Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on March 03, 2008, 01:02:28 am
-
http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/Demonstrators-in-Afghanistan-burn-Danish-and-Dutch-flags/1204463851.html
Alright, there were also danish flags set ablaze, but I am focusing on the dutch flags for now, as you all very well know my nationality.
As for the movie. The movie critisicing the Quran is made by a dutch politician wich somehow managed to get 9 seats in our parliament, called Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) (Doesn't he look like someone familiar?) , and is one of the main reasons I plan on emigrating. There is much upheavel about the movie. Many politicians say it should never be broadcasted, and possibly be banned (And that doesn't happen often, the only political works I can recall that have been banned were made by Hitler), fearing that the movie will lead to the degrading of relationships with many countries (and possibly terrorist-attacks, there is actually a real threat now, and not just a way to get re-elected). Already, many countries have protested agains the Netherlands. Geert Wilders said that although the Parliament may fear the Islam and surrender to them, he never will.
The link is not very descriptive compared to what I heard on the radio:
1. The dutch flag was painted Red-White-Purple.
2. Many of the protestors, according to one of the teachers there, had never seen the danish images. None of them has seen the dutch movie (or how most of the goverment thinks about it). Neither has anyone in the Netherlands, as it has not been broadcasted yet. But then again, Geert Wilders has never seen a Muslim.
...
Oh well, feel free to discuss, and please dig up some more news links.
-
Like it matters. If some people in a far away country want to waste their time burning poorly made replications of a foreign flag over something they've never seen but only been told about by some unreliable pseudo-politician/religious guy, then by all means, let them waste their time.
I stand by my position from last year that this kind of stuff really has nothing to do with the western world, but is merely local politics. The instigators want to improve their status in the eyes of all the other hardliners in the area, and so the grasp at every opportunity to make a fuss.
Oh, and if they decide to start with boycotts and all that (which will end soon enough if they do start - as they hurt themselves more than the people they're boycotting), just start exporting flags ;)
That said, if this guys only intention with that film is to piss people off, and it distorts facts in order to do so, then he's a bloody idiot regardless of the fact that he has a right to make the film. It's one thing if you mean to inform, another entirely if you mean to inflame.
-
They've been burning U.S. flags for decades.
All I can really say is, cry moar, in the least offensive way possible of course.
-
The movie sounds like a run of the mill cry for attention by a windbag politician who has discovered the secret of free publicity: controversy. Anyway, the bloke looks kind of like Louie Anderson, if that's what you were getting at.
Who cares about a flag, anyway? Free speech ftw.
-
i think that burning the dutch flag for the people of the netherlands would cause worry... it being one of the most socialy progressiv and tolerant of EU nations,
Geert Wilders is unfortunately not alone in europe with the increase of far right politicians through out europe , but european politics have a habit of doing this, a cycle of left and social thinking slowly creaping towards the centre and in one step jumping to centre right with extremest policies...........
lets just hope that this does not go down the franco, musulini , hitler route.......
-
I don't think you have to worry about that last part. There are minorities who advocate that kind of policies in pretty much every european country yes, but they are just barely tolerated out of respect for the freedoms of speech, opinion and thought and not really liked at all by anyone but themselves.
Hell, we have an official Nazi party here - They do this event every year where they dress up in their white shirts and swastika armbands and march around some random neighbourhood shouting slogans, after which one of them inevitably managed to get himself into trouble with the police who are there to protect them and it all degenerates into a game of "Bash the Nazi".
The one they did last year was an especially good one, as the guy who ended up tangling with the police was the leader of the bunch, a 300-pound mountain of blubber and bad manners whom I suspect Hitler would have personally driven to the nearest concentration camp had they ever met. So anyway, he decides he wants to attack some bystander that had shouted something at him, the police of course prevent him from doing that, and then what? He hits a policeman. So down he went, all 300 pound of fat hitting the ground hard, with two rather large policemen on top of him. I must admit laughed when I saw that on TV :p
I'll tolerate their existence, but have no sympathy for them and there are few things I like more than seeing a Nazi take a fall.
-
i think that burning the dutch flag for the people of the netherlands would cause worry... it being one of the most socialy progressiv and tolerant of EU nations,
And one of the countries that Amnesty is worried about because the human rights are not respected here (The Netherlands really takes care of the refugees and immigrants...)\\
That said, if this guys only intention with that film is to piss people off, and it distorts facts in order to do so, then he's a bloody idiot regardless of the fact that he has a right to make the film. It's one thing if you mean to inform, another entirely if you mean to inflame.
it is his intention. You are now a "bloody left-sided naïve fool" in his eyes :blah:...
-
Can we hurry up and nuke them already? They're getting really annoying........
-
Can we hurry up and nuke them already? They're getting really annoying........
Not really. "They" are just one one small portion of the population of Afghanistan that likes screaming and stating random offensive things without checking the facts. Who also does that? Jack Thompson, but he is not really an issue in this discussion, and the guy who made the movie they are protesting against, Geert Wilders. Nuke him, his kind of people are the source of problems.
-
Well, really, he's in the same category as the right-wingers off protesting him, so it's all very amusing if you think about it.
-
Oh, something's offended Muslims* again, has it? Well better call the wahmbulance, quickly! This is bull**** and they know it. No one has a right not to be offended, particularly when they whine at every opportunity. And in return, they're welcome to say absolutely about Jesus. Yahweh, Odin or any other diety, with my full consent.
*or at least a vocal minority. Not all of them.
-
Well, really, he's in the same category as the right-wingers off protesting him, so it's all very amusing if you think about it.
Yep. One idiotic Dutchman says something stupid about all Muslims so a bunch of Muslims say something stupid about all Dutch people. We should just stick them in a game show where they can fight to death about it.
-
Well, really, he's in the same category as the right-wingers off protesting him, so it's all very amusing if you think about it.
Yep. One idiotic Dutchman says something stupid about all Muslims so a bunch of Muslims say something stupid about all Dutch people. We should just stick them in a game show where they can fight to death about it.
sorry, Iraq has been taken already.
anyway, whining muslims... what else is new.
-
Who also does that? Jack Thompson
And that's why we nuke the US.
-
It's kind of an amusing Dichotomy though, I'm as sick and tired as the next guy with a certain bunch of Muslims leaping up and down yelling about something they have little or no knowledge of, not so much because of what they think, but because in many cases they aren't 'thinking' at all, they are doing it on the religious equivalent of the 'man in the pub' syndrome. Who needs the Internet when you have religious leaders that tell you what to be offended at, and who to demand be killed. We should be grateful, without a pretty large body of religious 'figureheads' we might do such terrible things as accept homosexuality as part of society (albeit an amazingly small part for the attention it gets), we might have ended up content to let people make up their own minds on abortion, heck we might even have let all those witches get away with it in the 16th Century.
God Bless religious fanatics, without them, we would passively go through life letting other people go through theirs, let us be grateful that they are there to point fingers and tell us what to think.....
-
The trouble is that Western newspapers/media don't have the cojones to start fully exercising their right of free speech, just out of principle. At which point all the regular suspects would demand that offending people be either censured or killed, further cementing their reputation as loonies who's proclamations should be simply ignored.
But unlike many others, I think they should be completely free to pull this kind of **** in their own countries. If Saudi Arabia or Pakistan wants to outlaw a cartoon, it's their call. Just don't demand that your influence extend to other people's backyards.
-
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
-
The trouble is that Western newspapers/media don't have the cojones to start fully exercising their right of free speech, just out of principle.
On this, I can agree.
-
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
That plan sounds way too complicated. I don't get it.
-
Thing is, you can't stop people screaming that they want you to die by killing them. Well, actually, Yes, you can, but at the end of the day you may well end up doing the same thing they are. Look at the 'Nuke 'em' comments on here, yes, I know they are in jest and no-one is seriously suggesting we Nuke the Middle East, or at least, I hope not, but they hear what the west has 'done' and start screaming 'Burn them! Kill Them!'. Upon hearing this, the West is so annoyed by these comments that they start screaming 'Judgemental Bastards! Wanting us dead? Burn them! Kill Them!'....
-
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
You'd better prepare for a ****storm.
-
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
I love how Americans get peeved when someone burns the American flag, a flag that represents freedom... including the freedom to burn flags. Ironic, wouldn't you say?
-
[anon]They (those people in the article) are just pissed because while our ancestors were inventing light bulbs and state-funded health care their ancestors were praying the in sand and ****ing camels [/anon]
-
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
I love how some Americans get peeved when someone burns the American flag, a flag that represents freedom... including the freedom to burn flags. Ironic, wouldn't you say?
Fixed.
-
Fixed.
Right, sorry about that. No offense intended. :)
-
What we need is a virus that selectively kills only stupid people...that would solve 99% of the worlds problems.
-
/me withholds insult.
-
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
I love how Americans get peeved when someone burns the American flag, a flag that represents freedom... including the freedom to burn flags. Ironic, wouldn't you say?
We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy." -Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed
What are you to do when Islamics, forms a "Muslim ghetto" and says "the president a terrorist is 'OK' but when suggesting that 'some' Muslims are terrorist is... 'NOT OK'"? -Glen Beck
He has a point, logic is a little fuzzy when it comes to these radicals...
-
What we need is a virus that selectively kills only stupid people...that would solve 99% of the worlds problems.
#4753 +(14464)- [X]
<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
-
Fixed.
Right, sorry about that. No offense intended. :)
None taken. :p
-
Well that's enough of that. I think we can all agree that crazy dudes making crazy demands are, well, crazy. And thus deserve to be vigorously mocked and roundly ignored. Simple.
Well, except Alex Jones - he's dreamy.
-
That plan sounds way too complicated. I don't get it.
If they decide that they can attack you, then you give it back a million times worse.
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
I love how Americans get peeved when someone burns the American flag, a flag that represents freedom... including the freedom to burn flags. Ironic, wouldn't you say?
Look sir, its not my flag this time, and as long as all they do is burn flags and say they want us (all non-muslims) to die then there is not much of a problem. However, when they start killing people, action has to be taken.
Yes, killing some just pisses the rest off, but what are we suppose to do? just sit back and wait for them to attack and arrest them? Because you cant arrest a suicide bomber, and not going after them shows weakness and emboldens them so they can bolster their ranks, and recruit more people with no hope in life beyond blowing them selfs up so their families can have $10,000 (or less)
-
That plan sounds way too complicated. I don't get it.
If they decide that they can attack you, then you give it back a million times worse.
I guess I'm just not a student of international relations.
-
If they decide that they can attack you, then you give it back a million times worse.
Right, just like the current US doctrine of massive retaliation, whereby any transgression by the hated enemy, however minor, is met with complete and total destruction by any and all means.
Oh, wait, that's right, they threw out that doctrine back in the 50's because it was completely retarded. My bad.
Look at it this way: You're getting off a train, and a bloke bumps into you. You decide to punch the guy in the back of the head, because he totally deserves it. Yeah, way to go. :yes:
Look sir, its not my flag this time, and as long as all they do is burn flags and say they want us (all non-muslims) to die then there is not much of a problem. However, when they start killing people, action has to be taken.
Yes, killing some just pisses the rest off, but what are we suppose to do? just sit back and wait for them to attack and arrest them? Because you cant arrest a suicide bomber, and not going after them shows weakness and emboldens them so they can bolster their ranks, and recruit more people with no hope in life beyond blowing them selfs up so their families can have $10,000 (or less)
We sit back: Occasional suicide bombing or terrorist attack from splinter groups.
We take a unilateral action to stop those darn terry-rists: A living, breathing reason to attack the west is created, a spawning ground for extremist groups is generated, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives are spent.
Honestly? Sitting back looks pretty darn attractive. Hey, i'm still more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, so it's not like i'm taking a major risk here. ;)
-
That plan sounds way too complicated. I don't get it.
If they decide that they can attack you, then you give it back a million times worse.
-Joshua-, those f***s have been burning our flags (Im for the US) for a long time, all I can say is wait for them to do something more, then take over their country and s*** on them.
I love how Americans get peeved when someone burns the American flag, a flag that represents freedom... including the freedom to burn flags. Ironic, wouldn't you say?
Look sir, its not my flag this time, and as long as all they do is burn flags and say they want us (all non-muslims) to die then there is not much of a problem. However, when they start killing people, action has to be taken.
Yes, killing some just pisses the rest off, but what are we suppose to do? just sit back and wait for them to attack and arrest them? Because you cant arrest a suicide bomber, and not going after them shows weakness and emboldens them so they can bolster their ranks, and recruit more people with no hope in life beyond blowing them selfs up so their families can have $10,000 (or less)
Who are they?
-
Who are they?
The faceless evil that hunts us all, an ever present threat of imminent death should we the people step out of line.
So, in other words, Arabs. Or communists. Possibly Nazis. **** it, let's call it Dirty Johnny Foreigner. It's always that guy.
-
Who are they?
The faceless evil that hunts us all, an ever present threat of imminent death should we the people step out of line.
So, in other words, Arabs. Or communists. Possibly Nazis. **** it, let's call it Dirty Johnny Foreigner. It's always that guy.
I thought it were always those people with pixelated faces or black rectangulars in front of their eyes.
-
Who are they?
The faceless evil that hunts us all, an ever present threat of imminent death should we the people step out of line.
Fwiffo called, said something about The Ultimate Evil.
(God knows if anyone will get the reference.)
-
meh, as a Dutch guy(and also an israeli guy) its kinda annoying to see all of the influence the islam gets because of the fear effect of the terrorists, i personally dont have anything against muslims(heck ive got 2 muslim friends) but some of them take the stuff other ppl say about them way too personally, i mean like u make a cartoon of mohamed, they get all crazy and such ...
-
What we need is a virus that selectively kills only stupid people...that would solve 99% of the worlds problems.
#4753 +(14464)- [X]
<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Yes, that plan is simpler.
But a lot of idiots are probably gonna survive, since such accidents don't lead to death to often.
Therefore, the virus is more efficient...unless of course it mutates and starts killing smart people too. But then it would do the job it was supposed to do, since obviously the smart people weren't actually smart if they unleashed something like that in the first place.
-
What we need is a virus that selectively kills only stupid people...that would solve 99% of the worlds problems.
#4753 +(14464)- [X]
<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Yes, that plan is simpler.
But a lot of idiots are probably gonna survive, since such accidents don't lead to death to often.
Therefore, the virus is more efficient...unless of course it mutates and starts killing smart people too. But then it would do the job it was supposed to do, since obviously the smart people weren't actually smart if they unleashed something like that in the first place.
I think it is an rather inefficient plan. The dumb people don't read those safety labels anyway, or even do what the labels say you shouldn't do, while the smart people do. If the labels get removed, more smart humans will die, while the death rate of dumb people stays the same.
Therefore, just make much more dangerous things, and put safety labels on them.
-
(God knows if anyone will get the reference.)
Probably not. After all, we're only hunam.
-
Honestly? Sitting back looks pretty darn attractive. Hey, i'm still more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, so it's not like i'm taking a major risk here. ;)
sitting back got us the USS Cole bombing, and the 9-11-01 attacks.
sitting back gets large amounts of people killed. They want us dead.
-
sitting back got us the USS Cole bombing, and the 9-11-01 attacks.
sitting back gets large amounts of people killed. They want us dead.
What, and knee-jerk retaliations won't? People are going to die anyway, it's a fact of life. Let's go with the option that kills the fewest people possible, rather than some moronic 'eye for an eye' bull****.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not advocating all nations end all anti-terror operations immediately. Far from it! Counter-terror organizations have some of the best people available working around the clock thwarting really gnarly **** we never even hear about, and they are effective. But it's sentiments like "they bombed us, so we need to pay them back 10,000 time worse!!" that allow the Suits to use that fear and pointless hostility to justify starting wars.
-
yes, fear, they are afraid to attack us because we will s*** on them.
-
yes, fear, they are afraid to attack us because we will s*** on them.
I'm going to go have a boxing match with a brick wall, at least i'll have a slightly better chance of winning there than I will against the likes of you. :doubt:
-
Dune was right, Fear really is the mind-killer.....
-
Dune was right, Fear really is the mind-killer.....
Fear is the mind-enhancer. Terror is the mind-killer. (And I don't mean terrorists.) So is vengence.
-
yes, fear, they are afraid to attack us because we will s*** on them.
No, they're not. Because you can't. Sure, you can attack some random muslim country, but that doesn't hurt the terrorists one bit - Hell, it just doubles their recruitment base every time you do it. Also, there has been a greater frequency of terrorist attacks following the start of the so-called War on Terror than before.
The fear is yours, the terror is yours. Only a scared nation reacts the way the United States has reacted in the recent years, and in reacting so, it has only made more enemies. Indeed, in reacting so, it has so far allowed the terrorists to get closer to their goal than they could possibly have dreamed of. Why? They cannot destroy your society through terrorist attacks - The loss of life from them, while tragic, is trivial. Fewer people have died from such attacks in total from 9/11 onward than die in a single month from traffic accidents. So the effect is, or rather should be, non existent. But right now, you are letting them win. Because while they cannot destroy your society, you can. And you're doing it, by giving up the freedoms that you've fought so hard to attain in fear of something that is significantly less likely to happen than getting struck by lightning.
-
Dune was right, Fear really is the mind-killer.....
Fear is the mind-enhancer. Terror is the mind-killer. (And I don't mean terrorists.) So is vengence.
I'm not so sure, fear enhances senses, but I don't think it enhances intelligence, if anything, it shuts down higher functions so that your reactions are as fast as possible when the suspected threat arrives. So yes, you do think faster when you are afraid, but your thinking is directed along very specific non decision-based lines.
-
No, they're not. Because you can't. Sure, you can attack some random muslim country, but that doesn't hurt the terrorists one bit - Hell, it just doubles their recruitment base every time you do it. Also, there has been a greater frequency of terrorist attacks following the start of the so-called War on Terror than before.
The fear is yours, the terror is yours. Only a scared nation reacts the way the United States has reacted in the recent years, and in reacting so, it has only made more enemies. Indeed, in reacting so, it has so far allowed the terrorists to get closer to their goal than they could possibly have dreamed of. Why? They cannot destroy your society through terrorist attacks - The loss of life from them, while tragic, is trivial. Fewer people have died from such attacks in total from 9/11 onward than die in a single month from traffic accidents. So the effect is, or rather should be, non existent. But right now, you are letting them win. Because while they cannot destroy your society, you can. And you're doing it, by giving up the freedoms that you've fought so hard to attain in fear of something that is significantly less likely to happen than getting struck by lightning.
The US is not falling apart any more than it has in any other war, we are giving up fewer freedoms than we did in other wars, there is no forced service, no massive internment camps filled with immigrants, no rationing of food gas or medicine, and we are still free.
There is a difference between scared and enraged. And as far as lousing friends, what good is a fair weather friend? That will back you up when everyone likes you and you are on top, and as soon as you have problems and your back is against the wall, they leave you to hide in the safety of their homes.
Car accidents are in fact accidents, and IMO being struck by lightning is an act of fate, if that many people were being murdered by one organization then it would not be insignificant.
When men and women blow them selfs up, or plant a bomb to murder innocents, people do not say "that was a bad accident".
Terrorists killing fewer people than car accidents or lightning is a good thing, it means we are winning.
-
The US is not falling apart any more than it has in any other war, we are giving up fewer freedoms than we did in other wars, there is no forced service, no massive internment camps filled with immigrants, no rationing of food gas or medicine, and we are still free.
Except of course for the fact that the US is not at war. If the US was at war then the US government would not be able to break the Geneva conventions as blatently as they do now. If you claim the US is truely at war, then the US government is filled with war criminals and should be tried accordingly. The whole 'War on Terror' nonsense is probaganda designed to marginalise opposition to the government's handling of the situation. Something at which it has sadly been very successful. So as it stands you're losing freedoms and rights and letting your government commit acts towards other peoples that would have the american public up in arms were it brought to bear on them - the word concentration camp is not all that wrongly applied when used for the Guantanamo prison, for example - despite the fact that there is no war.
There is a difference between scared and enraged. And as far as lousing friends, what good is a fair weather friend? That will back you up when everyone likes you and you are on top, and as soon as you have problems and your back is against the wall, they leave you to hide in the safety of their homes.
You seems to have gotten your facts mixed up here. The US did not lose friends because the US came under attack. The US lost friends because the US pushed them away. France was one of the first and the strongest supporters of the US following the 9/11 attacks, but were demonised by your government when they opposed the Iraq invasion because they believed your reasons were bogus. Which, history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they were. Have they recieved an apology for their treatment at the hands of the US now that they've been proven corect? Nope. Small wonder you're not so popular there or in many of the other countries who were scorned for calling the lies they were presented with. The friends of the US did not leave, they were pushed away.
Terrorists killing fewer people than car accidents or lightning is a good thing, it means we are winning.
Actually, the fact that terrorist attacks are up significantly since the start of the '"war" would seem to imply that you're losing. Badly. Terrorists have never been any major factor in loss of life, even before you started the so-called war. Even back when the US was actively sponsoring terrorists and insurgents as long as they were mostly targeting their cold war enemies (which, incidentally, is how Bin Laden got into the business. He's very much an american creation). You really need to start looking at facts instead of probaganda if you intend to be taken seriously in a discussion.
-
Well, I guess you are right, there is no war, we are not having military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should just chill out and forget about it all. <-SARCASM
France isn't a fair weather friend? They just left us when we needed them, when we weren't doing the popular thing, when it wasn't clean and proper, when every other nation in Europe was not also behind us. If that isn't a fair weather friend, then I don't know what is.
They apposed us invading Iraq because they didnt want us to see the French writing on their weapons, or maybe it was because of the bunkers.
History proved what? How about you wait for the facts to come out. When this whole mess is over and done with, then history can speak, because this chapter is not finished yet.
Yes, I realize Ossama Bin Laden was originally funded, by the US, in the cold war so he could fight the Soviet Union (a government that executed more people than Hitler did) I never said he wasnt. What does it have to do with anything now?
Attacks are up "significantly" because they are fighting for their lives now, thats what a war is, two sides fighting. However since you belive there is now war, then I guess you might be alramed by it.
Gee wiz, the way you make it sound we are being attacked every day, and dieing by the hundreds, unable to speak out because of our government taking our freedoms, while the terrorists go home to milk and cookies.
-
France isn't a fair weather friend? They just left us when we needed them, when we weren't doing the popular thing, when it wasn't clean and proper, when every other nation in Europe was not also behind us. If that isn't a fair weather friend, then I don't know what is.
Because they believed that you were barking up the wrong tree and like any friend, told you so, but chose not to join you in making the mistake. Just like if you had a friend who wanted to try drugs, or thought that 'hobo-kicking' was a fun sport, you'd tell them they thought they were wrong, and you wouldn't join in doing it.
You seem to think France and the rest of Europe 'abandoned' the US, apparently when the US does something that flies in the face of Europes' opinion, it is 'resolution' and 'determination', but when Europe does something that offends America, they are 'Fair Weather Friends'?
To be honest, it's more a case of the US being a 'fair weather friend' to the UN, only accepting their ruling when it agrees with what the US was going to do anyway, and, if not, doing it anyway regardless. Now, the US is far from the only country to do that, but 'fair weather friend' is like 'If you are not with us, you are against us', and that's a dangerous route to take.
-
France isn't a fair weather friend? They just left us when we needed them, when we weren't doing the popular thing, when it wasn't clean and proper, when every other nation in Europe was not also behind us. If that isn't a fair weather friend, then I don't know what is.
They apposed us invading Iraq because they didnt want us to see the French writing on their weapons, or maybe it was because of the bunkers.
And why were you right to invade Iraq? The simple fact is that America didn't have any good reason to invade. You've made the mistake of believing The Big Lie that Bush's government have been so happily pushing out. You really should read the facts on the subject rather than going on the bull**** you're hearing.
What you seem to forget is that the whole of Europe was on your side after 9/11. America pushed them away with their stupidity over Iraq.
-
Interesting...
The US has actually given up more freedoms and democratic rights since 9/11 as a result of the paranoia over terrorism than it gained by "fighting" them.
1. Border security - despite the US government's claims, border security has not been enhanced since 9/11. Rather, more money is being spent, more resources in manpower and equipment hours expended, and more intelligence attention is being misdirected at a threat that did not exist in the first place. The resources of USCBP on the USA-Canada border more than tripled in the last seven years - yet, not a single terrorist has ever been identified as having crossed into the US from Canada. All of the 9/11 hijackers came in directly from overseas flights.
2. The Patriot Act - fundamentally opposes the principles of the Constitution. Has now been in effect for seven years. Sweeping powers applied to the federal government and law enforcement to combat terrorism. Oddly enough, none of those powers have been used against terrorists. Rather, most of the effects of the Patriot Act have actually fallen onto regular domestic crime issues.
3. Expanding national security powers - this includes wiretapping, electronic surveillance, interception, and the increase in operational capacity of programs like the FBI's Carnivore. All came after 9/11. None have been linked directly to prevention of another terrorist attack.
4. Restriction of legal rights - nevermind the de-facto suspension of habeas corpus for the folks stuck in Guantanamo, US intelligence agencies have openly admitted to deporting SUSPECTS (not convicted terrorists or criminals, but suspects) to countries which actively use torture prohibited by the Geneva conventions and several UN Charters in order to gain information. We also have the continued use of practices such as waterboarding for intelligence purposes, a practice that would never be condoned by legitimate court systems on US soil if US citizens were involved. Which brings us also to the use of military tribunals for the trial of terrorism suspects as the conditions of treatment and evidence available would not be acceptable to a civilian court.
Lastly - the US is not formally at war any longer. "The detainees" in US custody are being treated as terrorists, not prisoners of war (POWs). This is actually why US intelligence agencies can get away with waterboarding. With a formal state of war, any person captured as an enemy combatant in Iraq or Afghanistan would have to be considered a POW and treated according to the Geneva Conventions (to which the US is a signatory). Torture and stress treatments would become illegal under international law.
Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist so I don't believe in a master government plot to eliminate freedoms, but rather I see a nation which has become fearful and paranoid trying to cope with an enemy it doesn't understand and in doing so unwittingly doing exactly what that enemy wants.
Osama wasn't out to just kill Americans - he was out to disrupt the way of life in the United States. And the US people have allowed him to succeed. You altered the entire structure of your legal protections toward a state-protection model in order to combat a threat which never credibly existed. The US clamped down on itself - and that's why the terrorists are winning. Every piece of more restrictive legislation applied to policing, protection, and enforcement that simultaneously chips away at traditional liberties in the name of "security" is a victory for the fear-mongers and killers and a loss for anyone who truly cherishes their right to a free life.
My favorite recent example of this lunacy is the liquid ban on aircraft. I can no longer take a bottle of water onto an airplane because it is a security risk. One potential plot, and that basic ability is gone across the entirety of North America. Now really, who's winning this "war"?
-
Oh, this will be fun.
Well, I guess you are right, there is no war, we are not having military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should just chill out and forget about it all. <-SARCASM
No, you're not having a military conflict in Iraq. That ended years ago with the fall of Saddam's regime - Remember Bush in front of that big victory banner? That was it. What you're having there now is a cluster**** of a rebuilding operation brought on by the unwillingness of the US government to make any real plans for what was going to happen after they had won. Afghanistan is definitely a military conflict, but it's not the War on TerrorTM. It was back when the Taleban were harbouring bin Laden, and you'll notice that the Afghanistan war actually had US backing and that the UN was (and still is) supported by many other countries (your so-called fair weather friends among them), but it is not anymore. Now it's a mess of tribal warlords all wanting to be the next big guy on the block.
France isn't a fair weather friend? They just left us when we needed them, when we weren't doing the popular thing, when it wasn't clean and proper, when every other nation in Europe was not also behind us. If that isn't a fair weather friend, then I don't know what is.
They apposed us invading Iraq because they didnt want us to see the French writing on their weapons, or maybe it was because of the bunkers.
They didn't support you on Iraq because you lied, decieved, threatened and bullied. That's not the way to keep your allies around. But that has already been covered nicely by other posters (and, hell, by myself in earlier posts), so I'll just offer this: See This Picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Fleet_5_nations.jpg)? That's from operation Enduring Freedom - Among the ships in that fleet are the FS Surcouf, FS De Grasse and FS Charles de Gaulle, also known as FS Fairweather 1, 2 and 3 in your terminology. Funny how they didn't shy away when the cause was actually just and the US government didn't lie to their face, isn't it?
History proved what? How about you wait for the facts to come out. When this whole mess is over and done with, then history can speak, because this chapter is not finished yet.
No WMDs were found in Iraq, despite the US government having allegedly identified many sites before the war. No ties existed between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, despite US claims to the contrary. Indeed, there was no presence of his organization at all in Iraq prior to Saddam's fall... he was by no means a devout muslim, so he kept them out - They were a threat to him, too. They only moved in after the US failed miserably at creating some semblence of order once the war was won. Those are the reasons presented by the US government for the Iraq war. Both were lies. What more playing out needs to be done?
Yes, I realize Ossama Bin Laden was originally funded, by the US, in the cold war so he could fight the Soviet Union (a government that executed more people than Hitler did) I never said he wasnt. What does it have to do with anything now?
Attacks are up "significantly" because they are fighting for their lives now, thats what a war is, two sides fighting. However since you belive there is now war, then I guess you might be alramed by it.
Do I really need to point out the fallacy in the argument that someone who is willing to blow himself up is fighting harder because he's afraid he might die? They're fighting harder because they have the means to fight harder, handed to them on a silver platter by president George W. Bush himself when he decided to invade Iraq. That place in its current state in a terrorist's dream, easy access to every toy you could ever want, except of course WMDs since Iraq didn't have any. But maybe they can buy from North Korea which does, and with which the US has for some reason decided to forego any response. Probably because they aren't as helpless and could actually fight back a little bit, which wouldn't be so good for public opinion as a nice, easy war against little Saddam.
Gee wiz, the way you make it sound we are being attacked every day, and dieing by the hundreds, unable to speak out because of our government taking our freedoms, while the terrorists go home to milk and cookies.
No, that's the thing. There aren't many attacks. Attacks are up since the War on TerrorTM started, but there still aren't many of them. Which is why the response by the US government is all the more extreme - They could save 50 times as many american lives with 1% of the money spent on that so-called war if they simply applied it towards health care or making roads safer. But those things don't keep a president in his job. Wars do. Especially if it's against an enemy you can't see (and thus can't fight, but they don't tell you that part).
-
Look guys, he's clearly too far gone to try to dissuade. I believe we should start thinking about euthanasia.
-
Oh come on, we haven't even gotten to the part where he accuses us of hating America and its citizens, despite the fact that we actually like americans and all we're actually attacking is the US Government and its fearless (and clueless!) leader, George W. Bush. Thread isn't done until that has happened.
-
Look guys, he's clearly too far gone to try to dissuade. I believe we should start thinking about euthanasia.
Please, it would be a relief.
Oh come on, we haven't even gotten to the part where he accuses us of hating America and its citizens, despite the fact that we actually like americans and all we're actually attacking is the US Government and its fearless (and clueless!) leader, George W. Bush. Thread isn't done until that has happened.
I can understand what you are saying, and why you are saying it, based on the information you have been exposed to, I would believe the same thing. Its ok, keep to your stereo types, believe what you are told, leave your head in the sand, never risk anything, and you will have a long happy life. Then sit back in your comfy chair, criticize what you dont understand, and mock what you will be to afraid to ever do.
-
I can understand what you are saying, and why you are saying it, based on the information you have been exposed to, I would believe the same thing. Its ok, keep to your stereo types, believe what you are told, leave your head in the sand, never risk anything, and you will have a long happy life. Then sit back in your comfy chair, criticize what you dont understand, and mock what you will be to afraid to ever do.
You... You do realise you're describing yourself and people like you, right? :wtf:
-
Thing is, you can't stop people screaming that they want you to die by killing them. Well, actually, Yes, you can, but at the end of the day you may well end up doing the same thing they are. Look at the 'Nuke 'em' comments on here, yes, I know they are in jest and no-one is seriously suggesting we Nuke the Middle East, or at least, I hope not, but they hear what the west has 'done' and start screaming 'Burn them! Kill Them!'. Upon hearing this, the West is so annoyed by these comments that they start screaming 'Judgemental Bastards! Wanting us dead? Burn them! Kill Them!'....
I think the proper response to them screaming over offensive cartoons is to make even more offensive cartoons. Something so tasteless, vulgar, and depraved that they have strokes just looking at it.
-
I can understand what you are saying, and why you are saying it, based on the information you have been exposed to, I would believe the same thing. Its ok, keep to your stereo types, believe what you are told, leave your head in the sand, never risk anything, and you will have a long happy life. Then sit back in your comfy chair, criticize what you dont understand, and mock what you will be to afraid to ever do.
Now there's a poorly conceived attempt to bow out of a discussion with some shred of credibility left without actually adressing the numerous valid and well-thought-out points within it if I've ever seen one.
Too bad no one here is going to let you get away with it.
You failed to address a single point raised in the last two pages (3 and 4) of this discussion.
By the way... as for the bit about being exposed to information, stereotypes, blah blah... I work in law enforcement, specifically in the area of border security. I daresay I probably have a pretty decent grasp of legislative change and terrorist threats to national security. And everything I've seen out of you in this thread so far says you're talking straight out of your ass and trying to argue your poorly-conceived and ill-informed opinion as the state of the world.
Like I said... no one here is going to let you get away with it.
You can talk about understanding all you like but until you can demonstrate a decently nuanced rebuttal to the numerous points thus far raised by several people (Shade, karajorma, Flipside, myself, etc) it's pretty clear that you're the one without it.
Happy researching.
-
I can understand what you are saying, and why you are saying it, based on the information you have been exposed to, I would believe the same thing. Its ok, keep to your stereo types, believe what you are told, leave your head in the sand, never risk anything, and you will have a long happy life. Then sit back in your comfy chair, criticize what you dont understand, and mock what you will be to afraid to ever do.
Heh, such a response to an attempt at a bit of levity, yet not a word addressing any of the many points that have been brought up. Why am I not surprised? Anyway...
The thing about being exposed to information as opposed to probaganda is that you tend to actually have a clue what's going on. As for believing everything I'm told... are you sure you weren't looking in a mirror when you posted that? I'm the one being sceptical here, after all, while you're plugging the government line. As for the rest, nice try, but really, if I were truely the one who was afraid here, I wouldn't be the one calling bull****. You're the one acting scared, defending policies that are taking away the freedom of a great people bit by bit in the name of security. Me? If I had to choose between my freedom and my safety, I'd pick my freedom any day.
-
hmmm...
lets see, I didnt use to think we were going to accomplish anything in Iraq, and it was a mistake to go there, then I had some experiences that changed my point of view, nothing I can say will make you believe the way I do.
Shade,
During every war EVER, freedoms have been sacrificed, even when the goal of the war is freedom. However you dont believe there is a war, so you will not accept my argument as valid. Allow me to introduce myself....
-I am a US Soldier, fighting the war in Iraq. You have not been here, how would you know if there was one or not?
...
By the way... as for the bit about being exposed to information, stereotypes, blah blah... I work in law enforcement, specifically in the area of border security. I daresay I probably have a pretty decent grasp of legislative change and terrorist threats to national security.
....
I see... thank you, for protecting our border.
I hope that you will consider my response to Shade as one valid response over the last 2 pages.
You... You do realise you're describing yourself and people like you, right? :wtf:
Meh, i guess some people see it that way.
-
During every war EVER, freedoms have been sacrificed, even when the goal of the war is freedom. However you dont believe there is a war, so you will not accept my argument as valid.
You're misunderstanding. There certainly was a war in Iraq and still is one in Afghanistan. But they're not the War on Terror, and neither of them have had any bearing on US security since the Taleban were ousted from power and Bin Laden could no longer hide under their protection, and indeed the war in Iraq never did - No WMDs and no terrorist connections there before the war, remember?
It's the claim that the US is at constant war because terrorists threaten you at every corner I take issue with, because that is simply not true. And it's the general acceptance of a continuing deterioration of freedoms in the name of a threat that is blown up out of all proportion that I'm fighting here, because the only way a terrorist can 'win', the only way a terrorist can truely hurt a society, is by making that society hurt itself. And believe me, I do not want them to win.
I am a US Soldier, fighting the war in Iraq. You have not been here, how would you know if there was one or not?
I'd guessed as much, actually, and it doesn't change my stance. As for the 'war'? I know there's no war because there was one and it ended. Your president said so, and he *is* the commander in chief. What's there now is not a war, because you've already won the war. The Iraqi government is on your side. You're not fighting soldiers, or even a major resistance movement, but a combination of people who have gone there simply because it's the easiest place to kill americans, and a bunch of people who want more power/more influence/to be left the hell alone. That doesn't mean you aren't fighting, and it doesn't mean what you're doing isn't important (it's actually more important than fighting a war would be, because you're trying to help people get a chance for a real life instead of simply being out to kill the enemy) it just means it's not a war you're fighting. And that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't feel like one when you're there.
Also, believe it or not, I think the US is doing the right thing to stay there. It's a mess there and it needs to be cleaned up, the people helped and the society rebuilt, so I think you're doing the right thing. But you invaded for the wrong reasons, lied to your friends and allies and tried to bully those who wouldn't get in line. If Bush had come out and said "It's time to help the people of Iraq, and correct our mistake from the first gulf war in leaving Saddam in control. We plan on going in there, taking him out, and giving the Iraqi people the freedom they've been denied for so long", I'd have been cheering him along. But he didn't.
Instead he used manufactured reasons to justify an unprovoked attack, completely ruined the international reputation of both the US government and its intelligence agencies (though I suspect the CIA rather likes being thought of as incompetent. It can only help, especially as they're actually not), and launched an ill-prepared operation that at least initially made things far worse for the Iraqi people than they were under Saddam. The only thing he didn't do to make things worse was pull out once it turned out how big a mess it was, and a good thing too or Iraq would easily have become what it was not before the war: A free haven for terrorists and anyone with designs on hurting Americans.
-
[Slams head against desk, looks at screen, slams head against desk harder]
:wtf:
You are **** right it "feels like" a war. Its what is called "a-symmetrical warfare" or in the old terms a "gorilla war", where one force blends in with or replaces the civilian population of an area, and uses the guise to conduct attacks against a larger military force when they have an advantage or the risk of casualties is low.
No declaration has to be made for there to be a war, and no declaration made by only one side ends a war. By your reasoning we are still at war with North Korea, just because nobody never said the Korean War was over.
-
And thus it isn't a War any more, at best it's a Policing situation that was bought about by the mismanagement of a War.
Personally, I find it hard to support any War that is designed to be a Political Tool, such as the Suez Canal, Egypt, Vietnam or Iraq. History has proved time and time again that Wars fought for the sake of political/financial expediency are usually doomed to a sticky end.
A War, to me, is what is left when there is a direct and real threat. There's been far too many Wars fought in the last 50 years that have had nothing to do with threat. Indeed, this was was started by saying there was a direct and real threat to our homelands, and yet the threat to my home has been far greater since the invasion than before it.
Afghanistan was a necessary act to help stop terrorism, Iraq went and bought it back multiplied by a factor of ten.
-
"gorilla war"
:blah:
-
You are **** right it "feels like" a war. Its what is called "a-symmetrical warfare" or in the old terms a "gorilla war", where one force blends in with or replaces the civilian population of an area, and uses the guise to conduct attacks against a larger military force when they have an advantage or the risk of casualties is low.
Ah yes, those. So you recognize that your enemies are lawful combatants then? Keep in mind that participants in guerrilla warfare are covered by the geneva conventions. If you're willing to take that leap, and the US starts treating everyone according to the laws of war, I'm certainly prepared to consider it one. However, you still need to explain how a conflict that's kept alive by the enemy's ability to blend in with or replace the civilian population in Iraq warrants the loss of personal freedoms for the american people that is currently in progress. And given that this is the issue that the thread has focused on lately, the issue that we've been at odds over for the last page and a half, that's a pretty big omission on your part.
No declaration has to be made for there to be a war, and no declaration made by only one side ends a war.
A declaration by one side is enough when the other side no longer exists, which is most certainly the case with Saddam's regime.
By your reasoning we are still at war with North Korea, just because nobody never said the Korean War was over.
Indeed you are. There's a very good reason why the Korean DMZ is the most heavily mined, armed and guarded border on Earth, and why soldiers from both sides (including some american soldiers, in case you didn't know) are still getting killed in skirmishes there after the armistice took effect.
-
By your reasoning we are still at war with North Korea, just because nobody never said the Korean War was over.
Indeed you are. There's a very good reason why the Korean DMZ is the most heavily mined, armed and guarded border on Earth, and why soldiers from both sides (including some american soldiers, in case you didn't know) are still getting killed in skirmishes there after the armistice took effect.
[/quote]
Heh. He made me chuckle there too.
"Armistice" describes a cease-fire, FL. It is not a peace accord, nor does it end a state of warfare.