massive anti-war rallies across the world...

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- massive anti-war rallies across the world...
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

Posted by JohnSmith on Feb-19-2003 20:43:

thanks yoepus. but i hope you realize why i did that. first off, i haven't seen any other site carry the story(then again, i haven't looked either, other than scanning front page headlines). Second i was humouring tiesto14, and posting something he'd recognize.

I have not seen this story anywhere else, and i certainly don't believe anything at face value that comes from foxnews or cnn.

Posted by Cyrus King on Feb-19-2003 20:58:

Posted by tiesto14 on Feb-19-2003 21:36:

quote:
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Second i was humouring tiesto14, and posting something he'd recognize.

+

i was just about to PM you and say i am glad we can discuss now without attacking each other...then i read this....unbeleivable.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Feb-19-2003 21:53:

The actions of the US and the actions of the Al Quaeda can in no way be considered the same. Al Quaeda is intentionally killing civilians because they are not sharing their religion and because they don't like the government of the country they attacked. The US is attacking military compounds of other countries in order to dominate that part of the world, and with occasional but mainly unintentional civilian deaths. Although neither is a very noble goal, the terrorists are attacking civilians and americans are attacking military personell.

Now, about the human shields. Nobody is forcing those people to guard Iraqi compounds of vital interest, they are doing it because of their patriotism or because their opposition to the war. They are aware of the risk and while Saddams government is definitely supporting them in their actions, which is of course what's to be expected, Saddam is not in any way making them to do it.

Posted by Izzy on Feb-19-2003 21:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
Izzy, ive had this argument with you before... do you not remember that the US is the only nation to be chraged with terrorist crimes against civilians by the International court of Justice?
Doesnt that say enough to you?

i dont know what you're getting at, probably trying to prove the US is a terrorist state, however just like time in our discussin you failed to show me where this charge actually is, i've searched agian now through the the ICJ site (http://www.icj-cij.org/) and a few other sites and i have still not found and shred of evidence that the US was charged by the ICJ for terrorist crimes agianst civilians.

quote:

And also, we must understandthat there is a distinction between terrorism, and state terrorism.

not really, it still an intentional act of targeting civilians for a ideological or political reason, its the same if its the state (iraq), an orginization (hamas), or a single person (Timothy McViegh)

Posted by LiquidX on Feb-19-2003 23:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
i dont buy that definition at all... using that we can deduce basicly every country that has ever been in war as a terroist state. which country has not used a state of intense fear as a means of coercion when going to war? north korea is instilling in me intense fear with their propoganda, are they terrorists? england used threating attacks during the falkland wars, are they terrorists? how about russia when it invaded afghanistan, i would have been under intense fear if i had lived there at the time.

to me a terrorist is one who intentionally targets the lives of innocent civilians for ideological or political reasons.

Izzy, I'd like to point out something at you, in which Id like to correct you, and you seemed to lack to know. I dont know about the other countries situation as much for me to discuss, but the Falkland island situation, is a subject that has nothing to do with the rest of the problems you mentioned. To begin with, Falkland island was always BRITISH, and the argentinians decided to fight for it, since it supposedly was in Argentinian territory. So all the British did was fight for it. So thats a whole different story in means of scaring someone. It had nothing to do with getting the whole world involved. The British were just defending what they had colonized looooooong time ago. but then the Argentinians saw that it was a nice chunk if land to fight for in terms of been in their territory. Just wanted to point that out.

Posted by Izzy on Feb-20-2003 00:26:

quote:
Originally posted by LiquidX
Izzy, I'd like to point out something at you, in which Id like to correct you, and you seemed to lack to know. I dont know about the other countries situation as much for me to discuss, but the Falkland island situation, is a subject that has nothing to do with the rest of the problems you mentioned. To begin with, Falkland island was always BRITISH, and the argentinians decided to fight for it, since it supposedly was in Argentinian territory. So all the British did was fight for it. So thats a whole different story in means of scaring someone. It had nothing to do with getting the whole world involved. The British were just defending what they had colonized looooooong time ago. but then the Argentinians saw that it was a nice chunk if land to fight for in terms of been in their territory. Just wanted to point that out.

cool, i probably dont know enought about the falkland wars as i should know, thanks.

the point i was trying to make is that most of all the contries during each war use or produce a state of intense fear as a means of coercion (def or coercion: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel). which was JudgeJulez definition of terrorism, one i disagreed with.

Posted by occrider on Feb-20-2003 03:33:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
Izzy, ive had this argument with you before... do you not remember that the US is the only nation to be chraged with terrorist crimes against civilians by the International court of Justice?
Doesnt that say enough to you?

And also, we must understandthat there is a distinction between terrorism, and state terrorism.

I too would like to see some proof on this. If this is indeed true though, does anybody else find this to be just a little bit ridiculous to the point of unbelievable? Ok maybe if the US was one of a hundred nations charged ... maybe. But the US is the ONLY nation? I can just picture the ICJ prosecutors on this one.

Prosecutor 1: So what do we have on the list?
Prosecutor 2: Well ... let's see, we have genocide in Rwanda ... starvation in Somalia ... atrocities and civil rights violations in Iraq, N. Korea, China ... genocide in Bosnia ... annnndddd the US for trying to be the world's policeman.
Prosecutor 1: That's HORRIFFIC! Forget about everything else! I want ALL of our assets concentrated on the US. If we have only one conviction over the course of our entire existence, I wanna nail those barbarians.

Posted by sifntj0r on Feb-20-2003 10:06:

i hope the UN passes a resolution to blow the shit outta the iraqi military and government

then the anti-war protesters can go back to saving the oceans or whatever it was they were doing before they found something better to further their own agenda's

Posted by FuzzyGreen on Feb-20-2003 15:55:

quote:
Originally posted by TheDemon
Iam glad to see people all over the world, even in the usa realize that war does nothing but bring problems. War is war, and it will never solve a damn fucking thing.

Someone should tell Iraq and N. Korea this...

Posted by Cyrus King on Feb-20-2003 18:15:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I too would like to see some proof on this. If this is indeed true though, does anybody else find this to be just a little bit ridiculous to the point of unbelievable? Ok maybe if the US was one of a hundred nations charged ... maybe. But the US is the ONLY nation? I can just picture the ICJ prosecutors on this one.

Prosecutor 1: So what do we have on the list?
Prosecutor 2: Well ... let's see, we have genocide in Rwanda ... starvation in Somalia ... atrocities and civil rights violations in Iraq, N. Korea, China ... genocide in Bosnia ... annnndddd the US for trying to be the world's policeman.
Prosecutor 1: That's HORRIFFIC! Forget about everything else! I want ALL of our assets concentrated on the US. If we have only one conviction over the course of our entire existence, I wanna nail those barbarians.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=5:)
Have fun! Its long...137 pages long!

Posted by LiquidX on Feb-20-2003 19:03:

quote:
Originally posted by sifntj0r
i hope the UN passes a resolution to blow the shit outta the iraqi military and government

then the anti-war protesters can go back to saving the oceans or whatever it was they were doing before they found something better to further their own agenda's

Really ? And hopefully you go and save the oceans and that whatever that you are talking about, because is the place where you f*cking live, and your sons will live. A place that will also be f*cking gone if you dont go and save it. The statement you've done sounds so arrogant .. jeeeez..

Posted by occrider on Feb-20-2003 19:49:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=5:)
Have fun! Its long...137 pages long!

I'm going to go ahead and agree with what Izzy said in the other thread that the US isn't the only state ... especially since after just paging through the dockets I saw some cases on genocide in serbia, border and transborder armed actions between Nicaragua and honduras and Costa Rica, US against Tehran with regards to embassy hostage taking, etc. etc. etc. Amazingly enough there's also a legality of use of force case against Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, UK, Spain, and the US by Yugoslavia.

Posted by Izzy on Feb-20-2003 22:47:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=5:)
Have fun! Its long...137 pages long!

oops i have to apologize... i completely forgot you had brought that up, my bad.

btw i see how many nations including the US have been charged with such acts (as occrider pointed out). was the US ever convicted of committing these acts?

Posted by occrider on Feb-21-2003 01:09:

I was determined to read it and point out fatal flaws, but I got to page 10 and started seeing like this: I couldn't take it anymore ... damn you Cyrus King you win this one for now!

Out of curiosity, did you ever manage to make it through the entire thing?

Posted by Cyrus King on Feb-21-2003 05:03:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I was determined to read it and point out fatal flaws, but I got to page 10 and started seeing like this: I couldn't take it anymore ... damn you Cyrus King you win this one for now!

Out of curiosity, did you ever manage to make it through the entire thing?

LOL... i actually read almost 90 % of it then my eyeballs began to combust..... But im sure its in there somewhere....

I do respect you guys for not refuting this as rubbish.

In the end, i can say that i trust Chomsky when he says that the US is the only one charged... but i do respect your decision if you dont trust him.

Posted by occrider on Feb-21-2003 06:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
LOL... i actually read almost 90 % of it then my eyeballs began to combust..... But im sure its in there somewhere....

I do respect you guys for not refuting this as rubbish.

In the end, i can say that i trust Chomsky when he says that the US is the only one charged... but i do respect your decision if you dont trust him.

Well I'll admit it does make a valid point. The US did do some pretty sick shit during the Cold War and I'm not proud of some of the things we did. However misguided, I just hope that they were done with honorable intentions in preventing the cold war from escalating into a hot one. One thing I don't understand is why the US would not at least show up to defend ourselves ... it's like we were too lazy (ok I'll say it before one of you guys) or too guilty to defend ourselves. As for HOW guilty the US is in some of the charges, such as the kidnap and murder of civilians, I guess that's something we'll never know for sure. At any rate, I stick to what I believe in but there's no way in hell I would refute something like this as rubbish. I'm anal when it comes to sources but this is as credible as they come. However your last statement is correct. I don't really trust Chomsky and I especially don't place much faith in the statement that the US is the only nation convicted of terrorism (it's even debatable that this court case constitutes an act of terorrism).

Posted by Johan (DJ Irish) on Feb-21-2003 08:02:

Posted by sifntj0r on Feb-21-2003 09:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Dj_Irish
Sorry but that just sounds too friggin' ignorant

well if the anti-war protesters can play the ignorance game why can't us poor pro-war ppl?

statement 1 on the most watched morning news/current affairs show:
protester: "the fact that 500,000 australians marched in protest shows that the majority of australians dont support a war against iraq"

since when does 1/40th of the population represent a majority?

ahhh i got plenty up me sleeve

Posted by Johan (DJ Irish) on Feb-21-2003 10:01:

Posted by LiquidX on Feb-21-2003 11:40:

quote:
Originally posted by sifntj0r
well if the anti-war protesters can play the ignorance game why can't us poor pro-war ppl?

statement 1 on the most watched morning news/current affairs show:
protester: "the fact that 500,000 australians marched in protest shows that the majority of australians dont support a war against iraq"

since when does 1/40th of the population represent a majority?

ahhh i got plenty up me sleeve

Well. Look at the Australian population. If 500,000 out of lets say 14 million people is quite alot. So, there's 500,000 people that were willing to go out and protest. Also, count on the people that also stayed home and are also against war. Compared to like lets say 1,000 people, so there for sure not that many people in australia would be against war. Its all PROBABILITIES . :-)

Posted by sifntj0r on Feb-21-2003 13:08:

our population is closer to 20 million

the problem with the anti war protests, especially those that took place here, is that they were basically very offensive towards the US and AUS governments.

yes it's fine to protest etc., but i found the banner slogans very offensive. speaking of banner slogans, not one of them gave alternatives to war. basically, it was just a massive hate rally against the various governments and personal attacks on their leaders.

maybe i'm not anti anti-war, i think i'm just currently anti anti-war protesters.

Posted by Izzy on Feb-21-2003 15:38:

ok, back to the original topic of the protesters. please watch the following:
http://www.brain-terminal.com/artic...ce-protest.html
those are the kind of people that personally irritate me, as someone said here at least know why you stand for...
im glad at least some (maybe most) of the members on this board can intellegently answer the questions...

feel free to laugh along the way, i did

Posted by NFA on Feb-22-2003 23:45:

ok, time to express my opinion. for a start, put me in the antiwar faction. in a nutshell:

saddam is a c***. he has to be removed. full stop.

BUT

bush is no better. he's a fascist, ignorant little man in the pockets of the oil industry and other shady characters, bent on furthering their agenda, and f*** the rest. he's just as dangerous, if not more, than saddam, because he's the most powerful man in the world, and is incapable of looking in any other direction other than backwards.

so i'm not against the removal of saddam, by force if necessary, but not by bush and his posse. the thought of that lot sitting on all that oil makes me shudder

IZZY: yes, i said bush is ignorant. how can u say otherwise? everytime he opens his mouth he proves it, and i worry for whoever doesn't realise the bloomers he makes. nothing personal, it's just that it seemed to me to be the only issue in the matter nobody could possibly debate...

MAKE TEA NOT WAR

Posted by Mental Exodus on Feb-23-2003 21:08:

CHILDREEN OF MASS MEDIA LISTEN UP!

This goes beyond BUSH,THE USA,Iraq, Iran, Sadam, terrorism and most other buzz words designed to throw u off thru the ancient art of mass misinformation. Minus TWO.
and they are OIL AND New World Gov

Oil is A non-renewable energy source, and what required a billion years to create 3.2 trillion barrels of useable oil has taken 110 years to reduce to 1.8 trillion barrels. The planet's oil supply is its economic lifeblood. As this diminishes, so does the economic system in which the world's people live. As the economic conditions erode, instability arises, and if left unchecked, chaos ensues.

GUESS WHAT WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR GUYZ!(PUTTING THE NWO ASIDE)
UNTIL WE CHANGE OVER TO SOME OTHER FORM OF POWER OIL IS THE ONLY MAJOR ONE. NOW GUESS WHAT MAJOR WORLD POWERS DO TO MAJOR WORLD SOURCES OF POWER THAT ARE DWINDELING????? THEY CONTROLL THEM FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS.

NOTE: people have said that in anywhere from 25 to 80 years thers going to be no more oil for earth at reasonable prices. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR AMERICA AND EUROPE? THE MOST ENGERY/POWER HUNGRY NATIONS WHO CREATE MOST OF THE WORLDS GARBAGE????.

WE GO WHERE THE OIL IS UNTIL WE CAN USE SOMETHING ELSE.

Of course there will be more pressure to create a world government in the future that isn't the joke that the UN is now. However sustaining our way of life comes first on the list. This has little to do with JUST America and Bush and more to do with the democratic nations as a whole. America is used as a military force as it has a large patriotic population who will support wars with a drone like mentality when attacked and has the mass media play on there heart strings. That is there role in the democratic world. That is what this comes down to. Its painfully simple and very easy to throw in allot of smoke and mirrors into the mix to throw off people who disagree with the plan. This misinformation tactic has been used to subdue the masses for many years and it is working to this day as people take all the little things like turning the united Arab nations into a democratic government overnight seriously. PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!! This isn't going to happen over night with a few cruise missiles and an occupation it takes a life time of influence and control from all the major players. So naturally it looks like we don't give a shit about them cuz initially we don't. The change doesn't happen like that were not like brothers here we are like CAPITALISTS we control thru influential, militaristic and economic tactics. THATS THE WAY WE FUNCTION WE PLAY OF EACH OTHER LIKE A WELL NIT SOCIETY OF LEECHES.

Now there are many arguments for not fighting. Pro-life, pro-choice, political parties and there objectionable intentions, lack of evidence for WMD's and links to terrorism, people arguing the possibilities of productive change or the lack of them and so on.

All of these arguments are nothing in defense against the plan of creating a New World Government which i have mentioned above. basically the democratic nations have decided that it is time for a considerable adjustment in the world governments and there lack of unity. This adjustment is to unify all people under one global government. Regardless of how good or bad the mentality of the people maybe suited for such. Why are we doing this?? its very simple. There are very big and potentially devastating events that are happening to the world. To give u an idea, Aids and other illness, over population, WMD's, loss of oil, Change over to a new energy source just to name a few. These things stand in the way of our goals of survival. The only way to deal with these issues in time is to create a Global government which will be able to respond with considerable effort and the efficiency needed to ensure survival.

What does this have to do with good old Sadam Husain !?!?!?!? The Arab states and territories can pose as a considerable road block on this plan if they were to ever get there act together and become allies instead of fighting among each other as they have a large controlled population and enough oil to fuel/fund a decent sized army. Not to mention strangle the supply of it to the rest of the world which is in need. The possibility of them joining the democratic world is slim to none as they hold there traditions/religious government very close. They also have been victim of many colonialist country's attacks/occupations which support there current semi/isolationist mentality. This war might be taken to other countrys as well but I personaly think that even the semi/communist semi/democratic china will switch over with the right social and economic influence which we have been developing for years. Just think about it where does all the labour and tech products come form and why ????

So for the sake of replacing Dictatorships and communist governments with democratic ones to ensure survival FOR EVERYONE and the fact that Everyone wants control over the oil we are going to war and there isnt much u can do the governments dont care about what u think because you haven't been kept up to date with the plan in the first place so your arguing only what u know about and what will happen in the short term to the inocent never considering what's really going on here. REMEMBER WEE COULD ALL END UP DEAD IF WE DONT FORM ONE SOCIETY.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO THIS ID LOVE TO HEAR WHAT U GUYS THINK.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »