| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2005 09:24:35 PM · #126 |
And Fox is the #1 "news" channel in the US.
I suggest everyone rent/buy the movie "Control Room" for the Islamic perspective on the war and terrorism. A view we in the US never get to see. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 10:39:58 PM · #127 |
| Are there any people here who follow the muslim faith at all? I would love to hear their side of things too! How does all this affect them? |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 11:24:33 PM · #128 |
Neither of those clips were truely "news". The biggest problem with news today isn't who's channel it comes from, but the blurring of news with editorials/opinions. Hard news containing just facts doesn't draw ratings, so we don't get "pure" news any longer.
Basically the op/ed section has swapped spots with the front page. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 11:56:00 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by nborton:
Neither of those clips were truely "news". The biggest problem with news today isn't who's channel it comes from, but the blurring of news with editorials/opinions. Hard news containing just facts doesn't draw ratings, so we don't get "pure" news any longer.
Basically the op/ed section has swapped spots with the front page. |
That is indeed one of the major problems.
Another is that the news companies are owned by companies that own other companies so there are conflicts of interest all over the place. Lots of stories donĂ¢€™t get reported because they would be "bad for business". |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 07:24:10 AM · #130 |
I find this truly infuriating.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You directed your comments at Islam, the religion, not extremism, the cause of terror. Are you allowed to incite religious hatred in the US? Whether you are or not, I find it a morally despicable action. |
I hear you make quite a few harsh references to christians. So am I to understand from your actions that it's deplorable except in reference to christians. Perhaps you should review your own sentiments my friend?
|
What on earth are you saying here - that my last few posts condemning extremism is somehow a reference to Chrisitianity??? You have blamed "a large chunk of Islam" for terrorism. Your blame is direct. You have suggested that the twisted version of Islam practiced by a tiny percentage of people (infinitessimal) who regard themselves as Muslim is the standard. You take the worst, hold them up, and by doing so, you suggest that we should treat all muslims as if they are this bad. I am reacting very strongly against this religious hatred that you are inspiring on a deeply twisted understanding of the world. I do regard your actions as inspiring religious hatred.
I have no beef with you disagreeing with and condemning Osama - I agree with you totally. I understand that there had to be immediate retribution - I have not heard anyone criticising the invasion of Afghanistan with the purpose of removing a government that supported and harboured the terrorists. That war was justified and I have never criticised it. The twisted version of Islam practiced by the Taliban was inhumane and intolerable to our standards. It was right to eradicate it. I condemn the capital punishment of anyone in the world, and in particular the stoning or other punishment of women in those cultures where such treatment has become established.
I think that the uS is a great country, I think that the moral standing of most of its people is outstanding, the principles on which it is founded were and still are revolutionary and among the best in the world. I respect it as an ecomnomic powerhouse, and the willingness to help other countries (though I still maintain that in some policy areas this is proportionately small). I love the people of the US and their friendly attitude. I respect your election system (though flawed) and your right to elect a leader. I respect your choice (I have no option!), and it is through threads like this that I understand why GWB get elected.
There is no point trying to argue with me on those points: I agree with you. I support you, and I am directing no hatred towards you.
But, I reserve the right to criticise the US foreign policy before 9-11 and after it, and in particular the war in Iraq, which was illegal. By criticising the US, I do not invalidate any of the above points. As a person affected by US foreign policy, I feel entitled to criticise and be heard.
I am concerned at the democratic oppression of the minority (a recognised fault with the democratic system) and the way in which, if left unchecked, a religious majority can oppress a minority. I strongly support the separation of religion and state. The decision of the US president to campaign on areas of religious significance, or to appease a religious majority, or religious pressure group, and to offer aid based on religiously inspired conditions involves a threat to the efficacy of democracy. The separation of religion from state was one of the greatest things that Jefferson ever brought to the world: in his precursor to the Consitition of the States, in the Constitution of Virginia, he was the first person in the world to propose and stick with such a principle. It marked a watershed in tolerance and areligious understanding, upon which the US was built. That principle is being eroded.
I am extremely concerned at you inaccurate and misinformed views on Islam as a faith (long viewed as a sect of Christianity - the precepts are not far removed from Christianity or Judaism). If something is "un-Christian", it is probably 9 times out of 10 against the teachings of Islam, and where Islam differs to modern Christianity in its teachings, it is largely down to a different focus/interpretation of the same words.
I am extremely concerned at your misinformed views of Muslims - you do not know how many people (and remember - People, with the same rights and value as you and me) you lump together in your generic and critical damnation of "Islam" and "way too many muslims".
Your figures are plucked from the air and do not reflect the world I have seen (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, pre- and post-9-11) and the many people I have met as a consequence from the region. I live in the largest muslim area of London, a stone's throw from the country's largest mosque. I saw no-one "celebrating" 9-11, nor the London bombs. There are marches against US and UK foreign policy - but these are a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq, not somehow in support of the 9-11 tragedy.
Your examples have all demonstrated a naieve approach to the politics of 60+ nations and hundreds of millions of people. You appear to have been caught up in the language of "war", meaning "them" and "us". The "war" is not so simple.
In the same way as I criticise the States, I am allowed to criticise the policies of Israel without being anti-semitic. I condemn the terrorist policies adopted by renegade groups within Palestine. But they are not government controlled (even if there is a lack of government control), whereas the Israeli systematic confiscation of and, shooting of unarmed protesters is abhorrent ("crossfire" with an M16, with powerful scopes, is ridiculous - children and protesters are shot, and only last week, because one victim was a Western protester, an Istraeli marksman was imprisoned for murder following several years of campaigning and pressure for investigation). I condemn the Palestinians, but i have greater condemnation for the acts of revenge perpetrated by the Israeli government. There is an example of one nation never achieving peace because it cannot take a body blow without fighting back and hitting back harder, fanning the flames.
Your comments on Gitmo prisoners make my point: you have judged them, without charge or trial, to be of less value than you, deserving of none of the constitutional rights that you have, and indeed, with no human rights as determined by worldwide accord. They are less than you, and do not deserve the same protection. Judge a nation by its treatment of its prisoners.
You say my principles appear extreme: I preach tolerance and understanding. I preach understand a religion, before you condemn every adherent. I preach critical analysis of our own actions, before we condemn others unthinkingly.
You, however, preach blame for the acts of nations on most muslims. You tell us that the US should not be criticised, because it is established righteously, without ever analysing whether its actions accord with the principles by which it was founded.
An extremist view opposite to yours would be to support the terrorists. I am not such a man. You are at one extreme, the terrorists at the other. I am in the middle - the opposite of an extremist.
I condemn extremism. I condemn reactionary politics. I condemn religiously motivated politics. I condemn religious extremism.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 08:35:29 AM · #131 |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 09:03:38 AM · #132 |
Thanks legalbeagle. I heartily endorse everything yoy have posted here. And I am so glad to here that London is back to normal, the muslim community in London is not being targeted and the sun is shining.
My sincere condolences to anyone who lost a loved one or was injured on Thursday. Let's concentrate on apprehending the individuals who committed this horror!
P |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 10:55:31 AM · #133 |
There are no rights given to the detainees at club Gitmo. They are not entitled to a trial. Where do you draw the line? You capture 100's of terriorist, You detain them! You question them, interrorgate them. You then give them a attorney?????? Sure thats the way its done. No you let them go and capture them again and start the process all over. Of course this would be after more death. The detainess have no rights!!!.
Amagine this! We let one detainee go due to pressure of the left. He inturn participates in a major terrorist attack. Who is to blame? People who want the detainees to have trials? The pressure of the left?
I say Keep them locked up until this is over! There should be more there. |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 11:07:16 AM · #134 |
| Hey...if you cant prosecute them then let them go! How long do you want to hold them for with no trial? But then again, when does US give a hoot about world opinion! |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 11:47:07 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by Makka:
Hey...if you cant prosecute them then let them go! How long do you want to hold them for with no trial? But then again, when does US give a hoot about world opinion! |
How about we drop them off at your children's school, since they should be set free?
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 12:32:22 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Makka:
Hey...if you cant prosecute them then let them go! How long do you want to hold them for with no trial? But then again, when does US give a hoot about world opinion! |
This is a war!! Not local drug dealers and thieves you find in the neighborhood. Where do you live? I will email the government and we will send them to your neighborhood.
I know it does not seem right to detain them however prisoners of war, even if it is not declared do not get trials.
Maybe your right. Everyone we catch that we suspect is a terrorist should be given a attorney, a trial date, we can go over to Iraq and question all the witnesses, dna testing, collect information, question the enemy, ect.(of course we may end up with our head on a platter). Will take about a year or so, Millions of dollars for just one detainee then we can let him loose. Sounds good to me.
Where would you like us to send them to? Back home?
Message edited by author 2005-07-09 12:59:05. |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 12:54:30 PM · #137 |
And Fox is the #1 "news" channel in the US.
Hmmm, I suppose there is a reason for that. I dont think its just a coincidence.
I like Fox news.
So :(-
:) |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 01:15:23 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
Originally posted by Makka:
Hey...if you cant prosecute them then let them go! How long do you want to hold them for with no trial? But then again, when does US give a hoot about world opinion! |
This is a war!! Not local drug dealers and thieves you find in the neighborhood. Where do you live? I will email the government and we will send them to your neighborhood.
I know it does not seem right to detain them however prisoners of war, even if it is not declared do not get trials.
Maybe your right. Everyone we catch that we suspect is a terrorist should be given a attorney, a trial date, witnesses can go over to Iraq and question all the witnesses, dna testing, ect. About a year or so, Millions of dollars for just one detainee then we can let him loose. Sounds good to me. |
How do you know they are terrorists? Because they were arrested? If being arrested were sufficient grounds to find guilt, then why do we bother with a justice system? Because no one knows what crime those men are charged with, let alone whether or not they committed the acts they are accused of. Prisoners returned to the UK were not charged and had to be set free partly because of the US action.
IMO, there is no "war" - it is termed a war, but there is no enemy to strike at. When you are at "war" with a group of individuals, not a nation state, you are effecting law enforcement.
If you think that there is a "war", then there are rules on prisoners of war and basic requirements under the Geneva Convention. Those are being breached.
If you think that the detainees are criminals, there are provisions under human rights law for the right to a fair trial.
If you feel that all bets are off, that the normal rules of decency and humanity do not apply - then you are no better than the terrorists. How can we expect them to comply with our standards, when our standards offend basic human rights?
Those men are not located on the soil of the US, because you wish to avoid having to apply a system of law that has been tried and tested, and of which many here have stated that they are proud. Your nice constitution and system of law, so cleverly drafted to prevent inhumane treatment of prisoners or POWs, to minimise the risk of a miscarriage of justice, is politically inconvenient. So the prisoners are kept elsewhere, where justice can be miscarried and their rights as human beings abused.
Why have a principle of law if, every time it poses difficult question, you bypass it.
If those men cannot be shown to be guilty of any crime, or participants in any war, then yes - they must be freed. If there is evidence of guilt, then they may be held humanely.
As for the cost - what is the cost of every American and English life where foreign combatants in any future war feel that the conventions on warfare no longer need to be respected, and that they may copy us in torturing and disregarding the lives of prisoners. How can we avoid hypocriticism when denouncing their actions?
I see much more cost than that of a few flights being "wasted" on justice every day. We invest in a system, benefit from it, and must use it and be bound by it, or we all suffer.
Message edited by author 2005-07-09 13:16:13.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 02:13:41 PM · #139 |
I commend your posts in this thread legalbeagle. You seem to understand American values better than many Americans.
Our founding fathers are indeed rolling in their graves today.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 02:47:56 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
IMO, there is no "war" - it is termed a war, but there is no enemy to strike at. When you are at "war" with a group of individuals, not a nation state, you are effecting law enforcement.
|
How is that? The enemy is the terrorists that want to slit your throat, blow up your subways, and fly into your buildings.
They may not be a nation, but most certainly it is a war.
Oh, and maybe these sweet guys you want set free can stay in your guest room, cause they are not staying in mine. |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 04:12:05 PM · #141 |
A purely hypothetical question:
If it turns out that the bombs that killed and maimed so many in London were found to have been planted by one of the former Guantanamo detainees that were "released" by the UK, would anyone's opinion change? If so, in what way? |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 05:59:05 PM · #142 |
I wonder how many actual prisoners of war in our past was given the opportunity to have a trial based on our laws using our resources and let go to fight another day?
The detainees do not have any rights to our legal system! These are people who we captured while tring to kill Americans, Iragi's, women, children and anything else that moved. I know that within our legal system there would be no way that a defence attorney would not be sucessfull in proving there case. Heck, murderers, rapist, child molesters get released every day here in the US. Our legal system would not be able to keep any of the detainees.
So because of this we should just let every one we catch go free. The only way we can stop them is kill them. If we went with your belief, all would have a attorney and legal rights, go to court and get let free.
We could try there legal system. Capture a innocent, put on TV, remove body part then dump body.
It is a catch 22. Damm if you do and damm if you dont. I am not willing to take the chance. 10's of thousands of lives are at state, The one wrong release can cost so much that it is not worth taking the chance. Would your opinion change if one of the detainees were released, later released a dirty bomb in London and thousands died as a result? You may be willing to take that chance but I am not.
I think this is a good thread and I hope no one takes offence. We all have different opinions based on what we hear and what we think we know.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 06:21:42 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
I think this is a good thread and I hope no one takes offence. We all have different opinions based on what we hear and what we think we know. |
How true! I agree with this statement 100%!
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 06:24:01 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I commend your posts in this thread legalbeagle. You seem to understand American values better than many Americans.
Our founding fathers are indeed rolling in their graves today. |
As I said somewhere earlier, the only thing that is protecting us from our sad excuse of a governing body is the genius of our founding fathers.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 10:53:19 PM · #145 |
How many terrorists have they found by detaining Muslim men in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, wisked off the streets where they lived for no suspicion of terrorist activity or crime? Have the detainees at these facilities given up pertinent information regarding terrorism from the torture and humiliation they have suffered and continue to suffer? Information gotten through torture is always suspect.
Mike German, former FBI agent involved with counterterrorism,says we should be paying more attention to white supremicist groups because they pose a terrorist threat to the US equally to the Islamists. Should we be arresting all men we find connected with Christian Identity groups? Anti-abortion groups? Anti-semetic groups? Militia groups? Vigilante groups, Or maybe detaining any white men who look at the authorities the wrong way? Without due process? Without their families knowledge of their whereabouts? Without access to legal defense?
Here's a not so hypothetical group of questions:
What if it was found out that Bush did in fact lie about reasons for war with Iraq? That they intended to invade Iraq all along? What if it was found out that torture was systematic and sanctioned by the highest offices of the Bush administration? What if it was found that the Bush administration was making a mockery of democracy and justice? Would that change your opinion of the war on terrorism, and in what way?
What if...
Originally posted by RonB:
A purely hypothetical question:
If it turns out that the bombs that killed and maimed so many in London were found to have been planted by one of the former Guantanamo detainees that were "released" by the UK, would anyone's opinion change? If so, in what way? |
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 04:57:23 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
Originally posted by Makka:
Hey...if you cant prosecute them then let them go! How long do you want to hold them for with no trial? But then again, when does US give a hoot about world opinion! |
This is a war!! Not local drug dealers and thieves you find in the neighborhood. Where do you live? I will email the government and we will send them to your neighborhood.
I know it does not seem right to detain them however prisoners of war, even if it is not declared do not get trials.
Maybe your right. Everyone we catch that we suspect is a terrorist should be given a attorney, a trial date, we can go over to Iraq and question all the witnesses, dna testing, collect information, question the enemy, ect.(of course we may end up with our head on a platter). Will take about a year or so, Millions of dollars for just one detainee then we can let him loose. Sounds good to me.
Where would you like us to send them to? Back home? |
I thought most of these fellows were captured on the battlefield in afghanistan? That doesn't make them terrorists! It makes them prisoners of war! |
|
|
|
07/10/2005 08:54:24 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by RonB:
A purely hypothetical question:
If it turns out that the bombs that killed and maimed so many in London were found to have been planted by one of the former Guantanamo detainees that were "released" by the UK, would anyone's opinion change? If so, in what way? |
I would rather chance this ( trusting in the legal procedures of my country) than have a world where anyone can be imprisoned without trial, without proof, without humanitarian care. If this happened then we have lost any moral highground and deserve to have our citizens treaterd in exactly the same way.
Did you condemn the terrorists who held American and UK citizens hostage in the MiddleEast many years ago ,people like Terry Waite? America is holding its hostages in Guantanamo Bay.
How long do the government intend to hold them? Until they die? The fight against terrorism will not be over in 10, 20, 30 years - there have always been terrorists and will always be so because there are fanatical people who will be prepared to fight in this abhorrent way against another ideology.
If they do not intend to release them without trial, then the trials must happen soon, whatever the cost, ( how much is it going to cost compared with the cost of the loss of the US 's reputation), while the evidence can be brought before the court.
If these prisoners are prisoners of war, many of them will be soldiers brought into the army to fight, not terrorists but soldiers. They are not a threat as terrorists. If they are terrorists they should not be held as prisoners of war and should be tried. You cannot bend the law to suit yourself just because you don't know what to do with them and say "Oh but we can't do anything because they might be terrorists and come back to haunt us in some way." An awful lot of Germans served under Hitler but actually any terrorists from this country ( eg Bader Meinhof) were not anything to do with WW2 but developed their terrorist activities much later. As far as I know no German prisoners of war immediately returned as terrorists when they were released.
Would it be OK for the US and UK soldiers who were arrested for inhumane treatment of prisoners to be left to rot in jail without trial? If they had been arrested by Iraqi government, in your view that is what could have happened.
So if those released back to UK were anything to do with the London bombings, I would regret the deaths no more no less and blame the individuals in the same way. Of course I would want to see that the Government had thoroughly checked them out before releasing them else they would have failed to protect us BUT if the US showed proof that the prisoners they have are terrorists individually not as a group, then I would accept their detaining them. The only way to do this is through the legal system.
For a moment just reverse the situation. Saddam is still in power and arrests and detains 100 Americans after a fight and says they are terrorists. He will not release them, put them on trial nor allow legal help. There are rumours that they are being tortured.
Your son is one of those detainees. How do you feel?
Pauline |
|
|
|
07/10/2005 09:16:49 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
from London Terrorthread...
Originally posted by crank2o:
Originally posted by Makka:
This sort of thing is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan everyday and it doesn't get as much coverage! What is the difference I ask? |
The difference is that these people are willing to kill themselves to kill civilians. |
This is supposed to stay out of rant. [rant]But I wondered how many others cringed at Bush's statement damning the killing of tens of innocent civilians, when over 100 thousand innocent civilians have died recently in Iraq. [/rant] |
legalbegal...YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE US OR OUR PRESIDENT.
You want to know the truth?
I THINK AMERICA IS TOO NICE. I think we're too lenient. I think we let other countries slide too often. I think we should worry about our own backs.
We have thousands of soldiers in Iraq -- to protec the civillians in the long-run. Don't talk about innocent civilians dying, that is a casualty of war...NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK. I agree, we SHOULD NOT be there. We have people here without insurance whose house got crashed down from hurricanes last year who are STILL WITHOUT A HOME. We have innocent people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY who cannot afford to fead their families or themselves -- some by choice and stupid mistake, yes -- but others by accident or other misfortune.
Until we fix the problems INSIDE AMERICA, screw the rest of the world. And if another country has a problem with that, then drop the big one on them.
America's news is always aired out for the rest of the world to see. Everyone is so concerned with what America is doing these days. Even though we do more for the world than any other country -- heck, probably all other countries combined, we still get bashed. So I say, we just stop trying. You're never going to please everybody...just worry about pleasing yourself.
My main point, however, is that there's no reason thousands of troops should be in another country, cleaning up, when we need stuff cleaned up around here! All the other countries do is bash us anyway!!!
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 09:21:01 AM · #149 |
oh...that ... and BACK OFF THE US. You say you reserve the right to talk about the US' policies -- you don't have that right. Think what you want, but when you start preaching to hundreds of people about it on the internet, I think you're going overboard. You're insane dude. You live in a country that is too cowardly to back the US up when the US is backing your country up IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 09:30:35 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by deapee:
.... And if another country has a problem with that, then drop the big one on them.
|
I sometimes get the impression that if you were in charge Deapee, a significant portion of the world would be one massive parking lot... I could be wrong.
Ray
|
|
