestarpo officers were running part of the war from the basement of an orphanidge, or the building next to the orphanidge (can't remember the exact details) they had taken over when invading holland. The kids still lived in it, and they used it as a human shield...Hmmm..where have we seen this before...I wonder.
Anyways UK bombers flew over and took out the target, and at the same time killed 97 children, this was almost inevitable. The dutch said "thank you" and praised the uk bomber pilots...they knew that these children were "sacrifieced" for a good cause. I believe it ended a german front. The dutch knew what had to be done. Yes it's sad, yes it's not nice for family and friends.
It's only recently that taking out civilians has become a no no.Throughout the ENTIRE of history it has happened everyday...but now, in todays day and age, it's suddenly becoem unacceptable. Damn 60's and hippies! :D
I am joking here, tongue in cheek, but I still have a valid point.
I have just played Leeds Utd and Nowrich Utd youth footy teams in a National competition. Got a body count of 3 against Leeds :D. Hahahaha
Woka
I watched an interview this morning with a spokeman from an Arab organization in the US (I forget which one - maybe Arab American Institute - James Zobgy...). I've seen them before - defending Muslim people as not being all terrorist (an obviously great statement - hard to imagine that you even have to push it!).
At any rate, he made a point this morning about how the US embraces everyone that comes here. America is not a nationality - it's a place of many nationalites (I'm half Italian, half Czech/Slovak)...
When people immigrate here they become part of the fabric pretty much instantly.
He pointed out that in most other countries - he used Germany for an example - a family can live there for 3 generations and still never be German.
Anhar - you keep speaking about America as if we are a nationality. It is an apple and orange situation - maybe you will never be able to see that. Without you grasping that fact, it's hard to talk to you about motivations of American people.
The A-bomb is so not a terrorist act - so not in comparison with what is occuring now. I hate war - but WWII was a war - declared as such, fought as such, ended and treaty'd as such. The A-bomb was a necessary step, in the minds of 1940's and 1950's Americans, in ending that war.
The "terrorist" battle that is being waged by the likes of Osama Bin Laden is a cowardly attack of big boys against simple people. It's not like Osama Bin Laden has a reason - a valid military reason. He's from an extremely rich family - where is the "cause" for his battle? Force the US out of Arab nations? What a joke, those oil producing, Mercedes driving Arab's would never want to end this "circle-of-income".
Sadaam was a nut - a viscious, killing dictator. I personally believe that Iraq is better off without him. I know that the middle-east is better off without him - the stability of the region, ten years down the road from now - is improved by his demise.
There have been no illegal actions on the part of the US against Iraq - what are you talking about?
And just in case you wanted to know - the US does not look down on Islam - that's not a problem in this country. I don't know where you got that idea from.
That's funny, szlamany. I'm sitting here listening to the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem (Irish music). My wife just rolled her eyes and went to bed. To much Ireland in this American house. What a great point you made. I have an awesome picture of a U.S. Marine sprawled out on his carpet saying his prayer to Mecca at 0500 in the middle of the ****storm in Iraq. If that doesn't prove your point, nothing does.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Quote:
UK Attorney General
Regime change cannot be the object of military action. Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.
I can't find the UN statutes that show that regime change is illegal, but I'm looking for them.Quote:
George Bush,April 6th 2002
We support regime change.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a convention ratified by the U.S., recognizes "self-determination" as a human right and specifies that "by virtue of that right" all peoples have the right to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
Armed interventions for regime change also run contrary to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force "against... the political independence" of another state "or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." This includes the need to respect and to observe human rights and to promote self-determination. The definition of aggression adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974 also provides that it if "the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination." Violations of this duty may constitute an international crime.
United Nations Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
So if one can prove that regime change was indeed the goal (or at least one of the goals) of the mission in Iraq then it is illegal.
Anyone else hear that hissing sound???
.
Ah! It's just yrywddfa uritating on demotivator's bonfire! :lol:
yrwyddfa - the people did not choose to be dictator'ed by Saddam.
He was a nut - a viscious killer of the people of the country.
He needed to be removed so that "free elections" could take place.
The UN talked about invading Iraq for months - the US simply did it.
So all your posts just now about regime change are meaningless.
Sorry you wasted your time...
Agreed :D
Yes, there is an argument that points out that the Iraqi people did not (I presume could not) exercise the right to self-determination.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I see, however, that you've avoided the bit about political independence which Saddams regime undoutably was. If you read the articles listed, and referenced you will see that if either are present then that constitutes regime change which is illegal under the UN charter of which the US is a signatory.
Thank you for the minor change Woka :D
The UN is a weak, powerless - and getting weaker - joke!Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
We were dozens of "UN referrendums" into waiting for Saddam.
Let's see - we all agreed that Saddam had to go - the UN agreed - all the countries that matter agreed.
The UN - in it's powerless-void-inability to do any action - kept talking, and talking and voting and talking.
Is that a way to wage a potential military action - keep waiting so Saddam could get ready - if he even had the ability to get ready?
He was told that if he left power no military action would occur.
He thought he was the "pan-Arab" - the all powerful leader of all the Arab tribes. The man was a nut case.
The US and UK both believe that a more democratic world will lead to a better society. I subscribe to that same philosophy.
Other then that - all bets are off and all UN treaties are null and void - we are a new world and we are either going to push these thoughts across the globe and succeed, or die attempting it...
I personally am going to keep developing programs ;)
I agree in the most part with your sentiments regarding the US,UK and the UN; and I was not trying to persuade or argue (either way) whether the Iraq war was morally justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I was only responding to your assertion that there was nothing illegal about the Iraq war.
It was an illegal war according to international conventions the 'allies' signed up to. Of course, illegal does not mean immoral. Morality and legality - although often tied - are not necessarily the same thing.
. . . . and I don't think I've wasted my time, either.
That's my NY sarcasm coming through again - born in Queens ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The superpowers have been all over the middle east for 40 years now - playing agenda after agenda after agenda. That's never going to change.
And the middle east certainly doesn't mind - they make more and more money pumping oil into the needy hands of the developed countries.
Pfft. Hardly. Nice try, though. Takes more than some leftist fruitcakes to indict a country for "illegal actions".Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Indeed. The UK, the US and others are hardly likely to ever be called to account for their actions are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
I saw then National Security Advisor Rice on a Sunday morning talk show near the beginning of th Iraq war. She was explaining that we went into Iraq to effect a change in the Middle East.Quote:
t was an illegal war according to international conventions the 'allies' signed up to.
The host asked her why we didn't go into Syria or Iran instead?
She answered that it was because we had the clearest legal argument for Iraq.
I think she was referring to all the UN resolutions passed before the invasion that gave Saddam ultimatum after ultimatum.
AS I've already said: I am not trying to show the Iraq war was morally just, only that it was illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
And I was trying to show that it is clearly legal.
Now I'm confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I've posted links to more than one legal document that the US has signed up to where it clearly states that regime change is illegal. Although the UK tried to hide from this agenda the US didn't.
Unless you can refute those documents you have no argument. You can go on and on (like a right-wing loon) till you're blue in the face. But you'll still need to show that the arguments presented by those documents are incorrect.
Can someone then please try to explain the months of hammering home the WMD issue? In the build-up that was the primary reason, the reason of reasons. Those who didn't believe it were ridiculed or worse, deemed a lower form of life.
If it was a regime change then why didn't you hammer that point home instead of focussing on his "alleged weaponry"? Perhaps because the other argument wouldn't win you the backing of the allies?
I've never ever seen so many people backpedal so hard, never seen so many people jump from one reason to another, picking out the reason du jour and believing it so firmly that there could possibly no other reason whatsoever
Never ever... Perhaps you lot should work in the media. At least they have a name for it: spin doctoring.
I do believe there are many qualifications to the portion of the UN charter you posted. No leader in his right mind would sign away his own nation's security.
It's like the discussion of the Muslim religion earlier, you can take two sentences out of context and change the intent of the rest of the document.
Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? I've noticed this tendency in some people in these discussions.
YOu will note that I didn't call anyone directly a name; I used a similie. I was implying that unless you can refute those charters and you continue to present unsubstantiated argument you will look like a right-wing loon. I think others will agree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I haven't taken the clause out of context either. Read the document.
. . . then please show me the legal argument for a preemptive invasion of a politically independant state in order to change the regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I wonder . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
OK let's assume for argument's sake that the document as written says that regime change is illegal.
I'd have to say that it is contradicted in other UN documents including the dozen or so resolutions the UN passed leading up to the war so that a lawyer could argue that no law has been broken.
Why isn't the UN taking to US to court?
Regime change is illegal. What other documents does it contradict? Where are the links?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Why is Mugabwe not in an international court of justice?
What? That I fit the bill as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa