It's amazing how we all were for the war and now even the media are against it
Whoa, we were not ALL for the war with Iraq. There was NEVER any credible evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the US. Since 1992, we controled the airspace over both the Northern and Southern Iraqi territory. Contrary to what the Bush Administration and US media would have you believe, there was also NEVER any credible evidence that Iraq had ever developed any weapons of mass destruction (the chemical weapons they previously used were provided to them by the US under the Reagan administration, for use against the Iranians in an effort to restore an overthrown abusive dictator, in Iran). The international community knew there was NO credible evidence, which is why they did NOT support an invasion of Iraq.
You are right, there are many posters here who would make Adolph Hitler look tame in terms of the rhetoric of intolerance. This would be shocking to me if I had not taken the time to read the on line profiles of some of those posting absurdly fascist things. The explanation for the intolerance of most of these posters is simple; they are children. Late adolescence, mostly, but children all the same. I try to keep in mind that it is the empty drum that beats the loudest. Experience in the world fills one up, and knocks the edges off ideas, blurring the line between black and white, wrong and right. Have you ever noticed that people who know what they are talking about have a smooth economy of words, and very rarely resort to hyperbole?
Economy of prose and a calm self assurance are conspicuously missing from the correspondence of the fascist posting here.
Those who see the world in the stark terms of the more angry posters are either slow in the head or just inexperienced. Advocating the cold blooded murder of detainees is either morally bankrupt or just foolish. There seem to be a very large number of youngsters contributing to this list, so it is not a big surprise to discover some of them in their rage and confusion over 9/11 advocating killing unarmed men in a prison. Only a moron or a child could think that detaining anyone without due prosess is a good idea, much less killing them. Only a fool or a person who is a true believer can kill so callously.
George Bush is a fool, not a naive. But fear not, he has a huge personal staff of naives, so his foolishness is dangerous to us all.
To everyone who wrote to advocate killing the guys we are holding in GitMo: If a single one of you has ever actually tortured or killed a person, I will retract my assertion that you are merely a child. If you have never killed or tortured anyone, then I think you do not know what the hell you are talking about.
Talking about killling people is easy. Doing it is not. If you have never had your personal sense of entitlement trashed, then you are probaly not able to think about the men at GitMo as people and do not understand why due process is important to everyone, not just these terror suspects. If we take revenge upon random detainees for the acts of Bin Laden's minions, we are not very different then the terrorists everyone finds appalling. They too feel that they have a particularly sharp vision of the world that transcends everyone else's understanding. They also feel that this special insight empowers them to subject others to violent acts including murder.
Not so different than the rationalizations of terrorists.
Feh! Americans in general are among the worst informed people on the earth. With lives of incredible privilege and an inborn sense of entitlement, most Americans are ill equiped to make moral or ethical decisions if they impact a radically disenfranchised minority.
I nether worry about fascism and intolerance, or think that I can alter such notions in an email. Yet I believe somebody needs to call bullshit here. Consider this that call.
Robyn, You sent me a PM so I guess by responding to it I took an obligation to respond here as well.
My personal views on the subject in discussion are irrelevant. Personally I think that anyone without thoro knowledge of who the prisoners are and why they are held at Guantanamo Bay condemns his opinion and arguments to superficial babbling on the subject with little or no relevance to real life situation. "Pilpul" you say, well pilpul designed to lead to a clear comprehension of the discussed subject by learning its essence and by adopting clear distinctions and a strict differentiation of the concepts. Secular Jews seldom see pilpul as a kind of discussion I described at the previous sentence. But if I adopt your concept of pilpul, your post is definitely no more then that.
I have little faith in people using rhetorics and demagogy to promote their personal agenda, six years at the Yeshiva taught me that well. Your previous post and it's tone was in total contradiction to everything it's supposed to stand for. Often aggressive language and demagogy cover absolute absence of firm idea and strong argumentation . I could use an example of such strategy from the animal you've mentioned in your initial post, but I would rather enjoy this fine afternoon, then rereading Mein Kampf.
As you might have noticed I did not respond to this thread until I read your patronizing and arrogant post. I may or may not agree with one side in this discussion or another, but I'd put my arm , believing there is not a single person on this board who would support sporadic executions, killing sprees or genocide. As an Israeli and ex-SOP there is nothing I hate more then war, as I guess any other sane person on this planet.
In the black and white world, as you are trying to portrait, where murder is murder is murder, we are definitely on the same side. Furthermore you and I may share many points of view on this subject as I read from the sixth paragraph of your second post. But as that cliche says, world is only shades of grey. Moral values, justice and truth are subject to personal and cultural interpretation. Plato's Allegory of the Cave was one or the first and best descriptions of this.
Everyone has an opinion and every opinion could and should be investigated and studied. On this particular subject no one has asked my opinion nor yours, and frankly I have little care what that is as long as you don't put words into my mouth (quote: "...Jukov, if you really think that killing all of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is reasonable...") or use irrelevant adjectives to describe people with opinions different from yours. I oppose to labeling folks on this board, in the wraps of flashy rhetorics.I might also have sinned at least once before by the same presumption, but I talked out of passion and I see nothing wrong with it. (I think many know what I'm talking about). Judging from your post only I have little confidence that you've talked out of passion, but out of well-"based"presumptuous ideology and vision. I might be wrong, but we are trying to have a civil conversation, with multiple sides and ideas, without calling each other juveniles and fascists. So I consider your post aggressive and out of line.
Robyn, You sent me a PM so I guess by responding to it I took an obligation to respond here as well.
My personal views on the subject in discussion are irrelevant. Personally I think that anyone without thoro knowledge of who the prisoners are and why they are held at Guantanamo Bay condemns his opinion and arguments to superficial babbling on the subject with little or no relevance to real life situation. "Pilpul" you say, well pilpul designed to lead to a clear comprehension of the discussed subject by learning its essence and by adopting clear distinctions and a strict differentiation of the concepts. Secular Jews seldom see pilpul as a kind of discussion I described at the previous sentence. But if I adopt your concept of pilpul, your post is definitely no more then that.
I have little faith in people using rhetorics and demagogy to promote their personal agenda, six years at the Yeshiva taught me that well. Your previous post and it's tone was in total contradiction to everything it's supposed to stand for. Often aggressive language and demagogy cover absolute absence of firm idea and strong argumentation . I could use an example of such strategy from the animal you've mentioned in your initial post, but I would rather enjoy this fine afternoon, then rereading Mein Kampf.
As you might have noticed I did not respond to this thread until I read your patronizing and arrogant post. I may or may not agree with one side in this discussion or another, but I'd put my arm , believing there is not a single person on this board who would support sporadic executions, killing sprees or genocide. As an Israeli and ex-SOP there is nothing I hate more then war, as I guess any other sane person on this planet.
In the black and white world, as you are trying to portrait, where murder is murder is murder, we are definitely on the same side. Furthermore you and I may share many points of view on this subject as I read from the sixth paragraph of your second post. But as that cliche says, world is only shades of grey. Moral values, justice and truth are subject to personal and cultural interpretation. Plato's Allegory of the Cave was one or the first and best descriptions of this.
Everyone has an opinion and every opinion could and should be investigated and studied. On this particular subject no one has asked my opinion nor yours, and frankly I have little care what that is as long as you don't put words into my mouth (quote: "...Jukov, if you really think that killing all of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is reasonable...") or use irrelevant adjectives to describe people with opinions different from yours. I oppose to labeling folks on this board, in the wraps of flashy rhetorics.I might also have sinned at least once before by the same presumption, but I talked out of passion and I see nothing wrong with it. (I think many know what I'm talking about). Judging from your post only I have little confidence that you've talked out of passion, but out of well-"based"presumptuous ideology and vision. I might be wrong, but we are trying to have a civil conversation, with multiple sides and ideas, without calling each other juveniles and fascists. So I consider your post aggressive and out of line.
PS. Pardon my poor English
The killing of innocent people (Haditha), the torturing of defenceless prisoners (Abu Ghreib), the imprisoning of people without evidence and/or trial... sometimes it is not easy to say: "Well, you got your opinion, I got mine." If something is against international law (only radimus doesnt see this) and against the lowest standards of humanity, some people stand up and say: this is against international law and against the lowest standards of humanity. If someone i s a facist I dont say, well thats your point of view, no, I call him a facist (I am NOT calling you a facist, jukov, as i dont know to much about you, but i strongly disagree with your opinion and consider it totally immoral).
Its just simple: Unjustness must be called unjustness, that's it.
Dear saminegm, please don't fall into the same hole. You have no idea what my opinion on this subject is, as I didn't speak it. So really how can you disagree with me on anything? And should we really talk about morality again? Please read my post.
Dear saminegm, please don't fall into the same hole. You have no idea what my opinion on this subject is, as I didn't speak it. So really how can you disagree with me on anything? And should we really talk about morality again? Please read my post.
Oh I am deeply sorry, Jukov, maybe I have mixed up your position with another guys, ericcomesomething. I am very sorry, it's his position which is totally immoral.
BTW, if i cant disagree with you on anything then you posted a non-opinion, right? But why should anyone post nothing?
funny to me how this has turned into a bit of a mine is bigger pissing match and reminds me of the old adage "better to let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". just my 2cents.....
like i said i am not exactly going to losse sleep over a couple TERRORISTs that finally did the right thing.
They don't need a trial in your mind because you have already judged all of them guilty. How do you know they are all guilty, or are even all terrorists? Do you have information as to their actual crimes? If you do post it here so we all can see it? Do you even know all their names? Is it possible that some of them should not be there at all? Until there is a trial and the evidence against them presented how can anyone decide they are ALL guilty?
I was discussing this with my wife. She asked, "What evidence would the prosecution bring to charge them with"
Without knowing the details, I (we) can only assume that most of them were picked up during sweeps of terrorist training grounds, associates of known terrorists, captured during combat, etc. I doubt that there was any of the ghestapo-esc kicking in the doors and dragging people to prisons without some sort of cause. (unless you are a member of the Hate America crowd, in which case we are probably harvesting them for organs for the benefit of rich Jews)
All of which leads back to the issue of, "The military (or intelligence sources) know/believe them guilty, but may have few ways of proving it.. for whatever reason."
You know/feel they are guilty, but may not be able to prove it.
You know/feel they have information regarding other terrorists or operations.
What do they do with a bunch of people who (now have even more reason) want to do us harm?
Lots of people say, if you can't prove it, let them go... Sure it isn't like the bad guys will be plotting to kill them. Not that many of them weren't picked up originally while trying to kill Americans originally
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What laws were actually broken? There was a lot of opinions in the media, but that seems to have died down... if there was an actual CRIME committed, there would have been impeachment hearings inside of 3 days. Nope, just a lot of people that wanted to hear themselves speak in front of a mic.
C'mon. Just because the Republican controlled House and Senate are not motivated to bring impeachment proceedings or even seriously investigate the potential crimes does not mean that crimes were not committed. And it is not just opinions in the media, there are many legal experts that believe Bush broke the law with his wiretapping activities.
I was discussing this with my wife. She asked, "What evidence would the prosecution bring to charge them with"
Without knowing the details, I (we) can only assume that most of them were picked up during sweeps of terrorist training grounds, associates of known terrorists, captured during combat, etc. I doubt that there was any of the ghestapo-esc kicking in the doors and dragging people to prisons without some sort of cause. (unless you are a member of the Hate America crowd, in which case we are probably harvesting them for organs for the benefit of rich Jews)
All of which leads back to the issue of, "The military (or intelligence sources) know/believe them guilty, but may have few ways of proving it.. for whatever reason."
You know/feel they are guilty, but may not be able to prove it.
You know/feel they have information regarding other terrorists or operations.
What do they do with a bunch of people who (now have even more reason) want to do us harm?
Lots of people say, if you can't prove it, let them go... Sure it isn't like the bad guys will be plotting to kill them. Not that many of them weren't picked up originally while trying to kill Americans originally
How many people are imprisoned improperly in this country with the sophisticated justice system we have. The police pick up people because they, in their best judgement, believe them to be guilty. But, we still have a trial to ensure that they truly are guilty.
I am not suggesting that we simply let everyone in Gitmo go because we can't prove they are guilty. But, they do deserve due diligence. Not, to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent.
Isn't is conceivable that there may be people in Gitmo that were picked up simply because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and had no real intention of harming anyone?
C'mon. Just because the Republican controlled House and Senate are not motivated to bring impeachment proceedings or even seriously investigate the potential crimes does not mean that crimes were not committed. And it is not just opinions in the media, there are many legal experts that believe Bush broke the law with his wiretapping activities.
You can find legal experts to back every side of every issue...
Look at any given supreme court decision, they work on majority opinion, there are dissenters over the judgement, and then there are appeals if either party doesn't agree with it.
Just like you can find medical experts to back/oppose any medical report.
You can still find people that believe the world is flat, that people never landed on the moon, that aliens live in cities on the floor of the ocean.
Just because they have an opinion, doesn't make it true.
You underesitmate the hatred the Left has for GWB. They'll try to prosecute on a suggestion of wrongdoing.
You underestimate the media bias they have for bring down (if not GWB, then the leadership in general).. Remember RatherGate? The seriousness of the charge is more important than facts. Sure the evidence was faked, but can you disprove it anyway??
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You can find legal experts to back every side of every issue...
Look at any given supreme court decision, they work on majority opinion, there are dissenters over the judgement, and then there are appeals if either party doesn't agree with it.
Just like you can find medical experts to back/oppose any medical report.
You can still find people that believe the world is flat, that people never landed on the moon, that aliens live in cities on the floor of the ocean.
Just because they have an opinion, doesn't make it true.
You underesitmate the hatred the Left has for GWB. They'll try to prosecute on a suggestion of wrongdoing.
You underestimate the media bias they have for bring down (if not GWB, then the leadership in general).. Remember RatherGate? The seriousness of the charge is more important than facts. Sure the evidence was faked, but can you disprove it anyway??
I agree that there are opinions on both sides. I was simply responding to your suggestion that if there was truly a crime there would have been impeachment hearings within days by suggesting that the fact that there were no impeachment hearings is not prove of innocence.
How many people are imprisoned improperly in this country with the sophisticated justice system we have. The police pick up people because they, in their best judgement, believe them to be guilty. But, we still have a trial to ensure that they truly are guilty.
I am not suggesting that we simply let everyone in Gitmo go because we can't prove they are guilty. But, they do deserve due diligence. Not, to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent.
Isn't is conceivable that there may be people in Gitmo that were picked up simply because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and had no real intention of harming anyone?
Plenty of people are arrested (possibly falsely)
Plenty of people are charged (possibly falsely)
Plenty of people are tried and convicted (possibly falsely)
Innocent people are imprisoned and guilty are released. That doesn't mean that the police or judges are evil. The lawmakers aren't evil. The lawyers aren't ... well, maybe they are evil. But you do not stop arresting people, you do not stop jailing them.
So once again, what do you do with them. The military wants to try them at their standards (military tribunal) where some security can protect sources, no press, different standards of evidence, etc. Others want them tried in Federal court.. like they are US citizens. and nothing is happening until that decision is made. So you can thank the current delay on that issue.
Personally, I think the legal groups are just want a payday and publicity for their firm. and anti-US groups just want to promote themselves... There is a lot less concern for the "victims" than is self interest... Perhaps I'm just jaded.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
