[Rictor]

Ice: yeah, has been done and is continuing to be done.

sorry, couldn't resist.

[Liberator]

Intent is the key though Rictor, I thought we discussed this already.  

The intent of terrorist is to kill as many westerners as possible because they see us as evil.  Why do they see us as evil?  Their religious leaders told them so, and they're governments, who, if they aren't the same people are in the same area as them ideologically, deny the populace the right to decide for themselves whether Westerners are evil by denying them access to information.  Remember "The Religious Policeman" link from a few threads back?

Something I learn of today, that I'd like to share that goes right along with this.

Some Westerners(I wasn't told nationality) had dinner in a Pakistani resturant, after the meal, the owner of the resturant came out and told them that they would have to buy the dishes they ate off of because they had defiled them by eating from them.  When they refused, the owner reported them for commits blasphemy.  Apparently, Pakistan, for all it's supposed Westernization, has a law, a NATIONAL LAW, that gives people accused of blasphemy a minimum 20 year imprisonment.  The Westerners rotted in a Pakistani prison for nearly 4 years before they were gotten out by diplomats.

That's what we're up against in this fight people, not the Adherents who want to live in peace, but the Militants who want to force you to live by Islamic Law.  And before you get to excited, all of you live in a country whose law is based on Judeo-Christian principles, you can rationalize ad hominem, but Western law is Christian Law because the people who came up with it were Christians.

Oh, and on topic, the economy was never really low to begin with.  It's just when it hiccuped a few years ago, the Cost Of Living didn't hiccup with it.

Basically, 3 years ago, you could buy a 3lb steak for 6 dollars.  When the value of the dollar went down, the same steak now costs 12 dollars, while the actual value of the steak is the same.

The Big Problem with the economy right now is producers are over-regulated with a million superfluous federal, state and local guidelines about everything from working conditions to where they may or may not build they're multi-million dollar industrial plants that provide perhaps hundreds of jobs for local economies.  As an example, everybody hates how Gas prices have gone up.  What caused such a sharp rise over so short a period of time?  Is it the war?  I don't see how that could be, most of the oil comes from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.  Most of the price increase stems from two factors:

1.  There is a functionally lower supply of refined Gasoline available to purchase because the Federal Government is expanding the Federal Gas Reserve.

2.  Refining Capacity in the States runs at MAXIMUM output(93~95%) 100% of the time.  Every 6 or so years a refinery has to be shut down for maintenance.  The problem is there is nowhere near enough spare capacity to take up the slack so there is less refined product available to sell.  The biggest problem is that it is nearly impossible(financially and legally) to get the permits required to build a new refinery to give the system spare refinment capacity.

[.::Tin Can::.]

And I'm sure everyone will point fingers at Bush for the problem... just like they blamed him for the last episode of Friends...

[Liberator]

It's just that "Intellectuals" have this world view that they live in all the time.  And they get seriously hacked of when someone floods them with a truth that disrupts their worldview.  This is why they dislike Conservatives generally, and Conservative Christians in particular.  Christians believe that you must behave in a certain way to be both happy and in God's graces.  These behaviors include removing themselves from all manner of sexual perversion, general immoral behavior and a myriad of other debauched and scuzy things.

[Rictor]

See TinCan, though I may not agree with Liberator, he presents his arguements in a way that enables discussion. Try being more like that.

Originally posted by Liberator
Intent is the key though Rictor, I thought we discussed this already.  

The intent of terrorist is to kill as many westerners as possible because they see us as evil.  Why do they see us as evil?  Their religious leaders told them so, and they're governments, who, if they aren't the same people are in the same area as them ideologically, deny the populace the right to decide for themselves whether Westerners are evil by denying them access to information.  Remember "The Religious Policeman" link from a few threads back?

I don't see why intent is the key? Though I do believe that an accidental killing should carry with it a lower penatly that an intentional one, there are two problems here

On is that I bleieve that, though accidental, a killer should recieve SOME sort of punishment. Even if every single civilian killed by the US was an accident, no one has ever been held accountable. Sure, lesser punishement, but not NO punushment. And secondly, I don't see how you can believe that after so many "accidents", the next time is still a mistake. If you have 1000 accidents, one after another, thats no longer an accident, its a mattter of policy.

If you remember, I was the one who posted the Religious Policeman link. Since than, I have read almost all the back-logs, because I find it so interesting and a great source of information. It should be noted that the Bush family is very, very close to the Saudi Royals. So, whatever complaints you have against the Saudi extremism, you can take it up with the Bushes. I believe that the Saudi Royals, and the entire Wahhabi theocracy are an oppressive force. The people have to live with the consequences of an extemist religious doctorine, while the Saudi royalty are pulling back a Johnny Walker and rolling in money. And I hold the Bushes to be partly responsible for enabling the Saudis to act with such impunity. Why are they not on the "Axis of Evil".

Explain this part to me: 15 of the 19 hicjakers involved in the WTC attacks were Saudis. Afghanistan gets invaded, Iraq gets invaded, but Saudi Arabia is not given so much as a public reprimand. Why is that Liberator?

Originally posted by Liberator
Something I learn of today, that I'd like to share that goes right along with this.

Some Westerners(I wasn't told nationality) had dinner in a Pakistani resturant, after the meal, the owner of the resturant came out and told them that they would have to buy the dishes they ate off of because they had defiled them by eating from them.  When they refused, the owner reported them for commits blasphemy.  Apparently, Pakistan, for all it's supposed Westernization, has a law, a NATIONAL LAW, that gives people accused of blasphemy a minimum 20 year imprisonment.  The Westerners rotted in a Pakistani prison for nearly 4 years before they were gotten out by diplomats.

How is this any different than some who is accused of terrorism  in Camp Delta, who is there for years and years, without any charges being pressed, without any evidence, and without the right to habeas corpus?

If your story is true, then of course its a stupid law. Howeverm the world is full of stupid laws, and I don't think this is indicative of the will of the people of Pakistan. I doubt this was during Musharaf's reign, since he is very buddy-buddy with the US.

Originally posted by Liberator
That's what we're up against in this fight people, not the Adherents who want to live in peace, but the Militants who want to force you to live by Islamic Law.  And before you get to excited, all of you live in a country whose law is based on Judeo-Christian principles, you can rationalize ad hominem, but Western law is Christian Law because the people who came up with it were Christians.

Yes, thats probably true, about the Judeo-Christian foundations of modern Western law. However, thats what they are, foundations. We have used Judeo-Christian morality to build our laws upon, but we have made advacements. The original "law", as set down by the Bible would lead, were we to interpret it directly, to a society closer to Saudi Arabian than to a modern Western nation.

I can understand that you genuinly have no quarrel with ordinary Muslims, who want to live in peace. But you should understand, though you do not wish to harm them, you (as in the US) have harmed ordinary, peaceful Muslims quite a lot. The theocratic dictatorships in Iran and Afghanistan are a direct result of US policy in the past. Ordinary, peaceful Iraqis have suffered for years under economic sanctions, with 500,000 of their children dieing from lack of food, water, medicine and so forth. Their only crime was not being able to overthrow Saddam,

Yes, US sanctions would not allow medicine into Iraq. A chairity group broke US law and delivered medicine to the Iraqi people during the sanctions, and now one of them is in prison because of it. Does this seem fair to you? How could Saddam have mis-used medicinal aid? How did anyone but the Iraqi people stand to profit from this?

You should understand Liberator, that your leaders do not think in terms of right and wrong. They think in terms of profit, in terms of idealogy, in terms of power. Any convictions they may show are a charade. This is whats wrong.

[.::Tin Can::.]

*rolls eyes* I get us back on topic and they want to go BACK off topic... oh well...

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Liberator
It's just that "Intellectuals" have this world view that they live in all the time. And they get seriously hacked of when someone floods them with a truth that disrupts their worldview. This is why they dislike Conservatives generally, and Conservative Christians in particular. Christians believe that you must behave in a certain way to be both happy and in God's graces. These behaviors include removing themselves from all manner of sexual perversion, general immoral behavior and a myriad of other debauched and scuzy things.

Although I agree on your previous post in this thread I fear I must say something about this one. You seriously believe that?

For one, everyone feels bad when their views are proved false., most just move on. And another thing, everyone and I mean EVERYONE believes that you must behave within certain limits or in a certain way to achieve happyness, not only conservatives, not only christians. But like I said previously, your previous post before the one I quoted was mostly correct... our moral codes, by more we try not to think about them are based mostly on christian values... not to say more.

That is all.

[Flipside]

Well, that's the whole thing though isn't it, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This just smacks sooo much of 1984 it's unbelievable If someone found an Internet site saying the sky is Orange we'd all be buggered

[jdjtcagle]

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=mjb&itemid=54821 Hehe...

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Cept the fact that the one guy, and another, rushed in to defend me on the end, when it was closed. I thanked them with a PM...

Regardless, if anyone is captured by a terrorist, you are, and should be, considered dead. Terrorists have no remorse and you are cannon fodder to them. So, you know what? I would save us some trouble and give the scum-sucking sons a *****es a bullet to the head. They are cowards and jackals, and deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth... which is what we are trying to do. "Smoke em out of their hole and get em on the run!"
 

Ah, the age old question, "Then how are we any better than them?"

[aldo_14]

Key point RE: Abu-Ghraib - what makes it right to use the same tactics as these (suspected) terrorists?  Because they execute civillians to make a point, does that mean we should?

[Flipside]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=mjb&itemid=54821 Hehe...

And frighteningly quickly found too!

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Indeed.

Setting about the mass-extermination of anyone you deem "Terrorists" will only serve to strengthen people's hatred of you.

[Flipside]

The reason why is quite simple in my opinion. Every single day somewhere in the world, a soldier dies.He might be in Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Yugoslavia or anywhere else for that matter.

No one cares, except possibly his family.

Even Christopher Berg has brought up 2 vastly differing opinions regarding the video, and I personally am still finding it pretty tough to decide what is true and what is not. But targetting civilians WILL make people sit up and take notice, killing soliders won't.

I'm not saying it's right, but you only have to think about the last 2-3 years to realise just exactly how well it has worked, leadership on both sides have used the fear it generated to benefit themselves.

[jdjtcagle]

Originally posted by Flipside




And frighteningly quickly found too!

I try...

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Flipside
The reason why is quite simple in my opinion. Every single day somewhere in the world, a soldier dies.He might be in Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Yugoslavia or anywhere else for that matter.

No one cares, except possibly his family.

Even Christopher Berg has brought up 2 vastly differing opinions regarding the video, and I personally am still finding it pretty tough to decide what is true and what is not. But targetting civilians WILL make people sit up and take notice, killing soliders won't.

I'm not saying it's right, but you only have to think about the last 2-3 years to realise just exactly how well it has worked, leadership on both sides have used the fear it generated to benefit themselves.

First of all, I don't agree. The Western media (and American media specifically) places so much more value on soldier's lives than on civilians. In Iraq, the military isn't even counting the number of dead civilians. Dead soldiers get reported, dead civilians do not.

Every time someone on the news mentions the "cost of the war", they always talk about dead soldiers, not dead innocents. Joe Citizen will not know how many Iraqi civilians have died (10k), much less how many Iraqi soldiers/insurgents (50-100k), but they will know exactly how many American soldiers have died (800). If you remember the bombing of Serbia, no one ever reported that more than a thousand civilians died. But the minute an Apache goes down or a bomber is shot down by AA fire, its all over the news.

Its rather simple really. An American soldier is trained, armed to the hilt and operating with the best intel/technology that money can buy. But most importantly, he chooses to be on the battlefield. He isn't defending his home, he's overseas, invading someone else's. I feel no pity for them, because they are the agressors. I mean, yes, I feel saddened in that a human being has died needlessly for someone else's gain, but I feel much more pity and sympathy for civilains. Their home is invaded, they are arrested and tortured, they men are shot down and they must suffer under a foreign occupation. Their only crime is being born in a certain part of the world.

[Flipside]

I think the reason that the 'cost of the war' does not include foreign civilians for one simple reason Rictor. Because that would 'include' them in the war (like wandering around inside a warzone doesn't) and they need to keep things like that very seperate for politic reasons. If they number they dead civilians alongside the soldiers it means they were 'part of the army' if you see what I mean? It would gain them an advantage in a way, because they could then start to edge Iraqi civilians deaths into the same role, but the influence it gives them on home soil by seperating them  is the better option. Cold blooded I know, but I'm trying not to land on either side, when I say civilian in this case, I'm referring to 'American Civilian'. The plight of the Iraqi civilians deserves a whole new thread

I wouldn't say papers jump on military death, most papers yesterday were on about Princess Diana's gran dying, and ddn't mention 5 American soldiers killed until about page 7.

It's true that we have now become numb to civvy deaths in Iraq in particular, that is why the terrorists are trying so hard to make an attack in another country.

[Rictor]

Flipside: well, I can agree with you there. when it comes to the value placed on the lives of US civilians versus that of US soldiers, I think the civilians are widely regarded as "more valuable". I mean that their death is percieved to be a greater tragedy, and rightly so I think, for the same reasons as I described above.

____________________

here is an excerpt from an article regarding the unversality of human rights. There is some stuff before this that is not really pertinent, so here is the relevant chunk:

Please read it.

Many people have pointed out the connection between the treatment of prisoners in the Al Graib Prison and the treatment of those being held in the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As you know, the U.S. has imprisoned hundreds of people captured during and after the invasion of Afghanistan, at its base in Cuba. The U.S. Government has insisted repeatedly that those prisoners do not have the status, and therefore the rights, of prisoners of war. Neither the customary laws of war on the treatment of prisoners, nor the Geneva Convention of 1949 entitled Treatment of Prisoners, applies to them. This means that, unlike POWs, they can be tried and punished for their participation in battle. But if they don't have the status of POWs, does this mean that they have the status of criminal suspects? If they did, that would mean that under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. criminal law, they would also have very detailed rights. But no, they do not have that status either.

On 13 November, 2001, just two months after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. President issued a Presidential Decree stating that people determined to be "illegal combatants" (i.e. "terrorists") could be tried by special military tribunals, which do not have to follow ordinary legal procedures. Of course, there is no basis in the U.S. Constitution or in U.S. law for such tribunals. This was never debated in the Congress; the President simply announced it. His authority for doing so seems to have been conjured out of thin air.

So these people have neither the rights of POWs nor the rights of criminal suspects. They have no right to meet lawyers, no right so see what evidence the U.S. government may have against them, no right to know who are the witnesses (if there are any witnesses) who have testified against them, no right (if a trial should be held) to an open trial, no right of appeal. More frightening still, they are deprived of what is perhaps the most fundamental of all fundamental human rights--the right to know what, if anything, they are alleged to be guilty of. They are in the position of Joseph K in Kafka's The Trial. They are told, "You are charged with being guilty. Defend yourself as best you can."

The newspapers reported that a human rights lawyer in the U.S. went to court seeking a writ of habeas corpus: an order from the judge stating that the authorities holding these men (and it seems they are all men) must either show what crime they are charged with or let them go. The judge refused to give the order, for the reason that the prisoners are in Cuba, where U.S. law, and the judge's authority, do not apply. From this we could understand why Cuba was chosen. U.S. law does not apply there. Of course Cuban law cannot be enforced on the U.S. base there. And international law does not apply either, as they are not held as POWs. So they have been placed in a space where there is no law at all. It is as if they had been thrust back in time to some ancient age before human rights had been invented. They are a new category of rightless persons.

They are trapped in a kind of nightmare tautology:

Q: Why are we being held here without rights?

A: Because you are "illegal combatants" (="terrorists").

Q: On the basis of what evidence, and through what legal procedure, was it determined that we are "illegal combatants"?

A: In your case, such evidence and procedure is unnecessary.

Q: Why are they unnecessary?

A: Because you are "illegal combatants"

Thus U.S. government policy has established a new category of human--The Terrorist--who can be placed in a separate legal category from other humans, a category in which there are no rights at all. Suspected Terrorists can be assassinated using missiles fired from robot airplanes, they can be imprisoned without charges, they can be given trials where U.S. military officers are the judges, or they can be held for years without being tried at all. It is permitted to do such things not because of what these people did, but because of what they are: they are Terrorists.

It is only a few steps from there to the conclusion that they can be used by playful, sadistic American kids as sex toys.

I propose as a candidate for Item #1 on the Universal Declaration of Human Wrongs: It is wrong to establish a category of human beings who have no rights.

Slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, and apartheid were all founded on the establishment of such a category. And when we rejected them, we were saying that such a category should never be allowed. It seems strange that we need to affirm this once again, but evidently we must. Let us hope that this time the affirmation will be universal.

[Reez]

I agree with you on the civilians thing. But I've always thought that there should be some sort of mandatory military or political service. I mean, if you're not willing to serve your nations, and all you do is ***** about taxes, are you really a citizen in the essence of the word?

[Flipside]

Oh, I agree our own apathy is our worst enemy, we have been 'created' as such.

I'd like to do political service, or see our own higher level politics downgraded to 'standard' wage area, with no second jobs or 'bonuses' allowed. That'd sort out those who cared from those who didn't, and since they would still have to be voted in, it would help keep the 'silly' radicals out. I wonder how the parties would change if that happened?

Not sure I could do military service, to my phsyche, theres something fundamentally wrong about killing someone, unless they are trying to kill you for some other reason than the fact you are pointing a gun at them.