| Author |
Message |
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 11:30 AM |
 
|
| Post subject: Anglosaxon war crimes (continuing) |
All taken from mainstream media (Yahoo), so this is not a crypto-marxo-fascist manipulation.
Rights group criticizes Saddam judgment By SARAH DiLORENZO, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 22, 5:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - The trial of Saddam Hussein had "serious flaws" that fell short of international judicial standards in reaching death sentences for the former Iraqi president and two senior members of his regime, a human rights group said Friday.
The report by Human Rights Watch — which examined an independent translation of the proceedings — came as a special tribunal in Baghdad neared the end of another trial of top Saddam era officials charged with crimes against humanity.
Saddam and two other top members of his regime were convicted of ordering the execution of more than 140 Shiite Muslims from the Iraqi city of Dujail following a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life.[/b] [b]Saddam was hanged Dec. 30.
Richard Dicker, director of the group's International Justice Program, said the prosecution failed to establish intent, and instead relied on their positions and membership in the Baath Party as evidence of their knowledge of the crimes.
"From the judgment, we saw there was a clear indication of serious flaws in interpretation and application of basic criminal law standards," said Dicker.
He said the court "essentially assumed" the guilt of Saddam and the others.
"What these trials are about is, most often, connecting the dots. What's missing the Dujail trial are the dots," he said.
In November, the New York-based group issued another report criticizing what it said were procedural errors in the case, including claims that defendants were not allowed to properly confront witnesses, and that the judges did not always maintain an impartial demeanor.
In Baghdad, magistrates were apparently close to a verdict in the trial of five former officials in Saddam's regime accused of a military campaign against Iraq's Kurds in the 1980s. The defendants include Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" after allegedly ordering the use of chemical weapons against Kurds.
The verdict could come as early as Sunday. All five face a possible death sentence if convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the case. |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 11:32 AM |
|
|
Britain's Brown apologises for Iraq intelligence 'mistakes' Fri Jun 22, 7:02 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britain's next prime minister Gordon Brown apologised for mistakes in intelligence made in the run-up to the Iraq war in a BBC television interview Friday.
Brown has stressed that he will push for a new emphasis in Iraq when he takes over from current premier Tony Blair on Wednesday but went further than before in his latest comments.
"We have apologised, and I repeat that, for the mistakes that were made in intelligence," he said.
"I think we've got to be honest about it that mistakes were made at the point of reconstruction after Saddam Hussein fell ... mistakes made by all of us in the reconstruction progress," he said.
Brown also said that there would be clearer boundaries between intelligence and politics when he was in office.
"I'm setting in place what I think are far more rigorous procedures so that the intelligence is seen to be different from, if you like, any decision by a politician," he added.
"I want people to know that in future, they can be satisfied that, where public information is provided, it has gone through an authoritative process and it is free of political influence."
Brown advocated trying to win "hearts and minds" of Muslims in Britain by supporting moderates and attempting to freeze out extremists.
"It's a different approach that's got to be taken from now on," he said.
The finance minister, who voted in favour of the war, had previously accepted that "mistakes" were made in Iraq and called for more focus on political reconciliation and economic development.
He has, though, rejected calls from opposition politicians for an investigation into the government's handling of the war.
Blair has stuck by his decision to support United States President George W. Bush over the 2003 invasion, despite the unpopularity of the move among many Britons.
On the "special relationship," Brown restated that he would stand up for Britain's national interest but added: "It is in our national interest that the prime minister has a good relationship with the president of the United States of America."
He ducked answering a question about whether Bush was "impressive" in person. |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 11:34 AM |
|
|
Army officer says Gitmo panels flawed By BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - An Army officer who played a key role in the "enemy combatant" hearings at Guantanamo Bay says tribunal members relied on vague and incomplete intelligence while being pressured to rule against detainees, often without any specific evidence.
His affidavit, submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and released Friday, is the first criticism by a member of the military panels that determine whether detainees will continue to be held.
Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who is an Army reserve officer and a California lawyer, said military prosecutors were provided with only "generic" material that didn't hold up to the most basic legal challenges.
Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, according to Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies.
"What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence," Abraham said in the affidavit submitted on behalf of a Kuwaiti detainee, Fawzi al-Odah, who is challenging his classification as an "enemy combatant."
Abraham's affidavit "proves what we all suspected, which is that the CSRTs were a complete sham," said a lawyer for al-Odah, David Cynamon.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, defended the process of determining which detainees should be held, saying the "procedures afford greater protection for wartime status determinations than any nation has ever before provided."
"Lt. Col. Abraham provides his opinion and perspective on the CSRT process. We disagree with his characterizations," Peppler said. "Lt. Col. Abraham was not in a position to have a complete view of the CSRT process."
Abraham said he first raised his concerns when he was on active duty with the Defense Department agency in charge of the tribunal process from September 2004 to March 2005 and felt the issues were not adequately addressed. He said he decided his only recourse was to submit the affidavit.
"I pointed out nothing less than facts, facts that can and should be fixed," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his office in Newport Beach, Calif.
The 46-year-old lawyer, who remains in the reserves, said he believe he had a responsibility to point out that officers "did not have the proper tools" to determine whether a detainee was in fact an enemy combatant.
"I take very seriously my responsibility, my duties as a citizen," he said.
Cynamon said he fears the officer's military future could be in jeopardy. "For him to do this was a courageous thing but it's probably an assurance of career suicide," he said.
Abraham said he had no intention of leaving the service. "I have no reason to doubt that the actions I have taken or will take uphold the finest traditions of the military," he said.
The military held Combatant Status Review Tribunals for 558 detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in 2004 and 2005, with handcuffed detainees appearing before panels made up of three officers. Detainees had a military "personal representative" instead of a defense attorney, and all but 38 were determined to be "enemy combatants."
Abraham was asked to serve on one of the panels, and he said its members felt strong pressure to find against the detainee, saying there was "intensive scrutiny" when they declared a prisoner not to be an enemy combatant. When his panel decided the detainee wasn't an "enemy combatant," they were ordered to reconvene to hear more evidence, he said.
Ultimately, his panel held its ground, and he was never asked to participate in another tribunal, he said.
Matthew J. MacLean, another al-Odah lawyer, said Abraham is the first member of the CSRT panels who has been identified, let alone been willing to criticize the tribunals in the public record. His affidavit was submitted to a Washington, D.C., appellate court on al-Odah's behalf as well as to the Supreme Court.
"It wouldn't be quite right to say this is the most important piece of evidence that has come out of the CSRT process, because this is the only piece of evidence ever to come out of the CSRT process," MacLean said. "It's our only view into the CSRT."
In April, the Supreme Court declined to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement. Lawyers for the detainees have asked the justices to reconsider. The Bush administration opposes the request |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
Kiwi
Post Boaster
Joined: May 07, 2003
Posts: 4763
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 01:14 PM |
|
|
I don't see that it's exactly racial issue though, so I'm confused by the use of Anglo-Saxon. |
_________________
[offensive signature removed by ADMIN] |
|
|
|
|
hammerforlife
Fire-eater
Joined: May 24, 2004
Posts: 2701
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 01:38 PM |
|
|
So this breaking news is that:
1. The Saddam trail was procedurally flawed and was based on the assumption of guilt
2. British intelligence screwed up intelligence for the Iraq war, and
3. The Guantanamo trial are a sham
Can't say I've ever heard about these issues before and pretty much every agrees with the points.
What's next? Breaking news... HITLER INVADES POLAND. |
|
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 01:54 PM |
|
|
| Quote: |
So this breaking news is that:
1. The Saddam trail was procedurally flawed and was based on the assumption of guilt
2. British intelligence screwed up intelligence for the Iraq war, and
3. The Guantanamo trial are a sham
Can't say I've ever heard about these issues before and pretty much every agrees with the points.
What's next? Breaking news... HITLER INVADES POLAND.
|
Ok... May I ask, have you acted on this information? Has anyone? Everyone knows and agrees but only a few isolated fighters have dared to do anything (to name but a few who made recent news: the Hamas-government in Palestine, the Iran of President Amadhinejad, Fidel Castro, the Frenchlover etc.) .
As for the use of anglo-saxon... Just look at who did it, "Kiwi". |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 04:43 PM |
|
|
|
 |
|
p1atl10
Board Royalty
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 6293
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 06:57 PM |
|
|
The Iranian President?
The same well informed gentleman who claims that the holocaust never happened...and that Israel should be bombed off the map?
That is the action you are proposing? |
_________________
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.....Dave Barry |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 23, 2007 - 09:38 PM |
|
|
The action I am proposing to "platon" is to do some research to find President Ahmadinejad's exact words on the subject. He may be surprised. |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 12:19 AM |
|
|
Here's a train of thought for you:
Many Gitmo detainees were picked up in battlefields in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the like.
Battlefields tend to feature hazards such as sniper fire, booby-traps, and uncertain angles of ambush.
People collecting evidence (performing ballistic tests, looking for DNA traces, etc.) on a hostile battlefield cannot actively survey the environment for hazards, and are therefore much more likely to be killed.
Therefore, it's unlikely that any soldier or intelligence officer would be foolish enough to risk their lives gathering evidence to validate the detention of every single detainee.
How in the world can a Gitmo detainee be granted a judiciary hearing featuring standards of evidence applicable to U.S. criminal courts when it's highly unlikely that, due to the circumstances of their capture, the government can provide any evidence meeting those standards? Especially since revealing the nature and source of credible evidence may jeopardize intelligence agents actively working in the field, or reveal intelligence-gathering methods that have proved valuable to national security?
If there are innocent individuals being detained at Gitmo, I sympathize with them, but at the same time expecting the federal government to establish a perfect judicial process to distinguish the unfortunate but innocent Gitmo captive from the die-hard terrorist seems like an unrealistic expectation. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 12:37 AM |
|
|
Innocents? Those are prisoners of war, unjust and illegal war, held by the aggressor, in violation of International Law. They are all innocent. I agree with the rest, of course. You could apply a similar line of reasoning to justify terrorist attacks - how could they defend themselves otherwise? It is very unlikely that third-world countries could launch a conventional attack on the US, so lets not set unrealistic expectations. As for proving the US are the world's biggest terrorist and prove their leaders guilty of war crimes in an Internation Court, lets be reasonable, its very unlikely to happen. A good laugh before going to sleep, thanks. |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
p1atl10
Board Royalty
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 6293
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 11:55 AM |
|
|
OK....
October 26, 2005
"Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."
(In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, 'The World Without Zionism')
December 8, 2005
"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe."
(While speaking to reporters at an Islamic summit in Mecca)
In fairness, his vitriole is somewhat tempered since his original comments in 2005 by his recent statements that Israel need not fear "direct" aggression Iran.
IMHO...the guy is a nutcase. That's all I was saying...
http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/ahmadinejad_words. htm |
_________________
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.....Dave Barry |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 01:46 PM |
|
|
These are English translations taken out of context in a Zionist website... Having said that, I dont find much to disagree with. You may want to study a little bit of history before you post. As for the President of Iran being a "nutcase"... I guess the democratically Hamas leaders in Palestine are also nuts? Remember these are people/countries/regimes that have never attacked any other, never dropped weapons of mass destructions on innocent people, etc. Where do you come from "platon"? How is your leader? What has he done in the past few years? |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 03:09 PM |
|
|
""Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe."
"
You totally misinterpreted the quote.
He is just saying: if the massacre of jews was perpetrated by Europeans, why should the Palestines pay for it with their land? Shouldnt Europe be the one to pay?
Something like: if a guy runs over a baby with a SUV, why should a black guy from South Central go to jail instead of the driver?
Doesnt make any sense does it?
The thing is: as soon as the President of Iran said something that put the Holocaust in question, everyone chose to ignore whatever else he said, right or wrong. That's media hysteria. |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 05:28 PM |
|
|
| hc wrote: |
""Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe."
"
You totally misinterpreted the quote.
He is just saying: if the massacre of jews was perpetrated by Europeans, why should the Palestines pay for it with their land? Shouldnt Europe be the one to pay?
Something like: if a guy runs over a baby with a SUV, why should a black guy from South Central go to jail instead of the driver?
Doesnt make any sense does it?
The thing is: as soon as the President of Iran said something that put the Holocaust in question, everyone chose to ignore whatever else he said, right or wrong. That's media hysteria. |
According to what I've read, after the British originally took that region from the Turks after WWI, they had planned to partition the region into two states, one for the Jews living there and one for the Arabs. However, that plan was scrapped when the Arabs of the region began to violently prοtest against partitioning some land for the Jewish inhabitants.
Hence, implementable and supported plans for a state for the Jews predates the Holocaust. That's why I don't think the Iranian president's argument makes sense; the Holocaust probably caused the European governments to support the implementation of a state of Israel, but the original idea came before the Holocaust.
The British weren't originally trying to penalize the Arabs so much as to set up governing institutions that would satisfy both the Arab and Jewish inhabitants of that region. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
p1atl10
Board Royalty
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 6293
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 05:29 PM |
|
|
Never said a word about Hamas Leadership.
I am not sure how you take a direct quote "out of context". It is what it is. I pulled exactly the same quotes from several sources....so I assume the translations are accurate.
I included the hyperlink from the ADL, not beacuse of it's "Zionist leanings", but only because it carries the most quotes.. Having cross checked the two I included across several sources, I assumed that the rest were accurate also.
I poorly wrote my first reply.
I was simply trying to express that using President Amadhinejad as an example of enlightened leadership that we should respect and admire was..... in my opinion...ludicrous.
An opinion I still hold....
HC....I have read the the original 2005 quotes regarding his views on the holocaustfrom several sources. ...and whichever way you look at it, it appears that he was denying the holcaust occurred. I like your SUV anaolgy.and agree it captures the meaning of the rest of the quote. Denying it ever happened is why I was saying that ...in my opinion...holding him up as a leader to admire is ludicrous. |
_________________
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.....Dave Barry |
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 24, 2007 - 08:41 PM |
|
|
| Witch_Pauline wrote: |
| You could apply a similar line of reasoning to justify terrorist attacks - how could they defend themselves otherwise? |
I don't understand how my reasoning parallels your suggestion. Can you explain? |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
Bluebag
LoopKicker
Joined: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 879
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 25, 2007 - 11:09 AM |
|
|
| keayts wrote: |
| hc wrote: |
""Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe."
"
You totally misinterpreted the quote.
He is just saying: if the massacre of jews was perpetrated by Europeans, why should the Palestines pay for it with their land? Shouldnt Europe be the one to pay?
Something like: if a guy runs over a baby with a SUV, why should a black guy from South Central go to jail instead of the driver?
Doesnt make any sense does it?
The thing is: as soon as the President of Iran said something that put the Holocaust in question, everyone chose to ignore whatever else he said, right or wrong. That's media hysteria. |
According to what I've read, after the British originally took that region from the Turks after WWI, they had planned to partition the region into two states, one for the Jews living there and one for the Arabs. However, that plan was scrapped when the Arabs of the region began to violently prοtest against partitioning some land for the Jewish inhabitants.
Hence, implementable and supported plans for a state for the Jews predates the Holocaust. That's why I don't think the Iranian president's argument makes sense; the Holocaust probably caused the European governments to support the implementation of a state of Israel, but the original idea came before the Holocaust.
The British weren't originally trying to penalize the Arabs so much as to set up governing institutions that would satisfy both the Arab and Jewish inhabitants of that region. |
Actually, I wish I had a web link to the text of a very revealing book I own about British attitudes and motiviations in Palestine in the period in question.
It was written in the 1930s by Sir Ronald Storrs (http://www.answers.com/topic/ronald-storrs), the Civil Governor af Jerusalem and Judea and is titled "Zionism and Palestine". A fascinating read - it's one of the rare first-person pieces from the period written by someone who had access to both the British government's attitudes and policies and was directly dealing with both the Zionists and the Palestinian people of the time.
It's been out of print for over 60 years, mainly because his opinions about the Balfour Declaration (http://www.answers.com/topic/balfour-declaration-1917) and the eventual results for the region of the implementation of same were hardly what major pro-zionist media organisations have wanted to see published in the years since.
Nevertheless, he was there at the time and had to administer GB Govt. policy in Palestine and saw it for the crock of **** it was. The results are what we see today and remarkably similar to his predictions in the 1930s.
In a nutshell, he believed that the Balfour Declaration had nothing to do with the "fairness" or otherwise of creating an artificial "Jewish Homeland" by handing over the territory of the Palestinians to the emigrating European Jews.
Storrs' opinion was that it had its roots in the British Government's indebtedness to Rothschild et al post WWI and further, was about creating a pro-British buffer around the Suez Canal - regardless of the suffering of the majority population it displaced.
He was utterly appalled that the UK would sell out the Palestinian Arabs who had fought and died for the Allies against the Turks for momentary economic / strategic gain. |
|
|
|
|
|
TheDudeAbides
Rocker
Joined: June 21, 2006
Posts: 720
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 25, 2007 - 08:00 PM |
|
|
Now I can sympathize with a lot of these issues, and agree with much of what has been said, but really, Ahmajinedad is a total freaking nutcase, and Hamas have plenty of blood on their hands, there is no complete justification for some of the things they have done. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bluebag
LoopKicker
Joined: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 879
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 25, 2007 - 10:51 PM |
|
|
| TheDudeAbides wrote: |
| Now I can sympathize with a lot of these issues, and agree with much of what has been said, but really, Ahmajinedad is a total freaking nutcase, and Hamas have plenty of blood on their hands, there is no complete justification for some of the things they have done. |
And there's "complete" justification for all (any?) of the things the Zionists have done?
Ahmajinedad is patently no bigger a nut-job than any of the dozens of Israeli leaders who've preached the eradication of any bunch of Arabs that got in the road of their occupation of Palestine and surrounding territory.
Justified??? How about Ariel Sharon engineering the massacre of over 1000 old men, women, children and pets in Sabra and Shatila? He was justified exactly how?
How about the Stern Gang? An organisation of Zionist terrorists and assassins (Yitzhak Shamir was a leading member) that in 1940 attempted to arrange a pact with the Nazis in exchange for the removal of the British from Palestine)? Yep, justifiable.
What a load of bollocks. They're all fruit-loops, it's just that one bunch is imported and have a superpower and its media behind them. |
|
|
|
|
|
TheDudeAbides
Rocker
Joined: June 21, 2006
Posts: 720
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 12:58 PM |
|
|
| Bluebag wrote: |
| TheDudeAbides wrote: |
| Now I can sympathize with a lot of these issues, and agree with much of what has been said, but really, Ahmajinedad is a total freaking nutcase, and Hamas have plenty of blood on their hands, there is no complete justification for some of the things they have done. |
And there's "complete" justification for all (any?) of the things the Zionists have done?
Ahmajinedad is patently no bigger a nut-job than any of the dozens of Israeli leaders who've preached the eradication of any bunch of Arabs that got in the road of their occupation of Palestine and surrounding territory.
Justified??? How about Ariel Sharon engineering the massacre of over 1000 old men, women, children and pets in Sabra and Shatila? He was justified exactly how?
How about the Stern Gang? An organisation of Zionist terrorists and assassins (Yitzhak Shamir was a leading member) that in 1940 attempted to arrange a pact with the Nazis in exchange for the removal of the British from Palestine)? Yep, justifiable.
What a load of bollocks. They're all fruit-loops, it's just that one bunch is imported and have a superpower and its media behind them. |
Don't put words into my mouth, I never said ANY of that was justifiable. I was refuting the argument that so many people these days seem to make that it's a completely one-way street with Israel being the sole aggressor and Ahmajinedad and Hamas being these courageous "freedom fighters" of sorts who ought to be looked up to and admired.
As for the media, look at the BBC, the most leftist media organization in the western world, who have on several occasions admitted to being partial to the Arab cause. So much for media objectivity there, too.
What is it with this issue anyway, you can't argue against the "evil Zionists" point of view without some cranky know it all ***hole coming out, and rather than debating calmly and collectively, at least to begin with, deciding to spew out all their know-it-all leftist rhetoric. Chill, dude. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bluebag
LoopKicker
Joined: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 879
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 06:01 PM |
|
|
O.K., if we put enough quotes within quotes it then makes the whole discussion look even sillier than it already is. So let's do it then:
| TheDudeAbides wrote: |
| Bluebag wrote: |
| TheDudeAbides wrote: |
| Now I can sympathize with a lot of these issues, and agree with much of what has been said, but really, Ahmajinedad is a total freaking nutcase, and Hamas have plenty of blood on their hands, there is no complete justification for some of the things they have done. |
And there's "complete" justification for all (any?) of the things the Zionists have done?
Ahmajinedad is patently no bigger a nut-job than any of the dozens of Israeli leaders who've preached the eradication of any bunch of Arabs that got in the road of their occupation of Palestine and surrounding territory.
Justified??? How about Ariel Sharon engineering the massacre of over 1000 old men, women, children and pets in Sabra and Shatila? He was justified exactly how?
How about the Stern Gang? An organisation of Zionist terrorists and assassins (Yitzhak Shamir was a leading member) that in 1940 attempted to arrange a pact with the Nazis in exchange for the removal of the British from Palestine)? Yep, justifiable.
What a load of bollocks. They're all fruit-loops, it's just that one bunch is imported and have a superpower and its media behind them. |
Don't put words into my mouth, I never said ANY of that was justifiable. I was refuting the argument that so many people these days seem to make that it's a completely one-way street with Israel being the sole aggressor and Ahmajinedad and Hamas being these courageous "freedom fighters" of sorts who ought to be looked up to and admired.
As for the media, look at the BBC, the most leftist media organization in the western world, who have on several occasions admitted to being partial to the Arab cause. So much for media objectivity there, too.
What is it with this issue anyway, you can't argue against the "evil Zionists" point of view without and rather than debating calmly and collectively, at least to begin with, deciding to spew out all their know-it-all leftist rhetoric. Chill, dude. |
I didn't put words in your mouth. I just proposed the opposite to your proposition that there wasn't "complete" justification on the part of one side.
| Quote: |
| "some cranky know it all ***hole"? |
Sorry to present a fact or two. I didn't realise that was forbidden in your style of debate.
| Quote: |
| "rather than debating calmly" |
Erm, as you're the one starting out with the personal insults, I don't see where I've departed from "calm" in this.
Did I call Hamas
| Quote: |
| courageous "freedom fighters" |
?
Nope. I DID call the Stern Gang "terrorists and assassins" - but only because that's what they were and even described themselves as on occasion.
Do I think they were worse/better than Hamas/the PLO/Whoever? No, I don't.
More successful/effective, definitely. They ended up with someone else's country, after all.
You seem to think I have an agenda in this. I don't. I'm just intrigued that so many people love to argue about this subject without at least doing some basic reading of the history. Hence my mentioning the Storrs book.
True, I DO find it fascinating that Storrs believed that allowing the Zionists to take over Palestine would result in a century-long bloodbath. So far, I think he's been proved right. Of course, the next fifty years could all be hearts and flowers from both sides, but I doubt it.
You raise the almighty BBC's "bias" towards the Palestinian side. Is it comparable in its importance to the the conflict as the US TV networks / Hollywood and major newspaper /magazine syndicates' bias towards Israel?
For the Israelis' purposes, not at all. I'm sure if the Palestinians had got to pick first which media outlets they wanted on their side, they would have put the BBC waaaay down the list.
Then maybe it would have been the Palestinians sucking down billions in US govt. aid and using it to subjugate the Israelis.
Can I suggest you read Thomas L. Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem"? As with the Storrs book, it's a fascinating first-person account of the situation from someone with very privileged access to the events.
Also, in common with Storrs, he was neither an Israeli or a Palestinian, so a bit more detatched in his reporting. Despite the fact that he started out a Jewish pro-Zionist, he saw a great deal that changed his ideas about whether there were any real "heroes" on either side.
By the way, as Scatterbrain so eloquently put it: "Hey Dude, don't call me Dude!"
And, despite today's temperature, I'm utterly "chill", thanks for asking, duuuuude.
Funny, but I DO find myself sympathising with John Turturro in his hairnet and purple jumpsuit all of a sudden, though... |
|
|
|
|
|
TheDudeAbides
Rocker
Joined: June 21, 2006
Posts: 720
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 09:58 PM |
|
|
I wasn't referring solely to your posts, Witch Pauline said "Everyone knows and agrees but only a few isolated fighters have dared to do anything (to name but a few who made recent news: the Hamas-government in Palestine, the Iran of President Amadhinejad"
That was what I was referring to with the freedom fighters comment. With regard to the ***hole comment, that was a bit heavy-handed, I just found a few comments (again, not just yours) somewhat belittling, with regard to posters presenting other opinions to the matter.
The BBC example was simply to show that again, it's not completely one-sided. And when you think of world media organizations, is the BBC really that slow to spring to mind? I think not. No doubt the big hitters are from the US though, of that there is no question. Just making an effort to present the other side of the argument in what was shaping up to be a bit of a one-sided thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
sammythepaki
Squeeker
Joined: June 26, 2007
Posts: 16
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 06:29 PM |
|
|
The BBC is a case study in A-level politics class as an example of bias. Over 90% of palestinians are reported as "killed in clashes", whereas the vast majority of Isrealis, including soldiers were "murdered, assasinated, butchered, etc"
BBC is pro-Isreali. A classic case study of media bias. |
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 09:39 PM |
|
|
| sammythepaki wrote: |
The BBC is a case study in A-level politics class as an example of bias. Over 90% of palestinians are reported as "killed in clashes", whereas the vast majority of Isrealis, including soldiers were "murdered, assasinated, butchered, etc"
BBC is pro-Isreali. A classic case study of media bias. |
I have severe doubts about the impartiality of any media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Coming across http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ certainly changed my point of view on how Palestinians are portrayed. I had originally been sympathetic upon viewing a Palestinian group's propaganda video at Santa Clara University, but this particular incident made me significantly more suspicious of any events photographed or videotaped by the Palestinians. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
