-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My government is getting close to legalizing torture. (LE thread with extra feature)
- Thread starter Mandark
- Start date
- Status
Aren't you supposed to be a muslim? Wouldn't you call Israel a "so called country" yourself? After all, a great percentage of the population wants peace, but Sharon's hard line military govt. continues to rule. How do you reconcile this? Is Israel blameless for what is going on? Is it solely the fault of muslims? I would like to know your view.Ripclawe said:
Raoul Duke said:
I am a Muslim, not an islamic extremist. The palestinians have to take the blame not just to the beginning of this intifada. But over the last 40+ years with their lack of good leadership and boneheaded moves that have placed them in the position they are in now.
I can't blame Israel for defending itself, though the lack of a focused policy till recently did bother me.
Cyan said:
PROTIP: But it can be a terrorist organisation. Is your problem the grammar, or what you mean is, that a goverment can't be a terrorist organisation? Cos -and correct me if I'm wrong- wasn't it what Bush used to call Talibans? Oh wait wasn't it what they also called Muammar al-Gaddafi and his goverment?
Raoul Duke said:
Let's not forget Israelis voted for Sharon a known mass murderer and war criminal. The only reason Sharon isn't behind bars today is that USA supports him. And it's quite funny how the only country openly and officially calling the Palestinian resistance "terrorists" is USA. What I mean to say is that Palestinian resistance is the last thing you should blame. They're doing what every nation tried to do to free themselves from their oppressors during history: Anything (and I mean anything) they could possibly do. They want their freedom and they deserve it. And not with these ridiculous peace plans USA brings to the table every now and then. We're talking about real freedom with real independence.
Oh, Ripclawe the irony... don't you see you should not pick it? You know very well what's coming, wars, environmetal pollution, abortion bans, marriage amendments, therapeutics cloning bans, attacks against the constitution, stripping of more rights, and more blatant abuse of the american people. They'll do what they've done to foreigners, and to US citizens in foreign land in the mainland. You don't get it do you? The snake will bite you.
When did he do these and say this?
You've discredited yourself many a time, pulling stuff out of your ass, so I'm going to have to ask for proof.
Like Saturnman mentioned this happened to Maher Arar, a Canadian businessman who went on a business trip to the US. He was sent to Syria to be tortured.
Ripclawe, please answer a few of these questions.
1) Is Baathist Syria an ally on the "war on Terror"?
2) If the US had a suspected terrorist in custody...WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY SHIP HIM TO ANOTHER COUNTRY?
You don't understand the problem, you don't understand terrorism, and in fact your way of thinking is exactly the same as the terrorists with just a minor change in the language used to describe the subject.
-edit- btw, I left the Cat discussion in the other Cat thread. Didn't want to derail this one.
examples?
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=572cea4b-839c-4080-9999-f53611a46aba
Yes, they have helped capture Islamic Terrorists and No, they support hamas, hezzbollah and actions in the middle east region against Israel.
The violin is playing in the background.
If you think singing kumbaya and give peace a chance talk will defeat terrorism, you are completely wrong. Terrorism must be defeated by brutal force, so as to discourage more people joining up and showing that there are horrible consequences for carrying out terrorists acts. You can never give in to the demand of terrorists under any circumstances.
Carlos the Jackal
I've already addressed that National Post article. They are in hot water right now by the Canadian government and other news agencies (for twisting words), I need not get into that for this thread.
So which is it? They capture terrorists, and support terrorists?
You have no clue, apparently. Like Hussien's Iraq, Syria has punished, jailed, and tortured political dissenters.
Wasn't this the crux of Bush's arguement for invading Iraq? (After the WMD thing fell through).
You are a hypocrite, you have no legs to stand on Ripclawe.
Your answer to #2 is quite interesting...because the answer from the American official was quite hypocritical as well.
What the US has done in the Maher Arar situation was send a person (who spoke out against the Baathist regime) to Syria to get tortured, while they had no evidence he was a threat. Plus, he wasn't American, he wasn't their own citizen, he was Canadian.
Effectively, the US can take ANY PERSON within their borders, arrest them for no reason, and torture them (whether they do it themselves or not, is irrelevant, because as the Official said, they are arrested for the purpose of being tortured). Hmm...how different is this from Saddam Hussien's own government?
Using brutal force creates more terrorism. Again, let me reiterate, you do not understand the problem. This comment you just made is proof of this.
It's quite clear that the terrorism that affects the US is a result of their own policies. Had these policies were created and put into place by countries such as Norway, or Switzerland, you would see them being affected by terrorism.
Terrorism within the Muslim World is a new phenomenon. It only came into fruition 40 years ago, with the 1400 year history of the religion. It came as a result of many things, most of which are politically related.
I'd like to see your solution, in detail, as to how we should fight terrorism. Currently, it's war-mongering rhetoric that is vague and unmethodical. "We'll strike the terrorists wherever they may be". Sounds familiar...
I'll post my solution after you post yours. Time to give my fingers a rest.
So which is it? They capture terrorists, and support terrorists?
You have no clue, apparently. Like Hussien's Iraq, Syria has punished, jailed, and tortured political dissenters.
Wasn't this the crux of Bush's arguement for invading Iraq? (After the WMD thing fell through).
You are a hypocrite, you have no legs to stand on Ripclawe.
Your answer to #2 is quite interesting...because the answer from the American official was quite hypocritical as well.
What the US has done in the Maher Arar situation was send a person (who spoke out against the Baathist regime) to Syria to get tortured, while they had no evidence he was a threat. Plus, he wasn't American, he wasn't their own citizen, he was Canadian.
Effectively, the US can take ANY PERSON within their borders, arrest them for no reason, and torture them (whether they do it themselves or not, is irrelevant, because as the Official said, they are arrested for the purpose of being tortured). Hmm...how different is this from Saddam Hussien's own government?
Using brutal force creates more terrorism. Again, let me reiterate, you do not understand the problem. This comment you just made is proof of this.
It's quite clear that the terrorism that affects the US is a result of their own policies. Had these policies were created and put into place by countries such as Norway, or Switzerland, you would see them being affected by terrorism.
Terrorism within the Muslim World is a new phenomenon. It only came into fruition 40 years ago, with the 1400 year history of the religion. It came as a result of many things, most of which are politically related.
I'd like to see your solution, in detail, as to how we should fight terrorism. Currently, it's war-mongering rhetoric that is vague and unmethodical. "We'll strike the terrorists wherever they may be". Sounds familiar...
I'll post my solution after you post yours. Time to give my fingers a rest.
Yes, duplicity from most Middle East countries is a given in cases like these. Syria is bad but for a long time was "better" than the rest.
Really? Here I thought the Hama rule was just a one time deal. shocking.
It was one of the arguments used for invading Iraq, Syria is not up to that level where US considers them a threat to our interests like we considered Iraq all those years.
As for being a hypocrite, examples.
As I said before in another thread, depending on who it is, I don't care, in Arar case so far, it was a mistake due to information by canadian authorities given to the US who sent him off to Syria.
No, I understand the problem, I just have a different way of dealing with it. The way of lets understand their feelings and appeasing every time we can simply does not work because that encourages more terrorism from more groups. The West is already considered pussies by the likes of Bin Laden and other terror groups, the appeasement way enforces that opinion and is deadly to everyone.
Okay lets go the blame America route which is easy to do and simplifies everything, explain islamic terrorism in Nigeria, Thailand, Australia, Mayalasia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, phillipes, Trinidad and Tobago just to start off.
Terrorism within the Muslim world is not a new thing, Shiites vs Sunni comes to mind over the hundreds of years. Modern Terrorism in the Middle East is largely to blame for the funding and teaching of extremists views in various countries which is why House of Saud is paying a price for it.
I have been over this already. Here is the short version
Brutal force, fear and carrot on a stick.
Ripclawe said:
Oh no! Don't get me started... Che was a hero who sacrificed his life trying to free people and nations, and you are just a hating worm, and nothing more. Che had ideals, you are obviously empty of them, and quite frankly I don't think you are able to recognize the word and understand its true meaning. I really feel guilty for comparing you to Che and you should be proud I gave you such a privilege.
What is this American fascination with writing to your Congressperson? Do you think they're actually going to listen to you or something zany like that? Yeah I know the drill, if enough people send letters complaining the congressperson better listen lest they be thrown out of office. That's a big IF though, especially when the majority of Congressperson writing types probably support such legislation out of their own ignorance anyway.
If their screeners like what you say, they'll respond sometimes. I never wrote one, but I've heard of it happening. You stand a better chance if you write your local state representative. They are broken down by district I think, so they'll tend to have fewer letters coming in, so yours is more likely to be read. And the House of Rep usually is where bills start anyway. PEACE.xabre said:
You're probably better off organising some form of mass protest. At least then you can get a good number of like minded people in one place which is enough to gain media attention and galvanise support from other members of the community. With that said peaceful protest doesn't seem to have a particularly good record of changing policy, so if thousands of people marching in unison cannot affect change or halt a piece of legislation than I don't see what a few letters are going to do either. Congressmen writing would seem to be one of those little American peculiarities where by people brought up believing their single voice in a so-called democracy of millions can actually make a difference and that their representatives can actually be influenced by the will of the individual (i.e. the ‘You can make a difference’ mantra) as opposed to popular opinion, corporate interests, party leanings or sneaky back-pocket shenanigans.
PEACE.Ripclawe: So you believe that a government should have the power to arrange for the torture of people, without due process of law, without a transparent process, without checks in place to prevent abuse of this power? Your surpassing faith in the innate goodness of government surprises me.
jinx: I totally agree about root causes, except the words "do something to change their motivation." This parses as trying to change the minds of already active terrorists, which is not quite what I think you meant.
Convincing people to not become terrorists, then convincing them not to support terrorists, then convincing them to help stop terrorists, are the most important long-term goals for the US in this thing. A "show of force" isn't going to change people's philosophies, just make them work covertly instead (and hey! they're already doing that).
Aesop: I find your fables to be glib and facile. Also, the one about the camel in the river is positively obscene!
xabre: Of course they're not going to read it. The point is, with a couple of clicks, a hundred or so keystrokes, and a minute of your time, you can register your opinion with someone who can do something about this.
The idea is not for a Rep to read your plea and be swayed, but for their staff manager to say to them "You've been getting a bunch of mail about this torture thing, all of it against."
Every politician wants to get re-elected. Almost every Rep in a safe district wants to be a Senator, and every Senator who's not currently having sex with a child considers himself a presidential candidate. If they hear enough noise, they will react.
On some issues, that are brought up every day and every election cycle, it may be okay to sit around and answer a poller if they call. An officeholder is more likely to keep their ear to the ground on those.
But in this case, they're trying to sneak something in that can be beat back. If enough people make enough of a fuss on this, it will be amended and nobody will be stupid enough to try it again for many years. This is a very winnable battle, and it's one worth winning.
Duane: I'm not sure what you mean there, since my link takes you to your local Rep in the House. Congress can mean either them or the Senate.
jinx: I totally agree about root causes, except the words "do something to change their motivation." This parses as trying to change the minds of already active terrorists, which is not quite what I think you meant.
Convincing people to not become terrorists, then convincing them not to support terrorists, then convincing them to help stop terrorists, are the most important long-term goals for the US in this thing. A "show of force" isn't going to change people's philosophies, just make them work covertly instead (and hey! they're already doing that).
Aesop: I find your fables to be glib and facile. Also, the one about the camel in the river is positively obscene!
xabre: Of course they're not going to read it. The point is, with a couple of clicks, a hundred or so keystrokes, and a minute of your time, you can register your opinion with someone who can do something about this.
The idea is not for a Rep to read your plea and be swayed, but for their staff manager to say to them "You've been getting a bunch of mail about this torture thing, all of it against."
Every politician wants to get re-elected. Almost every Rep in a safe district wants to be a Senator, and every Senator who's not currently having sex with a child considers himself a presidential candidate. If they hear enough noise, they will react.
On some issues, that are brought up every day and every election cycle, it may be okay to sit around and answer a poller if they call. An officeholder is more likely to keep their ear to the ground on those.
But in this case, they're trying to sneak something in that can be beat back. If enough people make enough of a fuss on this, it will be amended and nobody will be stupid enough to try it again for many years. This is a very winnable battle, and it's one worth winning.
Duane: I'm not sure what you mean there, since my link takes you to your local Rep in the House. Congress can mean either them or the Senate.
Che was a cowardly mass murderer who ran and lost whenever he came up against real fighters, his adventure in bolivia was a fitting end to him.
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7508
Never said without checks and balances, a policy like this is useless and dangerous without it. Too many mistakes would negate any positive information. It shouldn't be used on lackeys but important captures like Khalid.
When you accept this duplicity, you are sending a strong message to the Internationaly community. You really don't care about dictators harming their own people. In fact, when you sent Arar back, you said "hey, this guy wanted a democracy in your country, let's see what you can do with him". It's like the situation in China. Our morals and values take a back seat to money.
In English please. "Hama rule"? Assuming you meant, "Hamas rule" it still doesn't make any sense.
Yes, one of the arguements...in fact the most important arguement that was reiterated time and time again. The other arguements arrived once the first one fell through.
Both countries don't have any WMDs. Both have Baathist governments. One was invaded. You agree with this invasion because "Saddam hurt his own people".
Yet you support the case where Arar, an anti-Baathist who spoke out against his government in Syria and fled to Canada, was sent to Syria for tortue, by American officials.
That's hypocracy. We have people, natives of those lands, who can help build a democracy in that region and we are sending them off to those very countries to get tortured.
According to inquiry it was the US's decision to ship him off to Syria. He was a Canadian citizen. Why was he sent to Syria once they found out he was anti-Baathist? What's so hard to understand Ripclawe?
No you don't, you've demonstrated time and time again that you don't understand the agenda and thinking of modern day terrorists.
Understanding their motives does not equal "appeasing" them.
If you can't understand a simple concept like that, then obviously you are intellectually ill equipped to understand and tackle the problem.
"Blame America"? I said the terrorism which affects the US has a lot to do with the US. Again, what's so hard to understand?
I never attributed the other situations to the US. In countries like Nigeria, Phillipines, and Trinidad, there are groups of Muslims who have been oppressed and terrorism is an extreme reaction to this oppression. Many see themselves as freedom fighters (ie. MILF).
In countries like Australia, it has do with Australia's involvement in Afghanistan, and some theorize it has to do with Australia not letting Afghan refugees into their country.
Syria and Lebanon has no problems with terrorists, but they have some groups like Hezbollah operating out of their country. As we all know, Hezbollah helped oust Israeli soldiers from Lebanon and are attempting the same in Syria.
The fact that I had to explain this to you just goes to show that you have to read up on the situation before commenting on it. Please do so for our sake as well as yours.
I don't have all the time in the World to educate you. My time is worth money.
Where are you getting this stuff from?
!!!
In my research, the first acts of terrorism within the Islamic context occurred in Palestine against Israelis. And that was simply because they were emulating what Israelis did to the British.
"Extremist views" that affect the US only began when Osama bin Laden said he got a Fatwa (a religious verdict) that any American is a viable target. At that moment, terrorism against the United States was born. It did exist in prior years in countries like Israel/Palestine, but other than that it was a new concept Islamically.
The "House of Saud" isn't a religious institution, it's a monarchy. This isn't something new, and this isn't rocket science Ripclawe, read a book, it's as easy as that!
How else can I say, I don't speak no other languages...you have no clue, whatsoever.
And how does that help the people that are suffering? Oh wait, you have no clue what I'm talking about, right? You're lost, is that right?
Brutal force upon whom? Fear and carrot on a stick? Hit 'em with a Midnight Golfer?
Your "solution" is as unrealistic as EA's NHL 2005.
I think I'll post my solution in a new thread.
BobbyRobby
Member
Sterilize Terrorists. Many others should be sterilized too. The dumb are reproducing at the highest rates.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked