Twozzok Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Didn't the Al-Quaeda say they had nothing to do with him though
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Giant who cares. Didn't the Al-Quaeda say they had nothing to do with him though Clinton said something about not having sexual relations with that woman too.
Lammie Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Looking back Conzer, I was probably a bit over-critical. I'm gonna take back the fool thing. Well if America are championing the cause of democracy surely they should be demonstrating the way a democratic country deals with terrorists and criminals? I do believe that it is illegal under American Democratic Law to kill a man. Then one could argue that they are acting undemocratically in their actions against this one man? I'm pretty sure the attitude from the US is that taking out Zarqawi isn't going to have any long lasting impact on things, it's more of a symbolic thing. Sort of 'we can continously kill your terrorist leaders while you can't lay a scratch on ours'. I'm not saying it's necessarily the best way to go about things as it's what Israel has been doing for the last few decades and look where it' got them. And the whole acting undemocratically thing doesn't mean much in a war. Especially the war on terror which is all pretty fuzzy on what you can and can't do. It's a far cry form the old days of frontlines and trenches. I find it hard to debate topics like this. There's so much to consider - it's unbeleivably complex and I don't think it's possible to state one side or opinion as 100% right. Of course the US is going to act in it's own interests, there's no such thing as altruism - you don't become the most powerful military and economic power by making sure everyone else is happy and healthy first. God, I'm straying from topic and turning this into a rant. Better stop now.
Tellyn Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 The rest of people remotely involved with the al Qaeda should be made to burn. I don't care if people say we live in a civilised society, if they want to kill thousands of people brutally like in the 9/11 attacks or the 7/7 bombings, they should be tortured thoroughly until they beg for death. It is inhumane, yes, but they do much more inhumane things than that.
Athriller Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 The rest of people remotely involved with the al Qaeda should be made to burn. I don't care if people say we live in a civilised society, if they want to kill thousands of people brutally like in the 9/11 attacks or the 7/7 bombings, they should be tortured thoroughly until they beg for death. It is inhumane, yes, but they do much more inhumane things than that. Do you want the morale higher ground or not?
Arragaun Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 They should be tortured thoroughly until they beg for death. You want them to go through that? Do it yourself.
Haver Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 As NBC News reported back in 2004, U.S. military planners drew up plans to take out Zarqawi three times in 2002 and 2003, but the Bush administration killed the plans each time. Why? Because, military officials told NBC, the Bush administration feared that destroying Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Iraq "could undercut its case for war against Saddam." OK, now this makes me angry. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/08/zarqawi/index.html
conzer16 Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Looking back Conzer, I was probably a bit over-critical. I'm gonna take back the fool thing. I'm pretty sure the attitude from the US is that taking out Zarqawi isn't going to have any long lasting impact on things, it's more of a symbolic thing. Sort of 'we can continously kill your terrorist leaders while you can't lay a scratch on ours'. I'm not saying it's necessarily the best way to go about things as it's what Israel has been doing for the last few decades and look where it' got them. And the whole acting undemocratically thing doesn't mean much in a war. Especially the war on terror which is all pretty fuzzy on what you can and can't do. It's a far cry form the old days of frontlines and trenches. Very good post. And I agree with what you say about trying to debate on a topic like this. But the debate on the War on Terror will be THE debate of the early 21st century.
BGS Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Okay, look at things this way. Bush and co are saying it is OK to kill a murderer. Killing a murderer makes YOU a murderer by definition of the word. There should be no questions about that. Is it okay then for someone to kill you as you would then be a murderer? And then, for someone else to kill the person that murdered you? and so on? Bush and co say killing a terrorist like this will send out a message to all the rest. This itself is insane because this is exactly what terrorism is!! You could get to the point where you really should ask yourself who -really- started this thing? The word terrorism is bounded around everywhere but they're all at it. Every time Bush and co attack and kill a handfuls of innocents to get at 'one terrorist' it'll make people there angry and you can probably +10 (or whatever) yourself on "terrorist" numbers. Have you ever noticed how outrageous it is that the numbers of innocents in Iraq (or wherever) that are killed "accidently" by our armies are pretty much brushed over by the majority of media outlets. And I bet we don't even get to hear about the majority of them.. Anyway.. Wanting to then react in an equally violent way to this, they (the "terrorists") then respond to this, and without their stealth jets and bombers and such to fly over to the white house and get bush direct, they do the only they can (remembering these are people like Bush, thugs who only know how to react violently) and attack american innocents. This then turns more numbers of americans into bunny boiling bush lovers. I'm putting the word terrorist in commas not because I justify their actions, which I definitely do not but because I find it ironic the way Bush and co use the word terrorist so much. They themselves are terrorists in multiple ways, following the same 'stop this or die' mindset but by also installing a climate of fear upon their very own people. Fighting terrorism with terrorism solves nothing. It creates an increasing problem that must eventually be brought to a head because everybody with any kind of power is too stubborn to back down once they've set out on one track. There's no doubt in my mind that what we're heading towards, whether it takes a few years or tens of years, is another war which will eventually be known as the third world war.
Jack Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 The rest of people remotely involved with the al Qaeda should be made to burn. I don't care if people say we live in a civilised society, if they want to kill thousands of people brutally like in the 9/11 attacks or the 7/7 bombings, they should be tortured thoroughly until they beg for death. It is inhumane, yes, but they do much more inhumane things than that. I really disagree. It's precisely because it's inhumane that we don't do that. You can't justify torture by saying "He's done worse things". If you do that, you're on the same level as them. You've got to do things on a proper level, through a justice system. No torture, no execution, none of that shite. Otherwise, what makes you better than them?
The Bard Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Er...Hurrah..? Dear lord, when are people going to get over the fact that the bush administration is just a legalised terrorist organisation? It seems these days it's popular to hate Bush and Blair, and that people are jumping on that bandwagon, but it is entirely justified: Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Bush is just a little boy inexperienced in life, riding on the coattails of his father and just isn't used to being told that he can't get what he wants and as a result he resorts to enforcing his truth through a gun. The US government's lies are deluding ordinary people as to whats really going on. Does any rational person believe that the hundreds of thousands of poor, innocent Iraqi civilians that went "missing" was the result of anything other than mass genocide? Nothing matters to Bush, Iraqi's don't matter, even his own citizens don't matter, they're all just disposable heroes for him to use as he wants. This is just entirely the problem with having an old and senile man in power. He is going to die soon, which is why world issues such as global warming (the effects of which he can deny as much as he wants, but that's not going to avert it) don't matter to him, because the real consequences of these things won't onset until after he is gone. And his cronie Blair is even worse, the man doesn't have any balls to stand up and say "we won't bend over for the Americans." When the bastard was asked in parliament what he thought about rigorously taxing aviation fuel so that the waste isn't emitted in the place where it is most harmful (and thus prevent people from embarking on pointless flights, and to think twice before they do decide to go), he said, laughing "I think we'll leave it to another country to suggest that one." He is a Jackass and I look forward to his death. In fact...here is a nice little poem that describes the US' utterly fascist regime: Bombs to set the people free, blood to feed the dollar tree, Flags for coffins on the screen, oil for the machine. Army of liberation, gunpoint indoctrination, The fires of sedation, Fulfill the prophecy. Now you've got something to die for, Send the children to the fire, sons and daughters stack the pyre, Stoke the flame of the empire, live to lie another day, Face of hypocrisy, raping democracy... At the end of the day though, I'm just another random jackass who has his two cents to give on political matters that he doesn't really know anything about, but from what I have seen happen since September 11th, there is no way the world can afford a third term of Bush in office. Edit: good job!! ∩ ∩ _ _∩ (⌒ ) ( ⌒) ∩_ _ good job!! （ヨ,,. i | | / .ﾉ i .,,E） good job!! ＼ ＼ | | / / / / _n ＼ ＼ _､ _ .| | / / _、_ ／ ノ （ l _､ _ ＼ ＼（ <_,` ）| | / / ,_ﾉ` ）／ ／ _、_ good job!! ＼ ＼ （ <_,` ） ＼ ﾉ（ ／＿___（ ,_ﾉ` ） n ヽ___￣￣ ノ | / ヽ | ＿＿ ＼ l .,E） / / / / ＼ ヽ / /＼ ヽ_／ ／ Eh? You what?
dabookerman Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 good job!! ∩ ∩ _ _∩ (⌒ ) ( ⌒) ∩_ _ good job!! （ヨ,,. i | | / .ﾉ i .,,E） good job!! ＼ ＼ | | / / / / _n ＼ ＼ _､ _ .| | / / _、_ ／ ノ （ l _､ _ ＼ ＼（ <_,` ）| | / / ,_ﾉ` ）／ ／ _、_ good job!! ＼ ＼ （ <_,` ） ＼ ﾉ（ ／＿___（ ,_ﾉ` ） n ヽ___￣￣ ノ | / ヽ | ＿＿ ＼ l .,E） / / / / ＼ ヽ / /＼ ヽ_／ ／
conzer16 Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Fear not the Bard! An American President can only hold office for 2 terms. Unless of course Bush himself changes the law :p
The Bard Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Fear not the Bard! An American President can only hold office for 2 terms. Unless of course Bush himself changes the law :p Yeah, I know, but I think Bush, being the audacious bastard that he is, wouldn't hesitate to change the law. And another point is that, when you come down to it, I think that if Bush or any of his cronies are found guilty of anything that is punishable by the death penalty, then they should die, simple as that. But the fact is that they'll never get their day in court. The stuff the Bush Administration has gotten away with is so much worse than anything that took place when Clinton was in office, yet they impeached his ass. To quote Macbeth, "All great Neptune's ocean cannot wash the blood clean from his hands."
Shino Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 Obviously Lammie is the only person with a common sense. I don't get it Conzer, you're sad they killed him? I'm not an apologist of the "an eye for an eye" theory, but they probably did the only thing they could possibly do. I don't get this "discussion", and everything else that has been talked about, like the purpose of this assassination and if it turns them into murderers, doesn't really have much to do with this.
Blue_Ninja0 Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 Obviously Lammie is the only person with a common sense. I don't get it Conzer, you're sad they killed him? I'm not an apologist of the "an eye for an eye" theory, but they probably did the only thing they could possibly do. I don't get this "discussion", and everything else that has been talked about, like the purpose of this assassination and if it turns them into murderers, doesn't really have much to do with this. I absolutely agree, I really don't mind if they kill or not this type of man. They had to atack Al-Qaeda in it's weakpoint for MASSIVE damage.
BGS Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 They had to atack Al-Qaeda in it's weakpoint for MASSIVE damage. Please, please tell me that this was an ironic, sarcastic type of comment...
Blue_Ninja0 Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 Please, please tell me that this was an ironic, sarcastic type of comment... Yes BGS, it was an ironic/sarcastic type of comment. I'm stupid (sometimes), but not that stupid. Ok, before someone else misunderstands, that was a joke, using what was said at the E3 2006 sony press conf, about the giant crab.
Lammie Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 The US does what it does because there's this general consensus through western culture that even if though the US does do some shoddy things, in the end we're still right and the terrorists are wrong. It kinda softens the fact that they've killed a shitload more people getting rid of Saddam than the terrorists could hope to have done with Americans/British/Australians/Spanish etc.
conzer16 Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 Obviously Lammie is the only person with a common sense. I don't get it Conzer, you're sad they killed him? I'm not an apologist of the "an eye for an eye" theory, but they probably did the only thing they could possibly do. I don't get this "discussion", and everything else that has been talked about, like the purpose of this assassination and if it turns them into murderers, doesn't really have much to do with this. Im not sad at all. I counldt give 2 f*cks about the man - Im just disappointed that the US have to use violence to champion their cause.
Dan_Dare Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 US' utterly fascist regime: Jesus jumping christ on a bike! please, for the sake of my patience and faith in humanity, tell me you don't actually believe that? If the US was run by facists, you'd fucking know about it. Hitler and Musolini were facists. Last time I checked the US wasn't a dictatorship, they werent attempting to wipe out an entire race from the face of the earth, nor were they closing down the press or indoctrinating the youth. Having said that, I havent seen the news today so can anyone clarify this radical change in policy that I've clearly missed?
AshMat Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 Clinton said something about not having sexual relations with that woman too. haHAHA, genious
The Bard Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 Jesus jumping christ on a bike! please, for the sake of my patience and faith in humanity, tell me you don't actually believe that? If the US was run by facists, you'd fucking know about it. Hitler and Musolini were facists. Last time I checked the US wasn't a dictatorship, they werent attempting to wipe out an entire race from the face of the earth, nor were they closing down the press or indoctrinating the youth. Having said that, I havent seen the news today so can anyone clarify this radical change in policy that I've clearly missed? Hitler was a Nazi, Mussolini was a Fascist. Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Hmm...from that, the US's "policy" seems quasi fascist to me. There are diffenent degrees of Fascism. Admittedly Bush is not quite fascist on a Mussolini scale. And not wanting to wipe a race or culture from the face of the earth? what about this crusade on Islam? There is clearly an indoctrination of youth going on, pretty much everywhere, whether it's religious indoctrination, or patrial indoctrination. These things do go on, it's just that Bush has managed to put a friendly face on them. Aanyway, there is about a 99% chance that I've got my facts completely wrong, so you shouldn't take anything I say on politics too seriously.
mcj metroid Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 You poofters....It's a waste of space putting people in jail. what the hell is a poofter? Hitler was a Nazi, Mussolini was a Fascist. Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Hmm...from that, the US's "policy" seems quasi fascist to me. There are diffenent degrees of Fascism. Admittedly Bush is not quite fascist on a Mussolini scale. And not wanting to wipe a race or culture from the face of the earth? what about this crusade on Islam? There is clearly an indoctrination of youth going on, pretty much everywhere, whether it's religious indoctrination, or patrial indoctrination. These things do go on, it's just that Bush has managed to put a friendly face on them. Aanyway, there is about a 99% chance that I've got my facts completely wrong, so you shouldn't take anything I say on politics too seriously. yes u have.Us is not cencesored!withever happened to freedom of speech?Nobody refers to george bush as IL DUCE or DER FUHER do they?I see no totalitarium state and any sort of dictatorship do u? OH and a NAZi IS a facist
Recommended Posts