|
Yet another American beheaded. This is the sickest thing ive ever seen. (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Allegory |
| quote: | Originally posted by mot10n
just keep in mind that most of these conflicts result from the fact that the US either supplied arms and trained militants through the CIA (bin laden) or funded a tyrant's reign over a country (Saddam), then realized that the dictatorship was too big of a success story (in terms of controlling the public; saddam did do bad things) and started to branch off from the State's will of democratization. 15 years later, this stuff happens. it's cause and effect. it's funny and sad how a decade ago Saddam was best buddies with Rumsfeld and such, and the US pulls a 180 on him. the equivalent is giving a kid a gun, say have fun and wink, then arrest and blame him for all the killing he has done.
i wholeheartedly agree that these beheadings are gruesome and wrong, but the US has been funding genocide in other regions for much much longer. there's just more outrage because this has gotten through the media into the mainstream, unlike the US's previous trials.
this world is royally ed, and as theresa said, makes you wonder if you want to bring another life into it. :sadgreen: |
Thank you for being so objective. A lot of individuals don't realise the infliction that has ensued in so many areas in the world, and the US is responsible for so much of it. I don't agree with any of this misfortune, but I wish people would cry as much about the travesties that occur in Sierra Leone and Angola due to stupid Diamonds or the Genocide that occurs in Countries because the US has devastated their economy due to high interest rates on loans they shouldn't have granted in the first place.
I really wish people would just probe more about what happens around us. It's really not as simple as one thinks. |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Dude...if you want to compare, compare this
You know about the sanctions agains Iraq back in the day? Before the Iraq war? Well, these US-led sanctions have led to "hundreds of thousands of deaths, including 11,000, mostly children, in December alone".
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/j.../iraq-j25.shtml
I remember reading this interview where the reporter asks Condy about this, if it's worth it, and she gets as answer like: "These are aceptable losses"
I wish I could find you the exact quote.
Now, you still saying you're more sickened by this video of religious zealots in frenzy versus what calm and collected Condoleeza Rice is capable of, for example? |
I think you're talking about Madeleine Albright from the Clinton administration, who responded to the question:
"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
with:
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Dude...if you want to compare, compare this
You know about the sanctions agains Iraq back in the day? Before the Iraq war? Well, these US-led sanctions have led to "hundreds of thousands of deaths, including 11,000, mostly children, in December alone".
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/j.../iraq-j25.shtml
|
Yes and these were sanctions put on by the U.N. AFTER Saddam and Co. decided is would be great idea to invade Kuwait.
After the Coalition ousted Saddam, the U.S. were the ones that asked that the sanctions be lifted. |
|
|
| Superstar |
RJ, I don't know whether you are not reading my posts, or just ignoring them, but I've addressed all of your points already, so here we go again.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
No the only people to blame for killing construction workers are the savages that killed them. |
But if you try and think about WHY they are killing civilians, it is partly due to the US attacking Iraq, and having a history of meddling in other countries' affairs.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
If it were military members being killed - your argument would make sense - but unfortunately in this case they're not, so it doesn't. |
If they could get at the military personnel they would, but they can't, so this is how they are retalliating against the US. I'm not justifying their actions, just giving you their mentality. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, those civilians would be alive today. Doesn't that put some of the blame on the American administration?
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Further: Stop trying to deflect responsibility away from animals that kill innocent non-combatives in the name of "God". |
Woah easy there hero, I've said from the start that what these killers did is not right and I agree 100% they should be punished. Every single true Muslim in the world has said these radical extremists do not represent Islam, so what are you trying to say exactly? |
|
|
| bass drive |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
After the Coalition ousted Saddam, the U.S. were the ones that asked that the sanctions be lifted. |
well duh
I mean oil for food wont cut it for the Americans to "rebuild" Iraq. (Just like how they rebuilt Afghanistan)
some random e
----------------------------------------------------------
The criminal ORDER 39 for sell off a whole nation
International law is unequivocal - Paul Bremer's economic reforms are illegal
by Naomi Klein; The Guardian ; November 07, 2003
Bring Halliburton home. Cancel the contracts. Ditch the deals. Rip up the rules. Those are just a few of the suggestions for slogans that could help unify the growing movement against the occupation of Iraq. So far, activist debates have focused on whether the demand should be for a complete withdrawal of troops, or for the United States to cede power to the United Nations.
But the "troops out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country; by foreign corporations controlling its essential services; by 70% unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.
Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonisation as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and cancelling all privatisation contracts that are flowing from these reforms.
How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behaviour of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US army's own code of war.
The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance.
Iraq's constitution outlaws the privatisation of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.
On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".
Order 39 violated the Hague regulations in other ways as well. The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" (possibly the ugliest word in the English language) as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos. And yet that is just what Bremer is doing: what could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?
In case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty straightforward: bombing something does not give you the right to sell it.
There is every indication that the CPA is well aware of the lawlessness of its privatisation scheme. In a leaked memo written on March 26, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law".
So far, most of the controversy surrounding Iraq's reconstruction has focused on the waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts. This badly misses the scope of the violation: even if the sell-off of Iraq were conducted with full transparency and open bidding, it would still be illegal for the simple reason that Iraq is not America's to sell.
The security council's recognition of the United States' and Britain's occupation authority provides no legal cover. The UN resolution passed in May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907".
According to a growing number of international legal experts, that means that if the next Iraqi government decides it doesn't want to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Bechtel and Halliburton, it will have powerful legal grounds to renationalise assets that were privatised under CPA edicts.
Juliet Blanch, global head of energy and international arbitration for the huge international law firm Norton Rose, says that because Bremer's reforms directly contradict Iraq's constitution, they are "in breach of international law and are likely not enforceable". Blanch argues that the CPA "has no authority or ability to sign those [privatisation] contracts", and that a sovereign Iraqi government would have "quite a serious argument for renationalisation without paying compensation". Firms facing this type of expropriation would, according to Blanch, have "no legal remedy".
The only way out for the administration is to make sure that Iraq's next government is anything but sovereign. It must be pliant enough to ratify the CPA's illegal laws, which will then be celebrated as the happy marriage of free markets and free people. Once that happens, it will be too late: the contracts will be locked in, the deals done and the occupation of Iraq permanent.
Which is why anti-war forces must use this fast-closing window to demand that the next Iraqi government be free from the shackles of these reforms.
It's too late to stop the war, but it's not too late to deny Iraq's invaders the myriad economic prizes they went to war to collect in the first place.
It's not too late to cancel the contracts and ditch the deals. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
But if you try and think about WHY they are killing civilians, it is partly due to the US attacking Iraq, and having a history of meddling in other countries' affairs. |
I know why they are killing civilians. It is because they are hopeless, hateful individuals with contorted ideals who choose to live a life of moral and ethical poverty.
| quote: | | If they could get at the military personnel they would, but they can't, so this is how they are retalliating against the US. |
Actually - they are getting at American military personal (over 1000 to date).
The addition of this tactic is savagery - nothing more; brutal animalistic savagery.
| quote: | | Every single true Muslim in the world has said these radical extremists do not represent Islam |
I agree that these radicals do not represent Islam - and true Muslims have conveyed this very clearly. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
The U.S. has no in right to invade countries,and since they do this what theyget.You think it is not fair well droping bombs on civiallians isnt fair,raping and turturing the prisnoners isnt fair either.
please stop being so blinded about the situation.America invaded their country and Iraqi's are fighting back, and if you dont like what you are seeing then perhaps you should blame Bush for all this,but this is war and their country is occupied by the American terrorists.I'd be pissed off too if I was them.
p.s. What was the body count again? oh ya 1000 and growing
GO IRAQI's GO |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I know why they are killing civilians. It is because they are hopeless, hateful individuals with contorted ideals who choose to live a life of moral and ethical poverty. |
This is where we disagree, and I think a lot of people who have posted in this thread also disagree with you. You seem to think the US is a knight in shining armour nation who tries to help others all the time, but this is not the case. It is true that they've done a lot of good for others, but they've also actively tried to overthrow governments representative of their peoples, and they have never paid a price for it through any courts or tribunals or any other judicial system. How is this fair to the rest of the world? Why should America be able to strong-arm any nation it pleases? Before you dismiss this as a separate topic, consider that it is the underlying cause of most of the anti-American sentiment prevalent throughout the world.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Actually - they are getting at American military personal (over 1000 to date). |
I think you just proved my point. They can kill soldiers from a distance and they are doing exactly that, while avoiding civilian casualties. If they could capture American soldiers and behead them, that's what they would be doing, but since they can't get close enough to the soldiers to capture them, it's unfortunately happening to civilians. And no, I don't wish for it to happen to their soldiers either. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
You seem to think the US is a knight in shining armour nation who tries to help others all the time |
Please quote me where I've implied this? |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Finally someone gets the point.:) |
HEY! Here's a question for you: How many Americans were "invading" Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or whatever other country on September 11th, 3 years ago? As far as I ing know, America was doing all back then, and yet these "peaceful" people still took it upon themselves to murder thousands of INNOCENT civilians. |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Please quote me where I've implied this? |
Alright I was exaggerating to make a point, but here are some quotes anyway, since you showed interest!
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Enough of the rhetoric (“they shouldn’t be there”, “Bush is bad”)! |
Since a rhetoric statement is one that is lacking intelligence, and you call the statement "they shouldn't be there" rhetoric, you are effectively saying that the American forces should be present in Iraq. This implies that their reason is warranted, and they are doing the right thing.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
In this era of precision weapons - only military targets are attacked. It's called "humane" warfare. |
Humane is something that is characterized by kindness, mercy, and compassion, so you are implying that they are kind, merciful and compassionate. |
|
|
|
|
