Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-11-2002, 06:41 AM   #61
BeautifulLoser
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I agree with BlueStar. Being in the military, I'm slightly biased. But I'd rather they hold the guy, if there's sufficient evidence against him, than let him go. Because wouldn't someone feel like an ass if the guy left a dirty bomb somewhere after he got released... say, in a hockey stadium during the Stanley Cup perhaps? Or during the NBA Finals?

Better safe than sorry, I'd say. Granted, you can't hold somebody for nothing, but it sounds like they have a decent amount to suspect him.

------------------
AIM: JenniferZero

censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:43 AM   #62
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
The U.S. is going after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and taking steps to ensure that the events of 9/11 never again occur. Call it whatever you want...but it sounds like war to me.
if it's a war then surely the US' prisoners are consequently prisoners of war, yes?

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:43 AM   #63
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Fighting long before Sep 11 ? Certainly, but not openly or effectively.
In 1998, when President Bill Clinton attacked one of Osama bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, following the bombings of two U.S. embassies.

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
Look, you don't understand.
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
The WTC tragedy was a disaster for NY, but an opportunity for the US.
No. It was a disaster for the United States. The effects of the attacks on the WTC reached far beyond the limits of NYC. not to mention the attack on the Pentagon.

And yeah, like I previously said, it was an opportunity for the U.S. to fully go after Al Queda.

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
Do you REALLY think that if a terrorist attack came from China that the US would be in there ? Absolute bullshit. In that situation the US would have to face the reality that it couldn't go to war against terrorism in China without warring against China. Same with Russia. That's when we would see a distinction between "war" and "war on terrorism".
Since the U.S. Senate has ratified the U.N. Charter, President Bush has to follow international law. So, technically, he cannot retaliate independently.

However, it's generally accepted that, in these situations, nations have the right to respond in self-defence or “anticipatory self-defence” (although what can be classified as self-defence is not always clear).

So, rather than go to war, heads of state are encouraged to assemble an international coalition and use diplomatic efforts. If force is deemed necessary, the President should seek the authorization of the U.N. Security Council.


If an attack on the terrorist group in China was supported by other countries (as in Bush was able to form an international coalition), yes we would have gone after those terrorists.

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
The the US can fight this "war" and call it whatever it likes ONLY because the target is the Middle East.
Yeah, having it be the Middle East makes things a little "easier" since the U.S. and many other countries have a not-so-pleasant history with the Middle East.

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif Do you REALLY believe that any terrorist group from any country can come into the U.S., attack and kill enormous amounts of civilians, and then the U.S. would just walk away as if nothing had happened??



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:49 AM   #64
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
I agree with BlueStar. Being in the military, I'm slightly biased. But I'd rather they hold the guy, if there's sufficient evidence against him, than let him go. Because wouldn't someone feel like an ass if the guy left a dirty bomb somewhere after he got released... say, in a hockey stadium during the Stanley Cup perhaps? Or during the NBA Finals?

Better safe than sorry, I'd say. Granted, you can't hold somebody for nothing, but it sounds like they have a decent amount to suspect him.

Exactly. For better or for worse, in times like this, things like that need to happen. I'm not saying that that is right. But, just maybe it is necessary. If we weren't currently involved in a "war of terrorism", my liberal self would be all up in arms about them detaining the guy. But, because we are at "war" and because of 9/11 and because there are new terrorist threats everyday...



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:51 AM   #65
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif Do you REALLY believe that any terrorist group from any country can come into the U.S., attack and kill enormous amounts of civilians, and then the U.S. would just walk away as if nothing had happened??
You miss the point. The US would do something in ANY situation. But the fact that this came from the Middle East and the fact that the US already had an agenda in that region means that we have a "WAR".

My example of this being sourced from somewhere like CHina was to show you that in different circumstances you wouldn't have the US action in a way that could be termed a war.

An anti-US faction in China could not be targetted by the US without confronting the China. Very simple. Just look what happened when you're planes get a bit too close. I'm not talking about if these terrorists were supported by a governemnt or not. I'm just saying that these middle eastern terrorists are in a situation where the US doesn't really care if it upsets the governments around them. The US can send bombs into Arabia at will because there's a GREATER chance it would be doing that anyway at some point.


 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:52 AM   #66
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by scouse_dave:
if it's a war then surely the US' prisoners are consequently prisoners of war, yes?
Quote:
According to the third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:
-That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-That of carrying arms openly;
-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Americans argue that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories. They point out that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld has labeled them "unlawful combatants," and says the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.
So, technically no.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:57 AM   #67
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Post

and is bombing an innocent country and its people in "accordance with the laws and customs of war"?

NO

america makes up the rules as it goes along

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:58 AM   #68
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:

An anti-US faction in China could not be targetted by the US without confronting the China. Very simple. Just look what happened when you're planes get a bit too close. I'm not talking about if these terrorists were supported by a governemnt or not. I'm just saying that these middle eastern terrorists are in a situation where the US doesn't really care if it upsets the governments around them. The US can send bombs into Arabia at will because there's a GREATER chance it would be doing that anyway at some point.

Yes. Having it be in the Middle East has made things "easier". I've already said that.

It's impossible to specualte about what would have happened if the terrorists had been from China. A swift response from the U.S. defintiely would not have happened. There would have been a hell of a lot more talking going on between various countries. But, a military response would have happened. And if the international laws were followed, yeah, war with China could have been a possibility. And it is impossible to specualate on how the Chinese government would have acted if the terrorists had been from their country. So arguing about how everything that has happened/is happening is only because it's the Middle East is fucking pointless. Once again, it is impossible to say what would have occured had the country been different...so there's no point to the argument.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:01 AM   #69
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
If an attack on the terrorist group in China was supported by other countries (as in Bush was able to form an international coalition), yes we would have gone after those terrorists.
No you wouldn't.

I raised this example as a scenario where you have a terrorist group inside a large, powerful nation at odds with the US. In this scenario, the terrorists are distinct from the regime in which they hide.

You could have all your allies holding your hands but unless China directly backed these terrorists there is no way on earth the US would go into China to fight terrorism.

Weak Afghani Govt -> terrorists <- US

comapred to...

Huge Fucking China -> terrorists <- US

You're telling me that with support from other countries both situations are palatable for the US ?

Above all else, the US goes to war with terrorism in the Middle East knowing it can get away with a lot because of previous conflicts and successes. Post Sep 11 we're in a "been here, done that" scenario.





 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:03 AM   #70
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by scouse_dave:
and is bombing an innocent country and its people in "accordance with the laws and customs of war"?

NO
And what about hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings and killing thousands of people?

We were attacked. We fought back. "Casualites of war" are an unfortunate consequence.

And ummm...no more Taliban.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:05 AM   #71
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
No you wouldn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
So arguing about how everything that has happened/is happening is only because it's the Middle East is fucking pointless. Once again, it is impossible to say what would have occured had the country been different...so there's no point to the argument.
Arguing about hypotheticals is "missing the point".

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:11 AM   #72
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
I agree with BlueStar. Being in the military, I'm slightly biased.
Maybe us being U.S. citizens is making us biased (which some other people in this thread are not). http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

And having lived in NYC during 9/11 and gone through all that...I admit that I am coming from a very emotional place in arguing all this.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:12 AM   #73
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
And what about hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings and killing thousands of people?
ever heard the saying about 'two wrongs not making a right'? i never said crashing planes into buildings was okay, but the US is the greatest upholder of justice in the world isn't it? regardless of how it was provoked, the US has a responsibilty to act morally

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
We were attacked. We fought back. "Casualites of war" are an unfortunate consequence.
yes, well done. you fought back. yay for you. unfortunately you fought back against the wrong people...still, it was only a few dirty arabs that died huh?

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:

And ummm...no more Taliban.
yep, correct. however, the taliban didn't fly planes into US buildings

that was Al Qaeda. and guess what? they're still alive and kicking...


 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:15 AM   #74
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
Arguing about hypotheticals is "missing the point".

The original point was the difference between "war" and "war on terrorism". Hypotheticals are needed to evaluate the difference. We have one example actually happening. We can't go out and start something new for the purpose of a test so we have to use a hypothetical situation.

If we didn't make up situations to test the validity of what is actually happening we'd get back to my very first remark about the government loving people like you.

"Oh no. What's happening is confusing but it's pointless thinking about hypotheticals because they're not real, and this is,so let's just accept this and deal with it"


 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:17 AM   #75
BeautifulLoser
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
Maybe us being U.S. citizens is making us biased (which some other people in this thread are not). http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

And having lived in NYC during 9/11 and gone through all that...I admit that I am coming from a very emotional place in arguing all this.

Yeah, I was freaked out enough, being in Texas... I can't imagine what you felt being there in NYC.

It amazes me how people here can be so uncaring sometimes towards Sept. 11 (not talking about anyone in particular in this thread or anything.. just in general), but I remember seeing the thread that was going on while everything was happening, and the way everyone was feeling the same thing. No one'll admit it now, how freaked out they were. That's sad.


------------------
AIM: JenniferZero

censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:17 AM   #76
13
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Since a reference has been made to US agenda in the middle east, I think I'll repost this for conversational purposes:

1991-1997 - Major U.S. oil companies including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell and Enron directly invest billions in cash bribing heads of state in Kazakhstan to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies further commit to future direct investments in Kazakhstan of $35 billion. Not being willing to pay exorbitant prices to Russia to use Russian pipelines the major oil companies have no way to recoup their investments. [“The Price of Oil,” by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, July 9, 2001 – The Asia Times, “The Roving Eye Part I Jan. 26, 2002.]

December 4, 1997 – Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Subsequent reports will indicate that the negotiations failed, allegedly because the Taliban wanted too much money. [Source: The BBC, Dec. 4, 1997]

February 12, 1998 – Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca – later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan – testifies before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. [Source: Testimony before the House International Relations Committee.]

April, 1999 – Enron with a $3 billion investment to build an electrical generating plant at Dabhol India loses access to plentiful LNG supplies from Qatar to fuel the plant. Its only remaining option to make the investment profitable is a trans-Afghani gas pipeline to be built by Unocal from Turkmenistan that would terminate near the Indian border at the city of Multan. [Source: The Albion Monitor, Feb. 28, 2002.]

July, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. [Source: The Guardian, September 22, 2001]

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:19 AM   #77
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by scouse_dave:
No, war is not good. And I'm not a big fan of war either.

But, Bush's statement was as follows:

“For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences..."

So, yeah, in going after the terrorists, we went after Afghanistan.

I do not agree with everything that the U.S. has done. I do not like war. War is shitty and shitty things happen. I don't like it. But, the U.S. could not sit back and do nothing when it was attacked like that. Bin Laden was not going to sit down with President Bush and have a discussion and together they reach some sort of peace agreement. The U.S. did what was necessary. Killing is never right or good. However, I am supportive of this "war". I do not agree with everything that has taken place, but I do think that it was necessary.

The U.S. has a moral responsibility to ensure the freedom of its citizens.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:23 AM   #78
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by 13:
July, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:29 AM   #79
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Question

what's your point in quoting that and highlighting 'October'?

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:32 AM   #80
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
It amazes me how people here can be so uncaring sometimes towards Sept. 11 (not talking about anyone in particular in this thread or anything.. just in general), but I remember seeing the thread that was going on while everything was happening, and the way everyone was feeling the same thing. No one'll admit it now, how freaked out they were. That's sad.
what's sad from my point of view is that those who criticise the US and what it does are branded as being uncaring, liberal, anti-American, unpatriotic etc etc.

Everyone cares. Everyone was saddened by what happened. No-one wants to see it happen again. But maybe those that seem uncaring are the ones that don't want the US to tread blindly into it again.


 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:35 AM   #81
13
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by scouse_dave:
what's your point in quoting that and highlighting 'October'?
it's a coincidence that the bombing started on October 7th

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:37 AM   #82
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by 13:
Since a reference has been made to US agenda in the middle east, I think I'll repost this for conversational purposes:
no one takes any notice of these articles.
they were some of the first ideas I read about post Sep 11 and people still over-look them.

Too good to be true it would seem.



 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:41 AM   #83
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Quote:
Originally posted by 13:
it's a coincidence that the bombing started on October 7th
thanks BlueStar!

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:43 AM   #84
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by scouse_dave:
what's your point in quoting that and highlighting 'October'?
The plans were being made in July to attack in October. 9/11 hadn't happened yet.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:47 AM   #85
DeviousJ
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Please god, don't start citing the UN charter as a moral framework for the US to work within, as if America doesn't contravene UN decisions at every opportunity.

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:49 AM   #86
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Angry

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
those that seem uncaring are the ones that don't want the US to tread blindly into it again.
"tread blindly into it again"?? We are in unprecendented territory here. Terrorists planned, launched, and succeeded in conducting a full-scale attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:51 AM   #87
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Please god, don't start citing the UN charter as a moral framework for the US to work within, as if America doesn't contravene UN decisions at every opportunity.
True. And the U.S. has even ignored the UN charter at points. But, technically, Bush is following the rules. And, technically, this is a war.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:52 AM   #88
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Red face

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
The plans were being made in July to attack in October. 9/11 hadn't happened yet.
that's the point i thought you were trying to make.

however, i think 13 was attempting to illustrate that the US had a vested interest in the area and was considering military action anyway, regardless of 9/11.

Or perhaps, more worryingly, the US was already planning her retribution for 9/11 before it happened

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:54 AM   #89
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
We are in unprecendented territory here.
maybe the US are. terrorism HAS happened before tho...we can learn from the mistakes of others

 
Old 06-11-2002, 07:56 AM   #90
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by scouse_dave:
that's the point i thought you were trying to make.

however, i think 13 was attempting to illustrate that the US had a vested interest in the area and was considering military action anyway, regardless of 9/11.

Or perhaps, more worryingly, the US was already planning her retribution for 9/11 before it happened
Yep, yep, and yep. The U.S. has a vested interest there and I thought it was ironic (or whatever) that we were already planning something.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 AM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022