Arafats mysterious ailment
- Thread starter habilis
- Start date
bbloke
Registered
I don't understand what you meant by this, and wonder if we have a misunderstanding here. I in no way whatsoever think Saddam Hussein was a nice guy or someone we should have been supporting!g/re/p said:
He was of course guilty of a great deal of oppression, he was a ruthless dictator. But that does not make him a terrorist. Similarly, the links between him and Osama bin Laden seemed to mysteriously vanish in the eyes of the West after the war. So, I'd say my two statements still stand. If you meant something else and I missed the point, let me know.
Ah, you've edited your post. So you were referring to him being a terrorist? The Oxford English Dictionary's definition is as follows:
"Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.
In early use also applied spec. to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia. The term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. "
http://dictionary.oed.com/
Also:
"adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities"
http://dictionary.reference.com/
OK, I'll take your point that the definition could encompass governments, too, which employ terror tactics. It's just that the definition we usually think of is that of groups which are not in power. But I think I understand better what you meant now.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
bloke, the only thing you left out was the entire other side of the story - and the big picture(kinda like mainstream media). You don't have to worry about habilis being misled or tricked. My beliefs are an accumulation of 10 years in politics. I started out as a liberal just like you and one day I found that mainstream media was intentionally telling us a lie. All I had to do was dig deeper and deeper to find the truth down the rabbit hole. The truthfinding mission has never ended. I just wish the more intelligent people like yourself could join me in seeing the big picture and not get lost in the details. I and my fellow conservatives see in the scope of decades, while you and the rest of the left wing are getting hung up on the little picture, getting in the way of real progress. Just like I said about results, you can have all the greatest intentions and feel-goodisms about stopping a bomb in Iraq, going out to become a human shield or whatever, and maybe you get to feel good about yourself, but what did you really do for the long term? Liberals just want to be judged for their feel-good intentions, because they can't come up with results. It is, and always has been the right that has had to face up to reality and transform the Earth into a better place. Might as well sign up now and be on the right side of history with the rest of us.
Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
moav said:
Obviously you don't or ever have lived in a rural area. I have seen deer starve to their bones because hunting was banned. I have seen children almost die because lime disease was born from the multitude of deer (and the ticks they carry) making their was into the edge of town (which has stood for over 200 years). Man has over the years destroyed the natural predators of deer (wolves, bears, native people) and deer seem to reproduce almost as fast as rabbits. I am not saying hunting for sport is right because it is not. I do believe limited hunting makes the natural world stronger. Lastly, a hunter should not kill anything unless he/she is ready to eat it!
pds
Registered
Truth is neither left nor right. It is truth.habilis said:
To talk of it in the breath of politics, liberals, conservatives and the like is a mistake in my view. The left, the right (and the center) have theories about what to do with the truth, not the truth itself.
Can you be sure that it is not the conservative attitudes that lie at the root of the problems in the Middle East? (it is where the thread began)
Because "conservative values" often tend to identify "us and them" which is a problem when it comes to the world situation we see around us today, where the frontiers between us-ness and them-ness have become very accessible and visible.
Can the Twin Towers be - in an odd way - connected to the inability to find progressive (i.e. not conservative) solutions to the plight of a dispossed people that happened to be "them." This is what the bombers say, why not take them at their word?
I am willing to accept that many of the liberties that we cherish as conservatives were forged by liberal, progressive politics of the past. Jefferson was a progressive, even Adams was, or we'd still be celebrating the Queen Mum's birthday. Add to that women's vote, a social security system, labor laws, public schooling and many more. They may be under pressure at the moment, but they have served society well till now. Results.
As with the beginning of this post, and in light of history, it is hard to determine if your characterization is fact or theory. I suspect the right path may be a bit more complicated than that.
g/re/p
I can haz cigar?
http://www.airbagindustries.com/archives/003760.php
Ariel Sharon: Bring out your dead! [clang] Bring out your dead! [clang]
Nabil Shaath: Here's one.
Ariel Sharon: Ninepence.
Yasser Arafat: I'm not dead!
Ariel Sharon: What?
Nabil Shaath: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
Yasser Arafat: I'm not dead!
Ariel Sharon: 'Ere. He says he's not dead!
Nabil Shaath: Yes, he is.
Yasser Arafat: I'm not!
Ariel Sharon: He isn't?
Nabil Shaath: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
Yasser Arafat: I'm getting better!
Nabil Shaath: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
Ariel Sharon: Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Yasser Arafat: I don't want to go on the cart!
Nabil Shaath: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Ariel Sharon: I can't take him.
Yasser Arafat: I feel fine!
Nabil Shaath: Well, do us a favour.
Ariel Sharon: I can't.
Nabil Shaath: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
Ariel Sharon: No, I've got to go to the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Nabil Shaath: Well, when's your next round?
Ariel Sharon: Thursday.
Yasser Arafat: I think I'll go for a walk.
Nabil Shaath: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?
Yasser Arafat: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy.
[Sharon hits Yasser Arafat on the head - whop]
Nabil Shaath: Ah, thanks very much.
Ariel Sharon: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Ariel Sharon: Bring out your dead! [clang] Bring out your dead! [clang]
Nabil Shaath: Here's one.
Ariel Sharon: Ninepence.
Yasser Arafat: I'm not dead!
Ariel Sharon: What?
Nabil Shaath: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
Yasser Arafat: I'm not dead!
Ariel Sharon: 'Ere. He says he's not dead!
Nabil Shaath: Yes, he is.
Yasser Arafat: I'm not!
Ariel Sharon: He isn't?
Nabil Shaath: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
Yasser Arafat: I'm getting better!
Nabil Shaath: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
Ariel Sharon: Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Yasser Arafat: I don't want to go on the cart!
Nabil Shaath: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Ariel Sharon: I can't take him.
Yasser Arafat: I feel fine!
Nabil Shaath: Well, do us a favour.
Ariel Sharon: I can't.
Nabil Shaath: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
Ariel Sharon: No, I've got to go to the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Nabil Shaath: Well, when's your next round?
Ariel Sharon: Thursday.
Yasser Arafat: I think I'll go for a walk.
Nabil Shaath: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?
Yasser Arafat: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy.
[Sharon hits Yasser Arafat on the head - whop]
Nabil Shaath: Ah, thanks very much.
Ariel Sharon: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
Egypt has offered him a final resting place, Israel says you can't bury the guy in Jurusalem, the funeral is already being planned but Arafat's wife says he's not dead yet. wtf. I don't care how bad off I am, it ain't over till it's over - don't bury me till I'm dead.
On my way to work this morning I was thinking about how Arafat's dying. As far as he knows, or knew, all he did was get sick, and the next thing he knows or doesn't know is that he's in a coma. Totally unconscious of what is transpiring, and that he's dying. The case is erily closed, he probably didn't get to say goodbye to anyone and his soul will probably wander the cold lonely dessert for eternity(Kinda like "The Other's" if you've seen that movie) and never go to heaven if you believe in that kind of thing.
but then again, if you believe the soul escapes out of the body and hovers above the room, he would see himself and know it, negating the lost soul thing.
Of course if you're one of these strange creatures that believes in heaven and hell, Arafat's gonna have trouble weaseling his way out of this one. but then again, in Arafat's mind he was bombing children to save the lives of his own oppressed children, so he might actually be some sort of hero in heaven, or at least in Allah's heaven, where, I guess you're rewarded with a harem of virgins for killing kids. So if Jesus and Allah are coexsisting, could Arafat be sent to both heaven and hell at the same time interdimensionally?
It's all just too complex. All the schisms are colliding and cancelling each other out in the white noise of the real world. When somebody figures out what god I should be praying to, please email it to me. Until then I'm still a devout Woody Allenist. He said it best when he said "We don't know if God exsists, but we do know women exist."
On my way to work this morning I was thinking about how Arafat's dying. As far as he knows, or knew, all he did was get sick, and the next thing he knows or doesn't know is that he's in a coma. Totally unconscious of what is transpiring, and that he's dying. The case is erily closed, he probably didn't get to say goodbye to anyone and his soul will probably wander the cold lonely dessert for eternity(Kinda like "The Other's" if you've seen that movie) and never go to heaven if you believe in that kind of thing.
but then again, if you believe the soul escapes out of the body and hovers above the room, he would see himself and know it, negating the lost soul thing.
Of course if you're one of these strange creatures that believes in heaven and hell, Arafat's gonna have trouble weaseling his way out of this one. but then again, in Arafat's mind he was bombing children to save the lives of his own oppressed children, so he might actually be some sort of hero in heaven, or at least in Allah's heaven, where, I guess you're rewarded with a harem of virgins for killing kids. So if Jesus and Allah are coexsisting, could Arafat be sent to both heaven and hell at the same time interdimensionally?
It's all just too complex. All the schisms are colliding and cancelling each other out in the white noise of the real world. When somebody figures out what god I should be praying to, please email it to me. Until then I'm still a devout Woody Allenist. He said it best when he said "We don't know if God exsists, but we do know women exist."
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
Just heard on the news...it's official. Arafat has died.
http://www.local10.com/news/3905996/detail.html
http://www.local10.com/news/3905996/detail.html
bbloke
Registered
nixgeek said:
Indeed. I just noticed this too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3984841.stm
And public reaction on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3962343.stm
And, yes, let's hope both sides avoid escalation of the situation.
bbloke
Registered
I think pds has stated things very eloquently already, so I'll only add a few notes of my own.
I was, of course, putting forward an alternative angle to counter what you had posted.
Like pds said, doing one's best to determine the truth of the situation is one thing (and will take a lifetime), but politics is not about one side having the truth and the other side being deceived. Politics is about people hopefully being in possession of the facts and then deciding what they think is the best way for their government to conduct themselves, and for whatever reasons.
My own views have developed from what I have read and my discussions with others from various countries around the world, over the years.
Just to make sure we're clear, I'd like to reiterate what I said previously: I try to avoid aligning myself with any one group, as I stand against tribalism/jingoism. This is one reason I do not affiliate myself with any political party.
Out of interest, if you feel mainstream media is feeding us with lies, what sources of information do you trust or listen to?
Additionally, what evidence do you have about the news (and which media organizations in particular) being based on lies?
Agreed; I do not claim to have all the answers, and would be wary of anyone who did/does make such claims!
Well, the reason I cited so many references was to show you the evidence against what you said. Saying I get lost in the details and not demonstrating why what I wrote was wrong (in your view) can come across a little like you can't or won't address the evidence. So, if you allege that we are being deceived, then I would appreciate you pointing out the errors of our ways.
But I would say that I am indeed addressing the big picture. I can see warning signs regarding a number of problems, and feel we need to be aware of these issues and speak up. When I lived in America, I had a sense of a country which stood for freedom, rights, and accountability. When I left, I became concerned by things I was finding out about America's policies over the years. Things which I just was not hearing when in America. The fact that things appeared hidden (intentionally or unintentionally) bothered me, to say the least. I work with people from all over the globe and know people who have travelled extensively too, and some of the stories any of these people can tell are worrying.
When some Americans (not all; I have no wish to tar everyone with the same brush) wrote some vitriolic comments on the BBC website when some UK residents despaired at the US election result, I found it odd. The reason I found it odd was that, judging by what was written, I could well imagine that these same Americans who wanted the rest of the world to keep their noses out of internal, American affairs would probably be the same people who would advocate American intervention around the world. This seems hypocritical to me. It is not balanced to say that nobody can express their views on a nation, but that this same nation should be allowed to actively intervene in other countries affairs.
It is no wonder, unfortunately, that there are those who bear a grudge against America and I wish it were otherwise. (I do not bear a grudge, but I have become less jingoistic over the years, with regards to the nations I live in or have lived in). After 9/11, those in Europe heard that Americans were often asking, in bewilderment, the question about why some people hated their nation. It is sad that anyone should have to be faced with such a question at all, but it was also sad that there were some in the US were seemingly unaware of their own country's, erm, less-than-praise-worthy actions and did not question their leaders enough over the decades. There are stories of dictatorships being propped up. Democratically elected governments overthrown. Palestinians feel aggrieved that the US has supported the Israeli government which has oppressed them for so long (see earlier link in this thread about their living conditions; also note that Israel until only a few years ago sanctioned the use of torture). And so on. Now we are faced with allegations of US involvement in the detention of thousands without trial, the use of torture, and more. The "good guy" has increasingly become seen as the "bad guy" and it saddens me to say this. To me, this is not what the USA should stand for and I expect some of the founding fathers would be very concerned if they could see the way things turned out.
Note the interesting comments by Benjamin Franklin, however, around the time of the signing of the Constitution:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
Back to today, the big picture is that the leaders are lying to the public, that America's name is being tarnished, and that people are suffering. That, for me, is something worth addressing and is not a case of getting lost in details. I cited some details to you in order to support my understanding of the big picture. When the leaders themselves are inconsistent look set to deceive, it needs to be addressed.
"After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out, the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."
-George W. Bush on the very day that a CIA report came out stating that Iraq had absolutely no stockpiles of WMD at the start of the war in Iraq, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Oct. 6, 2004
"Because we acted, torture chambers are closed."
-George W. Bush, Prairie Du Chien, Wisconsin, May 7, 2004
And yet:
"The latest official reports on the prisoner abuse scandal contain a classic Washington contradiction. Their headlines proclaim that no official policy mandated or allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that no officials above the rank of colonel deserve prosecution or formal punishment. But buried in their hundreds of pages of detail, for anyone who cares to read them, is a clear and meticulous account of how decisions made by President Bush, his top political aides and senior military commanders led directly to those searing images of naked prisoners being menaced with guard dogs."
"Sanchez's policy was revised a month later, but interrogators at Abu Ghraib, Fay reports, had begun using it immediately. Consequently, some guards and interrogators who used dogs to frighten prisoners, deprived them of clothing or subjected them to extreme isolation had every reason to believe their acts were authorized. As Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones delicately put it in his report, "Some of these incidents involved conduct which, in retrospect, violated international law. However, at the time some of the soldiers or contractors committed the acts, they may have honestly believed the techniques were condoned."
The causal chain is all there: from Bush's February 2002 decision to Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of nudity, stress positions and dogs; to the adoption of those methods in Afghanistan and their sanction in Iraq by a commander looking back to Bush's decision; and finally, to their use on detainees by soldiers who reasonably believed they were executing official policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37221-2004Aug26?language=printer
Again, I have never made claims to be part of the left wing. One does not have to be left wing, liberal, or right wing to see glaring inconsistencies in what we are being told. It is possible for one, for instance, to support the right wingers in principle and yet protest when those currently representing the right wing show themselves to be irresponsible. To align one's self with a political party does not mean one has to become blinkered, I would hope youd agree.
I would allege that the right are talking lots on morality, but not necessarily practicing what they preach. I do not find torture, "disappearances," breaking international law, and the like to be standing up for the principles upon which the USA was based. Never forget Jefferson's famous quotation: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Let me summarize much of what Im saying by stating that I am not anti-American, as I do have a great affection for the country that I used to live in, but that I am against jinogism and nationalism. When I see such traits rear their ugly head, I contest them where I can. And that has included having similar conversations with people from other nations around the world, including European countries, trying to show that no one nation has the moral highground. The sooner that people accept no one race or nation is superior, the better off the world will be and the sooner the us and them attitudes will be dropped.
So you support feel-bad-politics?
OK, more seriously, I disagree here. If you too feel that your political beliefs are for the benefit of mankind somehow (eg. overthrowing oppressors), then I could equally level that charge at you, that you just want to feel better about yourself. I don't think that sort of allegation is constructive, and we could go round in circles. We both feel/hope that our beliefs could make a difference. If we both have our own views on matters of principles, then that is fine, but I would like to illustrate why I feel the current Bush administration is actually not making the world a better place, and I can use their very own words against them because they have not remained consistent.
Examples...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- George W. Bush, September 13th, 2001
"I don't know where he [bin Laden] is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, March 13th, 2002
"Power appears to keep Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice help play out the drama of lies for corporate profits. John Pilger notes, "Both Colin Powell, and Condolezza Rice made it clear before September 11, 2000, that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America, Europe and the Middle East."(7) On February 20, 2001, Powell repeated in Cairo that Iraq had no significant capability with respect to building weapons of mass destruction. Yet, when Powell went to the United Nations in October 2003, he completely contradicted all of his earlier statements. Greg Thielmann, a former expert on Iraqi weapons, stated in an interview on CBS News that Powell has misrepresented the truth and deceived the American people.(8)"
(7) Pilger, John. "The Big Lie," The Mirror in London, September 22, 2003.
(8) Pelley, Scott. Sixty Minutes, October 15, 2003.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOE402A.html
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
-Bush's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004
(And again compare with http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)
As you have complained about "lies" in the media, how about I also put forward evidence from the government's own transcripts, plus a Congressional report (which can be downloaded)?
"Question: But doesnt the report indicate that there are military intelligence officers, 27 of them involved here and civilian contractors and of course, some of these abuses happened under interrogation circumstances?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Thats not the report of the Schlesinger Panel. In fact, its exactly the opposite of what the Schlesinger Panel says."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040826-secdef1229.html
Compare this with "However, we do know that some of the egregious abuses at Abu Ghraib which were not photographed did occur during interrogation sessions and that abuses during interrogation sessions occurred elsewhere" from the report itself (sentence five, paragraph one, on page "5"... the very first page of the body of the report, no less!).
Remember Bush harping on about winning the war on terror? How about his own admission, then?
"Question: Can we win [the war on terrorism]?
Bush: I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world."
Interview aired on NBC's "Today Show", Aug. 30, 2004
Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49035-2004Aug31.html
As pds has already highlighted, that statement is very much incorrect. Liberals have included those who have campaigned for education, against slavery, in favor of the vote for women, in favor of civil rights, and many other topics. Very real results that we value today and take for granted. But at the time, these people were rocking the boat.
Well, I'm not so convinced that everything is going as well as you say it is. There are those who allege that Iraq is in an even worse state than it was before.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3125iraq_firsthand.html
Also, take news within the last couple of days, alone...
"Iraq's largest Sunni-led political party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, pulls out of the interim government in protest at the Falluja assault"
"The main association of Sunni clerics calls for a boycott of elections due in January"
"The United Nations refugee agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross express concern about the civilians in Falluja"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3994605.stm
"Three relatives of the Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi are abducted in Baghdad"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3998049.stm
These incidents could well have far reaching implications for stability.
I'm sure history will indeed judge the current administration.
habilis said:
I was, of course, putting forward an alternative angle to counter what you had posted.
habilis said:
Like pds said, doing one's best to determine the truth of the situation is one thing (and will take a lifetime), but politics is not about one side having the truth and the other side being deceived. Politics is about people hopefully being in possession of the facts and then deciding what they think is the best way for their government to conduct themselves, and for whatever reasons.
My own views have developed from what I have read and my discussions with others from various countries around the world, over the years.
habilis said:
Just to make sure we're clear, I'd like to reiterate what I said previously: I try to avoid aligning myself with any one group, as I stand against tribalism/jingoism. This is one reason I do not affiliate myself with any political party.
habilis said:
Out of interest, if you feel mainstream media is feeding us with lies, what sources of information do you trust or listen to?
Additionally, what evidence do you have about the news (and which media organizations in particular) being based on lies?
habilis said:
Agreed; I do not claim to have all the answers, and would be wary of anyone who did/does make such claims!
habilis said:
Well, the reason I cited so many references was to show you the evidence against what you said. Saying I get lost in the details and not demonstrating why what I wrote was wrong (in your view) can come across a little like you can't or won't address the evidence. So, if you allege that we are being deceived, then I would appreciate you pointing out the errors of our ways.
But I would say that I am indeed addressing the big picture. I can see warning signs regarding a number of problems, and feel we need to be aware of these issues and speak up. When I lived in America, I had a sense of a country which stood for freedom, rights, and accountability. When I left, I became concerned by things I was finding out about America's policies over the years. Things which I just was not hearing when in America. The fact that things appeared hidden (intentionally or unintentionally) bothered me, to say the least. I work with people from all over the globe and know people who have travelled extensively too, and some of the stories any of these people can tell are worrying.
When some Americans (not all; I have no wish to tar everyone with the same brush) wrote some vitriolic comments on the BBC website when some UK residents despaired at the US election result, I found it odd. The reason I found it odd was that, judging by what was written, I could well imagine that these same Americans who wanted the rest of the world to keep their noses out of internal, American affairs would probably be the same people who would advocate American intervention around the world. This seems hypocritical to me. It is not balanced to say that nobody can express their views on a nation, but that this same nation should be allowed to actively intervene in other countries affairs.
It is no wonder, unfortunately, that there are those who bear a grudge against America and I wish it were otherwise. (I do not bear a grudge, but I have become less jingoistic over the years, with regards to the nations I live in or have lived in). After 9/11, those in Europe heard that Americans were often asking, in bewilderment, the question about why some people hated their nation. It is sad that anyone should have to be faced with such a question at all, but it was also sad that there were some in the US were seemingly unaware of their own country's, erm, less-than-praise-worthy actions and did not question their leaders enough over the decades. There are stories of dictatorships being propped up. Democratically elected governments overthrown. Palestinians feel aggrieved that the US has supported the Israeli government which has oppressed them for so long (see earlier link in this thread about their living conditions; also note that Israel until only a few years ago sanctioned the use of torture). And so on. Now we are faced with allegations of US involvement in the detention of thousands without trial, the use of torture, and more. The "good guy" has increasingly become seen as the "bad guy" and it saddens me to say this. To me, this is not what the USA should stand for and I expect some of the founding fathers would be very concerned if they could see the way things turned out.
Note the interesting comments by Benjamin Franklin, however, around the time of the signing of the Constitution:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
Back to today, the big picture is that the leaders are lying to the public, that America's name is being tarnished, and that people are suffering. That, for me, is something worth addressing and is not a case of getting lost in details. I cited some details to you in order to support my understanding of the big picture. When the leaders themselves are inconsistent look set to deceive, it needs to be addressed.
"After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out, the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."
-George W. Bush on the very day that a CIA report came out stating that Iraq had absolutely no stockpiles of WMD at the start of the war in Iraq, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Oct. 6, 2004
"Because we acted, torture chambers are closed."
-George W. Bush, Prairie Du Chien, Wisconsin, May 7, 2004
And yet:
"The latest official reports on the prisoner abuse scandal contain a classic Washington contradiction. Their headlines proclaim that no official policy mandated or allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that no officials above the rank of colonel deserve prosecution or formal punishment. But buried in their hundreds of pages of detail, for anyone who cares to read them, is a clear and meticulous account of how decisions made by President Bush, his top political aides and senior military commanders led directly to those searing images of naked prisoners being menaced with guard dogs."
"Sanchez's policy was revised a month later, but interrogators at Abu Ghraib, Fay reports, had begun using it immediately. Consequently, some guards and interrogators who used dogs to frighten prisoners, deprived them of clothing or subjected them to extreme isolation had every reason to believe their acts were authorized. As Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones delicately put it in his report, "Some of these incidents involved conduct which, in retrospect, violated international law. However, at the time some of the soldiers or contractors committed the acts, they may have honestly believed the techniques were condoned."
The causal chain is all there: from Bush's February 2002 decision to Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of nudity, stress positions and dogs; to the adoption of those methods in Afghanistan and their sanction in Iraq by a commander looking back to Bush's decision; and finally, to their use on detainees by soldiers who reasonably believed they were executing official policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37221-2004Aug26?language=printer
habilis said:
Again, I have never made claims to be part of the left wing. One does not have to be left wing, liberal, or right wing to see glaring inconsistencies in what we are being told. It is possible for one, for instance, to support the right wingers in principle and yet protest when those currently representing the right wing show themselves to be irresponsible. To align one's self with a political party does not mean one has to become blinkered, I would hope youd agree.
habilis said:
I would allege that the right are talking lots on morality, but not necessarily practicing what they preach. I do not find torture, "disappearances," breaking international law, and the like to be standing up for the principles upon which the USA was based. Never forget Jefferson's famous quotation: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Let me summarize much of what Im saying by stating that I am not anti-American, as I do have a great affection for the country that I used to live in, but that I am against jinogism and nationalism. When I see such traits rear their ugly head, I contest them where I can. And that has included having similar conversations with people from other nations around the world, including European countries, trying to show that no one nation has the moral highground. The sooner that people accept no one race or nation is superior, the better off the world will be and the sooner the us and them attitudes will be dropped.
habilis said:
So you support feel-bad-politics?
OK, more seriously, I disagree here. If you too feel that your political beliefs are for the benefit of mankind somehow (eg. overthrowing oppressors), then I could equally level that charge at you, that you just want to feel better about yourself. I don't think that sort of allegation is constructive, and we could go round in circles. We both feel/hope that our beliefs could make a difference. If we both have our own views on matters of principles, then that is fine, but I would like to illustrate why I feel the current Bush administration is actually not making the world a better place, and I can use their very own words against them because they have not remained consistent.
Examples...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- George W. Bush, September 13th, 2001
"I don't know where he [bin Laden] is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, March 13th, 2002
"Power appears to keep Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice help play out the drama of lies for corporate profits. John Pilger notes, "Both Colin Powell, and Condolezza Rice made it clear before September 11, 2000, that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America, Europe and the Middle East."(7) On February 20, 2001, Powell repeated in Cairo that Iraq had no significant capability with respect to building weapons of mass destruction. Yet, when Powell went to the United Nations in October 2003, he completely contradicted all of his earlier statements. Greg Thielmann, a former expert on Iraqi weapons, stated in an interview on CBS News that Powell has misrepresented the truth and deceived the American people.(8)"
(7) Pilger, John. "The Big Lie," The Mirror in London, September 22, 2003.
(8) Pelley, Scott. Sixty Minutes, October 15, 2003.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOE402A.html
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
-Bush's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004
(And again compare with http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)
As you have complained about "lies" in the media, how about I also put forward evidence from the government's own transcripts, plus a Congressional report (which can be downloaded)?
"Question: But doesnt the report indicate that there are military intelligence officers, 27 of them involved here and civilian contractors and of course, some of these abuses happened under interrogation circumstances?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Thats not the report of the Schlesinger Panel. In fact, its exactly the opposite of what the Schlesinger Panel says."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040826-secdef1229.html
Compare this with "However, we do know that some of the egregious abuses at Abu Ghraib which were not photographed did occur during interrogation sessions and that abuses during interrogation sessions occurred elsewhere" from the report itself (sentence five, paragraph one, on page "5"... the very first page of the body of the report, no less!).
Remember Bush harping on about winning the war on terror? How about his own admission, then?
"Question: Can we win [the war on terrorism]?
Bush: I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world."
Interview aired on NBC's "Today Show", Aug. 30, 2004
Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49035-2004Aug31.html
habilis said:
As pds has already highlighted, that statement is very much incorrect. Liberals have included those who have campaigned for education, against slavery, in favor of the vote for women, in favor of civil rights, and many other topics. Very real results that we value today and take for granted. But at the time, these people were rocking the boat.
habilis said:
Well, I'm not so convinced that everything is going as well as you say it is. There are those who allege that Iraq is in an even worse state than it was before.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3125iraq_firsthand.html
Also, take news within the last couple of days, alone...
"Iraq's largest Sunni-led political party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, pulls out of the interim government in protest at the Falluja assault"
"The main association of Sunni clerics calls for a boycott of elections due in January"
"The United Nations refugee agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross express concern about the civilians in Falluja"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3994605.stm
"Three relatives of the Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi are abducted in Baghdad"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3998049.stm
These incidents could well have far reaching implications for stability.
habilis said:
I'm sure history will indeed judge the current administration.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
I think avoiding escalation is all up to Hamas and Hezbollah at this point since these groups refuse to acknowledge Israel's existance, refuse to cooperate with the peace process, constantly try to derail any progress in the 'Roadmap' to peace by homicide bombing, and they teach this hateful philosophy to their children. There are actually schools full of children being taugh that Israel doesn't exist, it's not even on their map, and that Jews are subhuman. Say what you want about Sharon, but you don't see the Israeli's doing anything that evil.
Cat
Registered
Isreal de facto does not acknowledge the existence of Palestine or even the right of palestinians to a palestinian state. They build sttlements on territory they do not own, they grab lands with the construction of the wall, they oppose the creatin of a palestinian state in every way. This is against multiple UN directives, the Oslo peace accords and the Roadmap.They destroy Palestinian homes and when the Palestinians have fled to a refugee camp, they destroy the refugee camp too ... Israeli soldiers have killed indisciminately: children, women, elderly, people in wheelchairs ... Fundamentalist orthodix jews raise their children in the firm belief that they are entitled to own and rule on half the middle east. On the basis of these teachings Israeli settlers feel entitled to practically invade Palestine.
Habilis: you are the one not considering the big picture. yo uonly look at one side of the story. Try to walk even a hundred paces in the shoes of a Palestinian. The terrorist attcks coming from the Palestinian side are evenly matched by the state terrorism of Israel.
Palestine is asking for nothing more than that the already existing accords and rights be honored by Israel. Israel is the one who broke international law and it is Israel in the first place who should do something: retreat the army from the occupied territories, dismantle the illegal settlements and somehow compensate the Palestinians for all the destruction. Once Israel has fullfilled its obligations, I am reasonably convinced that most of the terrorism from the Palestinian side will spontaneously cease, the rest of it will then lack popular support and could quite easily be stopped by joint Israeli/Palestine actions.
Give a man a future (food, housing, job) and he will be very disinclined to join terroristic groups. Take them away by violence and he will ahv enothing to lose by blowing himself up.
P.S. If you insist on definig them a "homicide bombers", you shoul dbe well aware that this applies also to American soldiers that bomb civilians against the Geneva conventions.