My fellow Earthlings: The jig is up Watch

This discussion is closed.
Douglas
Badges: 0
#201
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#201
(Original post by Vienna)
What muslim, driven with such anger to drive a plane into a tower building, is actually motivated by the rhetoric at the UN?
What muslim, driven with such anger he declares war on democracy, or the west, actually cares for the soft, secular impotence of the UN, itself a Western institution?
Great post.
We should now hear the silence of the lambs.
Douglas
Badges: 0
#202
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#202
(Original post by Vienna)
The problem with institutions like that is the same with something like the BBC; no one, for reason or another, considers that it might not be objective as it preaches, and dare scrutinise it. To the detriment of all. Im supposed to believe that the US administration is full of neo-con crooks, but the possibility that Amnesty International or the BBC has more than its fair share of anti-American socialists is considered nothing short of blasphemous!
Vienna, you must believe what they say. After all, just because they hate the U.S., undermine the war effort at every opportunity, call Prez Bush every name in the book, doesn't mean they're not fair and balanced....Yikes
Jamie
Badges: 18
#203
Report 13 years ago
#203
(Original post by Vienna)
So what do you plan on doing with them?



I didnt use the word respect, its rather ambiguous. I was interested in framing exactly what the suggestion of respect meant in the context of locking someone up and not locking someone up.

"So basically as far as the prison/guards are concerned they are guilty by way of being there/accused."

I didnt make this suggestion either, although I would hope any security personnel made the assumption that detainees were extremely dangerous.
I was speaking directly from quotes and inferences by yourself.

Vienna - "Do you think detainees awaiting tribunal for acts of murder and terrorism, should be afforded the same respect as a law-abiding Afghani or Iraqi?"

Myself "So every person that has been in 'the bay' has definately 100%, not a single doubt about it, committed an offence/criminal act?

Or do you mean there are Iraqis/Afghans being held who are known to be innocent?"

Vienna "No, im saying what kind of respect to you pay those suspected of crimes waiting for trial, and how does that respect differ from the respect you pay law abiding citizens not suspected of murder or terrorism?"

Lock them up fair enough. But you still need treat them with an amount of dignity and repect befitting another human being. Bearing in mind they have not yet been proven guilty.

After all, the distinction should be made that this is meant to be a detention centre - a holding place before trial, and NOT just a jail.
Jamie
Badges: 18
#204
Report 13 years ago
#204
(Original post by Douglas)
Vienna, you must believe what they say. After all, just because they hate the U.S., undermine the war effort at every opportunity, call Prez Bush every name in the book, doesn't mean they're not fair and balanced....Yikes
And with that me-too joins the fray in earnest...
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...igdogmetoo.htm
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#205
Report 13 years ago
#205
(Original post by foolfarian)
Lock them up fair enough. But you still need treat them with an amount of dignity and repect befitting another human being. Bearing in mind they have not yet been proven guilty.
Within the context of the detainment of a unlawful enemy combatant, I agree.
0
JonnyB
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#206
Report 13 years ago
#206
So what, a kick is a kick etc,

But it's harsh to sh*t on the Koran/Bible/Whatever.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#207
Report 13 years ago
#207
(Original post by Vienna)
"yet makes no demands on the part of the PA to offer Israel any support in defending its people from suicide bombers and terrorism"

I think it would be rather irresponsible to believe that the PA has total control of groups such as Hamas, but there are measures that they can take to prevent acts of terrorism against Israel yes.


But it isnt the case. The 144 UN nations vote to recognise the text of that Resolution. I believe that for real peace in the region, a two-state agreement has to be negotiated with Israeli security concerns a priority.


144 nations signed a UN resolution. You alone labelled that UN resolution a peace agreement despite all the logic demonstrating the contrary.
The resolution contains 6 articles, which call for the following:

1) the settling of this "conflict" (out of "urgent need");
2) the convening of an "International Peace Conference";
3) the reaffirmation of "principles for the achievement of comprehensive peace";
4) the placement of occupied territories "under the supervision of the United Nations for a limited period, as part of the peace process"
5) asking the UNSC to "consider measures needed to convene the International Peace Conference";
6) "requesting the Secretary-General to continue his efforts ... to facilitate the convening of the Conference."

Maybe I should have said the U.S. and Israel vetoed a peace conference. Is that better?


(Original post by Vienna)
Its hard to draw a general consensus over 144 diverse nations.
I would imagine so, but this resolution did a pretty good job of it.

(Original post by Vienna)
So the West is hated because we share common values and alliance with the United States of America, who in turn offer Israel support?
Yes, if that's the way you want to put it. Makes a lot more sense than "they hate us for our freedom."

(Original post by Vienna)
Is it rational for British Muslims to call for an end to democracy and a Islamic revolution in Britain?
Is it rational to call for the death of Tony Blair and George Bush?
Is it rational for 70% of young British Muslims to advocate Sharia law courts in the UK?
Is it rational to behead innocent men and women and hang their charred bodies from bridges?
Is it rational to blame the west for the Tsunami disaster because we have sinned so much?
Is it rational for French Muslims to systematically rape and murder in the name of Islam while rejecting their French nationality and its laws?
Is it rational to blow multiple bombs up on a busy Madrid commuter train?
I think I speak for everyone on my side when I say this: We've had enough of your suggesting that we condone such acts in any way, or that we think they're anything less than atrocious and abominable. We as well as you want to end terrorism as effectively as possible. The only question is what's the most effective way to do this?

The degradation of Germany following WWI does not explain Hitler or Goebbels, but it does explain how a human society could enable them to gain power and do great harm. Am I a Nazi sympathizer for saying so? Of course not. So don't call me a terrorist, or suggest that I support terrorists, merely because I think the rise of terrorism demands a real explanation.
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#208
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#208
(Original post by foolfarian)
And with that me-too joins the fray in earnest...
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...igdogmetoo.htm
By golly Farian, I would say that's a bit more than earnest....more like a vengeance.
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#209
Report 13 years ago
#209
(Original post by Douglas)
Are U.S. prisons Gulags??? We are assuming everyone knows what a gulag is....at least a Stalin type gulag.
Well, they didn't SAY "Stalin-type gulag," did they?

You weren't dismissing the "gulag" rhetoric anyway, you were dismissing a detailed report of black-and-white allegations.

(Original post by Douglas)
Their ideology, along with moveon.org and others *IS* what makes them untrustworthy.
That's ridiculous. If you cited a Wall Street Journal statement, I wouldn't dispute it based on the WSJ's position as the mouthpiece of wealthy financial interests. The WSJ is basically honest as far as content itself goes. Is Amnesty dishonest? As I said before, they were trustworthy enough for the Bush Administration to quote them repeatedly when they were enumerating Saddam's offenses.

(Original post by Douglas)
Great post.
We should now hear the silence of the lambs.
Who can hear anything with all the bleating of the sheep?
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#210
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#210
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Who can hear anything with all the bleating of the sheep?
Would these be black sheep, or white sheep?
Douglas
Badges: 0
#211
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#211
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
As I said before, they were trustworthy enough for the Bush Administration to quote them repeatedly when they were enumerating Saddam's offenses.
But that was when A.I. thought that gassing kurds was worse than gulags, now they think pissing on Korans is worse than gulags....as ol' Bob Dylan said....the times they are a'changin'

Ok, I'm off to see the wizard.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#212
Report 13 years ago
#212
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
The resolution contains 6 articles, which call for the following:

1) the settling of this "conflict" (out of "urgent need");
2) the convening of an "International Peace Conference";
3) the reaffirmation of "principles for the achievement of comprehensive peace";
4) the placement of occupied territories "under the supervision of the United Nations for a limited period, as part of the peace process"
5) asking the UNSC to "consider measures needed to convene the International Peace Conference";
6) "requesting the Secretary-General to continue his efforts ... to facilitate the convening of the Conference."
You quote a UN resolution and yet fail to recognise its crucial points.

(a) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and from the other occupied Arab territories;

(d) Dismantling the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967;

4. Notes the expressed desire and endeavours to place the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Maybe I should have said the U.S. and Israel vetoed a peace conference. Is that better?
No, its still complete nonsense. A UN resolution is a UN resolution. This one calls for complete Israeli withdrawal with no premise for Israeli security and the basis for establishing a Palestinian state.

I would imagine so, but this resolution did a pretty good job of it.
Well unless you are the one suggesting 144 nations are anti-Israel the point is redundant.

Yes, if that's the way you want to put it. Makes a lot more sense than "they hate us for our freedom."
They hate secularity, democracy and other inherent values. Those are the values of the secular democratic West.

I think I speak for everyone on my side when I say this: We've had enough of your suggesting that we condone such acts in any way
I didnt. I asked you to answer the questions I posed which, like many of my other points have been meticulously removed from your replies.

The degradation of Germany following WWI does not explain Hitler or Goebbels, but it does explain how a human society could enable them to gain power and do great harm. Am I a Nazi sympathizer for saying so? Of course not. So don't call me a terrorist, or suggest that I support terrorists, merely because
I didnt. Answer the questions.

I think the rise of terrorism demands a real explanation.
Ive given you one. Its amazing that so called progressives refuse to entertain the possibility that some cultures, notably the Islamic state, reject and dislike our value systems, our beliefs, our system of governance. That huge numbers are willing to die to see a single divine rule of law. With many of its institutions crumbling around it, with the demographics pointing towards a death spiral, the secular progressive West, notably Europe, appears determined to mug itself. Until Europe crumbles under massive government debt, demographic distortion and military impotance, the same liberals are convinced that hatred for the West is a matter of Western wording on a Western document, or US soldiers not adhering to Western obligations, or Western society not being Western enough. Maybe if we appease and sacrifice, they might stop hating us? They wont, because you are Western and you are weak and you are demonstrating it.

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#213
Report 13 years ago
#213
(Original post by Douglas)
But that was when A.I. thought that gassing kurds was worse than gulags, now they think pissing on Korans is worse than gulags....
Yeah, yeah ... but whatever their opinion, the substance of their allegations was presumed trustworthy. And this was a very short time ago.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#214
Report 13 years ago
#214
(Original post by Vienna)
You quote a UN resolution and yet fail to recognise its crucial points.

(a) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and from the other occupied Arab territories;

(d) Dismantling the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967;
The "a" and "b" you quote were sub-points of Article 3. They were reiterated in Article 4, which I noted with due reference to UN control of the occupied territories.




(Original post by Vienna)
No, its still complete nonsense. A UN resolution is a UN resolution. This one calls for complete Israeli withdrawal with no premise for Israeli security and the basis for establishing a Palestinian state.
No it doesn't. It calls for a conference. It is a resolution proposing a conference.

It does mention the importance of "Guaranteeing arrangements for security of all States in the region," and I would imagine this includes Israel.



(Original post by Vienna)
I didnt. I asked you to answer the questions I posed which, like many of my other points have been meticulously removed from your replies.

I didnt. Answer the questions.
You mean all the rhetorical questions? OK, here's my answer to these:

Is it rational for British Muslims to call for an end to democracy and a Islamic revolution in Britain? No.
Is it rational to call for the death of Tony Blair and George Bush? No.
Is it rational for 70% of young British Muslims to advocate Sharia law courts in the UK? No.
Is it rational to behead innocent men and women and hang their charred bodies from bridges? No.
Is it rational to blame the west for the Tsunami disaster because we have sinned so much? No.
Is it rational for French Muslims to systematically rape and murder in the name of Islam while rejecting their French nationality and its laws? No.
Is it rational to blow multiple bombs up on a busy Madrid commuter train? No.

Is it rational to believe this 'rational anger' is because, despite the French and British and Europe and Canada voting time and time again in condemnation of Israel, despite the fact that the French and the EU poured money into Arafat and his terrorist wing, the Americans have blocked 60 or so rather shallow UN condemnations over a considerable period of time?
First of all, I never called it "rational anger." I said they have "a rational reason to be angry." This is not the same as saying that their anger drives them to do rational things. Second, yes, I believe that America's UN record typifies its stance regarding the Israel situation and that this stance does anger Moslems.


What muslim, driven with such anger to drive a plane into a tower building, is actually motivated by the rhetoric at the UN?
What muslim, driven with such anger he declares war on democracy, or the west, actually cares for the soft, secular impotence of the UN, itself a Western institution?
You seem to be saying that it's immaterial to Moslems whether Palestinian authority is recognized by the U.N. or not. I disagree.


(Original post by Vienna)
Ive given you one. Its amazing that so called progressives refuse to entertain the possibility that some cultures, notably the Islamic state, reject and dislike our value systems, our beliefs, our system of governance. That huge numbers are willing to die to see a single divine rule of law. Whether many of its institutions crumbling around it, with the demographics pointing towards a death spiral, the secular progressive West, notably Europe, appears determined to mug itself. Until Europe crumbles under massive government debt, demographic distortion and military impotance, the same liberals are convinced that hatred for the West is a matter of Western wording on a Western document, or US soldiers not adhering to Western obligations, or Western society not being Western enough. Maybe if we appease and sacrifice, they might stop hating us? They wont, because you are Western and you are weak and you are demonstrating it.

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."
Re: the horse analogy---then why does the world hate us right now?

Regarding your reason, I am quite familiar with it; it's the unabridged version of "they hate us for our freedom." I have many problems accepting it. For now, I'll just say this: There certainly have been East/West conflicts over values, but modern terrorism burst into the world in the late 60s. 9/11 happened after a rising exchange of aggression in Israel. I don't think either is a coincidence.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#215
Report 13 years ago
#215
I just re-read the last few pages, & I see some confusion and missed points ... I think it would be a good idea to clear a few things up.



(Original post by Vienna)
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Do you maintain that the 144 nations that voted FOR the proposal did so because they are pro-terrorism?
I never suggested such an absurd thing.
Actually, Vienna, you did suggest it ... when you described the UN proposal as "a move that would embolden the cause of terrorism" (post #183). On this view, 144 UN nations voted to "embolden the cause of terrorism."

You also said "the U.S. is the lone defender of Israels right to exist" (post #189), based on its UN vote. This certainly suggests that nations which opposed our vote are opponents of Israel's right to exist.



(Original post by Vienna)
Whether I understood the term ad hominem was never in doubt.
I hate to burst your bubble, but yes it was. And still is.

Oh, and speaking of the whole ad hominem thing:

(Original post by Vienna)
You and Douglas can argue over who said what to who as much as you wish.
Yeah right! It's our argument huh? & you're washing your hands of it, as if you never said any of this:

(Original post by Vienna)
Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

[ad nauseum]
[---post #139]

You didnt demonstrate whatsoever, you smeared off his opinion and personal character. Such unsubstantiated, subjective comments are of an ad hominem nature when they bare irrelevance to the arguments.
[---post #164]

What a tedious set of affairs.
[---post #184]
So you can't just pretend you didn't put yourself right into the middle of that discussion. I was right; Douglas immediately behaved exactly as I described; so I want my damn trophy, Vienna: you can't skip away now.
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#216
Report 13 years ago
#216
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
"Terrorists"? Don't you know that most of the Gitmo prisoners haven't even been charged with a crime? That their arrests are not made public, and they're held incommunicato? (This is not the way our country is supposed to do things. This is typical of totalitarian countries, corrupt regimes, etc. Do any of you conservatives even care about this stuff anymore?)
Can you provide a name of an innocent prisoner who was mistakenly held at Gitmo?

I'm sure there are some abuses, but none of the media outlets are talking about how well treated these people are. We have an arrow in their cells pointing to mecca to assist them when praying. The prayers are broadcast over loudspeakers 5 times a day. We give these people a prayer mat, a cap and a Koran. They have access to a library filled with jihadi books. We have sinks that are mounted low so they can wash their feet. They are fed meals that are kosher. They have air conditioning, a luxury that they have never experienced before.

Many of these animals (calling them animals is almost and insult to animals) would slit your throat. They throw urine and feces at the guards. They should be thankful for receiving such good treatment. Gitmo is like the Hilton compared to anywhere they have ever stayed. All of this controversy started when a guard urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine into an air vent, leading to an inmate and his koran getting splashed with urine. You can't help but laugh at the absurdity of all of this.
0
Tonight Matthew
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#217
Report 13 years ago
#217
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Can you provide a name of an innocent prisoner who was mistakenly held at Gitmo?
I can give you five, and this is just from the UK. There have been others. Moazzam Begg, Jamal al-Harith, Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar. They were all held without charge for 3 years and are now suing the US government for millions.

Pretty basic stuff not to know.

(Original post by Made in the USA)

I'm sure there are some abuses, but none of the media outlets are talking about how well treated these people are. We have an arrow in their cells pointing to mecca to assist them when praying. The prayers are broadcast over loudspeakers 5 times a day. We give these people a prayer mat, a cap and a Koran. They have access to a library filled with jihadi books. We have sinks that are mounted low so they can wash their feet. They are fed meals that are kosher. They have air conditioning, a luxury that they have never experienced before.

Many of these animals (calling them animals is almost and insult to animals) would slit your throat. They throw urine and feces at the guards. They should be thankful for receiving such good treatment. Gitmo is like the Hilton compared to anywhere they have ever stayed. All of this controversy started when a guard urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine into an air vent, leading to an inmate and his koran getting splashed with urine. You can't help but laugh at the absurdity of all of this.
Unfortunately, your account of things doesn't corroborate with people who have actually been there for 3 years and subsequently come out. Their stories are all consistent with each other.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#218
Report 13 years ago
#218
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Actually, Vienna, you did suggest it ... when you described the UN proposal as "a move that would embolden the cause of terrorism" (post #183). On this view, 144 UN nations voted to "embolden the cause of terrorism."
144 nations voted for a UN resolution that calls on Israel to unilaterall withdraw, something which I believe would only embolden the cause of terrorism.

You also said "the U.S. is the lone defender of Israels right to exist" (post #189), based on its UN vote. This certainly suggests that nations which opposed our vote are opponents of Israel's right to exist.
Well, that probably needs some more clarification. The US is the sole nation that is an active defender of Israels right to exist and its right to defend itself.

I hate to burst your bubble, but yes it was. And still is.

Oh, and speaking of the whole ad hominem thing:

Yeah right! It's our argument huh? & you're washing your hands of it, as if you never said any of this:
Im a third party making an observation....

So you can't just pretend you didn't put yourself right into the middle of that discussion. I was right; Douglas immediately behaved exactly as I described; so I want my damn trophy, Vienna: you can't skip away now.
An observation that doesnt relate to my arguments on the topic of the thread.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#219
Report 13 years ago
#219
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Can you provide a name of an innocent prisoner who was mistakenly held at Gitmo?

I'm sure there are some abuses, but none of the media outlets are talking about how well treated these people are. We have an arrow in their cells pointing to mecca to assist them when praying. The prayers are broadcast over loudspeakers 5 times a day. We give these people a prayer mat, a cap and a Koran. They have access to a library filled with jihadi books. We have sinks that are mounted low so they can wash their feet. They are fed meals that are kosher. They have air conditioning, a luxury that they have never experienced before.

Many of these animals (calling them animals is almost and insult to animals) would slit your throat. They throw urine and feces at the guards. They should be thankful for receiving such good treatment. Gitmo is like the Hilton compared to anywhere they have ever stayed. All of this controversy started when a guard urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine into an air vent, leading to an inmate and his koran getting splashed with urine. You can't help but laugh at the absurdity of all of this.
guard couldn't urinate in a toilet then..?
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#220
Report 13 years ago
#220
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
It calls for a conference. It is a resolution proposing a conference.
It calls for a conference with some very clear premises. Not a peace agreement.

It does mention the importance of "Guaranteeing arrangements for security of all States in the region," and I would imagine this includes Israel.
Noone wants to see UN peacekeepers stuck in the Middle East for decade after decade. Their can only be peace if the Palestinians establish a Palestinian state and their government puts an end to the state sponsored terrorism against Israel.

Is it rational for British Muslims to call for an end to democracy and a Islamic revolution in Britain? No.
Is it rational to call for the death of Tony Blair and George Bush? No.
Is it rational for 70% of young British Muslims to advocate Sharia law courts in the UK? No.
Is it rational to behead innocent men and women and hang their charred bodies from bridges? No.
Is it rational to blame the west for the Tsunami disaster because we have sinned so much? No.
Is it rational for French Muslims to systematically rape and murder in the name of Islam while rejecting their French nationality and its laws? No.
Is it rational to blow multiple bombs up on a busy Madrid commuter train? No.
So all of these examples are the result of the US' voting record in regard to resolutions on Israel?

Is it rational to believe this 'rational anger' is because, despite the French and British and Europe and Canada voting time and time again in condemnation of Israel, despite the fact that the French and the EU poured money into Arafat and his terrorist wing, the Americans have blocked 60 or so rather shallow UN condemnations over a considerable period of time?
First of all, I never called it "rational anger." I said they have "a rational reason to be angry." This is not the same as saying that their anger drives them to do rational things. Second, yes, I believe that America's UN record typifies its stance regarding the Israel situation and that this stance does anger Moslems.
Are they angry because, despite the French and British and Europe and Canada voting time and time again in condemnation of Israel, despite the fact that the French and the EU poured money into Arafat and his terrorist wing, the Americans have blocked 60 or so rather shallow UN condemnations over a considerable period of time?

What muslim, driven with such anger to drive a plane into a tower building, is actually motivated by the rhetoric at the UN?
What muslim, driven with such anger he declares war on democracy, or the west, actually cares for the soft, secular impotence of the UN, itself a Western institution?
You seem to be saying that it's immaterial to Moslems whether Palestinian authority is recognized by the U.N. or not. I disagree.
The UN is a tool to acheive the goals of the Arab nation. Neither Muslims or Arabs demanded that Palestine be recognised by the UN when Palestine was under Jordanian or Egyptian or Ottoman rule. What muslim, driven with such anger he declares war on democracy believes that the UN has the right to rule over the Islamic state?

Re: the horse analogy---then why does the world hate us right now?
The world hate "us"? We were talking about the Muslim worlds hatred toward the West. It would be a shame to colour your argument with opinions on attitudes toward the American people.

Because they dont see the same horse you are seeing. Which is the point.

9/11 happened after a rising exchange of aggression in Israel. I don't think either is a coincidence.
What do you propose, that we get rid of Israel?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (169)
18.69%
No (549)
60.73%
Not really bothered about them (186)
20.58%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed