|
On October 05 2012 08:12 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 08:00 Brosy wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. I guess I'm confused on how Muslims are a "race" And you say there are never any objections but that can't be further from the truth. Sure if you watch is Fox News you might not hear anything about it, but the murdering and torturing of civilians and combatants are vilified by every other major news outlet in the country. As for reasons to join the military, financial incentives are pretty good. Once they are out of the service they have health care for life, the government pays for them to attend college. Arabs are usually muslim in the same way muslims are usually arabs. The point about objections is when it comes to the fellow soldiers they have with them when attacking civilians. Obviously media has to be against it, but the army itself doesn't seem to mind. I didn't know about the social benefits of joining the military though, with life long health care insurances and such. That's a good point. Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 08:06 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. 1. George Bush isn't even our current President. He spoke ineloquently, but did not mean a religious war when he said that: "The word "crusade" was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the more than 3,000 victims of the attacks. He said that "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."[1] The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic-speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of "crusade" argue that from context Bush had used the word in a military, non-religious sense, such as "The Great Crusade" which was the phrase used by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast.[2] They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal.[3][4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West." 2. Self Defense and Defense of Others Deadly force can be used if necessary against potentially hostile person(s) if they're posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Marine personnel or civilians. Read more: Marine Corps: Rules of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6321657_marine-corps_-rules-deadly-force.html#ixzz28NGH7cMT3. To better one's future, college benefits, professional experience, higher calling, to provide for ones family, there are countless reasons and a vast majority of people who join never see combat anyway 4. Exactly my point, I never knew one person who tortured anyone or murdered anyone and I met at tens of thousands of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors. 1. So that's the most frequent use of the word crusade huh? https://www.google.com/search?q=crusadeI wonder what dictionary that was. 2. So in what way do civilians pose a threat to marines again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs66.000 civilian deaths. That's 22 nine-elevens. 3. Imagine if those billions of tax dollars went to making all education and health care free of charge in the US. I can't imagine how much lost potential that's been wasted on war equipment and salaries to massacre muslims. 4. Oh what a surprise. Of course they would walk up to you and say "oh hey, I cut a man's balls off last Monday. I'd be in jail if I weren't in the army. 'merica!" Most criminals plead not guilty.
1. It was ineloquent and criticized, but not accurate.
2. Collatteral damage, it is a war. Some of them may have been murder (which should be punished), most were probably unintentional or strikes that occured on combatants near civilians
3. I agree, we spend too much on our military
4. Our job didn't deal with anything to do with that. Signals Intelligence, our unit had less than 1000 in it and dealt mostly with intelligence gathering, analyzing, and dissemination. I wasn't in the infantry.
|
On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me."
It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action.
Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it.
disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote
|
On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me."
It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action.
Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud.
Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote
So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror?
|
On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud.
Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
*Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life.
It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror?
._. the war on terror was started by ronald reagan and the first major campaign was a terrorist war conducted by america against nicaragua, bush just re-declared it.
|
|
|
On October 05 2012 15:11 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
*Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life.
Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror? ._. the war on terror was started by ronald reagan and the first major campaign was a terrorist war conducted by america against nicaragua, bush just re-declared it.
Nah, the US was doing that type of crap loooong before Reagan. The Banana Wars was when it really started.
|
To get us back on topic, here's a recent article on the actual issue, from legendary feminist journalist Helene Bergman:
http://khelenebergman.blogspot.fi/2012/10/the-constitutionel-state-of-sweden-is.html
The legal circus surrounding the case of Julian Assange has now attained proportions uprecedented in legal history. Julian Assange is the only man who has ever been hunted in this fashion across several continents for questioning over the alleged crimes of sexual molestation and rape.
We have therefore reported the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, to the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO, because of her handling of the case. The day after Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador, oddly enough, JO Hans Gunnar Axberger dismissed the complaint, citing the ongoing legal proceedings involving Assange.
The facts of the matter are quite simple. Julian Assange had sex with two women on separate occasions during his stay in Sweden. The two women went together to a female police inspector, who was acquainted with one of the two, with the stated intent to compel Assange to undergo an HIV test. However, the police inspector, instead of processing the case according to Swedish law, filed a police report of rape subject to public prosecution. It is unlikely either of the two women had any idea of the magnitude their visit to the police would take.
Next, a prosecutor decided to order Assange arrested in absentia, although he was in the country. The next day, yet another prosecutor found that there was no basis for charges and dropped the matter.
On August 30, 2010, Assange was interviewed, and he denied the allegations. The next day, lawyer Claes Borgström, who had offered to be plaintiffs’ counsel for the two women, contacted his old friend, the prosecutor Marianne Ny, who in turn decided to reopen the case.
Julian Assange remained in Sweden in order to be available for interviews for five entire weeks, until 27 September, when he left the country after receiving permission from the Prosecutor's Office. This is the context in which Marianne Ny issued a European arrest warrant. Thereafter, Assange offered on several occassions to be questioned in London either in person or via video link. Oddly, Prosecutor Ny categorically rejected these offers, even though such interview methods have been used in other cases.
We are, like Julian Assange's international lawyer, the famous Baltasar Garzón of Spain, deeply concerned about the lack of guarantee of security and transparency, and on what legal grounds action has been taken against Julian Assange. The harassment he has suffered has wrought havoc on his physical and mental health.
The threat against his person is further complicated by the complex behavior of Marianne Ny, representing the Swedish government, towards him.
The result is that Julian Assange's basic rights and freedoms under the United Nations, and his human rights under the European Convention, have been declared irrelevant.
When people seek political asylum, it usually involves seeking protection from a rogue state and, in this case, it appears that Sweden is just such a rogue. It is enough to refer to the cases of Thomas Quick / Sture Bergwall or Catrine da Costa for devastating comparisons.
We two journalists with many decades of experience in press, radio and television both in Sweden and abroad view with increasing horror how uncritical and biased in favor of the political establishment the journalism is in the case Assange.
Everything seems to be aimed to getting Assange extradited to Sweden at any cost, rather than critically examining the prosecutor, Marianne Ny’s, actions that are perfectly coordinated with those of her friend, the lawyer Claes Borgström. Prosecutor Ny has for example said in her inner circle "even if I am wrong, I won’t change my mind."
In the arrest memo from 2010, available online for all to see and spanning over 100 pages, it is clear that both of the two women themselves sought out contact with Assange.
The leaked arrest memo was a legal bomb which has now been mostly forgotten and buried in all the legal twists and turns of the extradition hearings in London, the flight to Ecuador's Embassy and the question of how Assange might be able to get away, away from the once prestigious Swedish machinery of justice.
The case of Julian Assange has revealed the State feminism and its propaganda machinery that are at present in power in this country. It is a machinery in which men-hating radical feminists without historical roots conspire with journalists who do not understand journalism’s critical task and members of the judiciary who pursue a career under the equal rights and opportunities doctrine.
This machinery views the ordinary Swedish man as a potential rapist and already condemned Julian Assange of sex crimes before being proven guilty or innocent. This is the fashion in which the man with the status of a rock star became one of the world's most hunted men.
Liberation feminism was hijacked in the late 1980s when it was disarmed and renamed 'Jämställdhet' (the equal rights and opportunities doctrine) and co-opted into the power apparatus. “Jämställdhet” became the state norm and an ideology in Sweden. And it became a career ladder, especially in politics, civil service and in the judicial system.
Many liberation feminists disappeared into Swedish universities, where they transformed our struggle into 'scientific knowledge', and became elite feminists. They got money from the State, as universities in Sweden are publicly funded. Instead of talking about 'the sexes' they started talking about 'genders', and the struggle no longer focused on transforming the state apparatus: it switched to targeting the male sex and men as sexual creatures. The present totalitarian gender ideology was also promoted by the Swedish media, which does what is required from it by the State.
In another turn, and especially in the tabloids, selling sex like never before has turned the concept of cynicism to an "understatement".
The Assange case tickles the fancy of journalists who in turn are seducing their readers, listeners and viewers with an exceptionally biased account. In addition, moralistic editorial writers across the country scream for justice for the demeaned women without any reflection on what really happened those days in August 2010, between Julian Assange and the two women.
How the case ends may well be decisive to whether Sweden should continue to be called a state governed by law, in which civil rights are not violated and the European Convention on Human Rights is worth more than the ink it was written with.
|
On October 05 2012 08:47 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 08:12 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 08:00 Brosy wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. I guess I'm confused on how Muslims are a "race" And you say there are never any objections but that can't be further from the truth. Sure if you watch is Fox News you might not hear anything about it, but the murdering and torturing of civilians and combatants are vilified by every other major news outlet in the country. As for reasons to join the military, financial incentives are pretty good. Once they are out of the service they have health care for life, the government pays for them to attend college. Arabs are usually muslim in the same way muslims are usually arabs. The point about objections is when it comes to the fellow soldiers they have with them when attacking civilians. Obviously media has to be against it, but the army itself doesn't seem to mind. I didn't know about the social benefits of joining the military though, with life long health care insurances and such. That's a good point. On October 05 2012 08:06 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. 1. George Bush isn't even our current President. He spoke ineloquently, but did not mean a religious war when he said that: "The word "crusade" was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the more than 3,000 victims of the attacks. He said that "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."[1] The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic-speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of "crusade" argue that from context Bush had used the word in a military, non-religious sense, such as "The Great Crusade" which was the phrase used by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast.[2] They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal.[3][4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West." 2. Self Defense and Defense of Others Deadly force can be used if necessary against potentially hostile person(s) if they're posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Marine personnel or civilians. Read more: Marine Corps: Rules of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6321657_marine-corps_-rules-deadly-force.html#ixzz28NGH7cMT3. To better one's future, college benefits, professional experience, higher calling, to provide for ones family, there are countless reasons and a vast majority of people who join never see combat anyway 4. Exactly my point, I never knew one person who tortured anyone or murdered anyone and I met at tens of thousands of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors. 1. So that's the most frequent use of the word crusade huh? https://www.google.com/search?q=crusadeI wonder what dictionary that was. 2. So in what way do civilians pose a threat to marines again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs66.000 civilian deaths. That's 22 nine-elevens. 3. Imagine if those billions of tax dollars went to making all education and health care free of charge in the US. I can't imagine how much lost potential that's been wasted on war equipment and salaries to massacre muslims. 4. Oh what a surprise. Of course they would walk up to you and say "oh hey, I cut a man's balls off last Monday. I'd be in jail if I weren't in the army. 'merica!" Most criminals plead not guilty. 1. It was ineloquent and criticized, but not accurate. 2. Collatteral damage, it is a war. Some of them may have been murder (which should be punished), most were probably unintentional or strikes that occured on combatants near civilians 3. I agree, we spend too much on our military 4. Our job didn't deal with anything to do with that. Signals Intelligence, our unit had less than 1000 in it and dealt mostly with intelligence gathering, analyzing, and dissemination. I wasn't in the infantry.
1. Ok, so what's accurate then? There are many theories.
a: The official. The US "thought" they had WMDs, even though every investigation showed they possibly couldn't.
b: Oil. Iraq can produce large quantities of oil and didn't want to trade with the US.
c: Racism, and the fact that even more needed to be done for Bush to have shown that he took action after 9/11.
Personally I believe it's a mix of all three.
2. Most were probably collateral damage by the terrorists themselves, as I think that's added into the statistics. The thing is that "collateral damage" ie, it's totally ok level an entire neighbourhood in order to get a known terrorist and his family is disgusting and should be even less tolerable in an illegitimate war.
4. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I've already pointed out that it's obviously a very small minority of the army that deals with this sort of thing. The fact that torture is still legal and tolerated though is what's actually creeping me out.
|
The facts of the matter are quite simple. Julian Assange had sex with two women on separate occasions during his stay in Sweden. The two women went together to a female police inspector, who was acquainted with one of the two, with the stated intent to compel Assange to undergo an HIV test. However, the police inspector, instead of processing the case according to Swedish law, filed a police report of rape subject to public prosecution. It is unlikely either of the two women had any idea of the magnitude their visit to the police would take.
going in for a HIV test and coming out with a rape charge ...?
|
On October 06 2012 14:33 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 08:47 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:12 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 08:00 Brosy wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:
[quote]
You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France).
I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones.
If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. I guess I'm confused on how Muslims are a "race" And you say there are never any objections but that can't be further from the truth. Sure if you watch is Fox News you might not hear anything about it, but the murdering and torturing of civilians and combatants are vilified by every other major news outlet in the country. As for reasons to join the military, financial incentives are pretty good. Once they are out of the service they have health care for life, the government pays for them to attend college. Arabs are usually muslim in the same way muslims are usually arabs. The point about objections is when it comes to the fellow soldiers they have with them when attacking civilians. Obviously media has to be against it, but the army itself doesn't seem to mind. I didn't know about the social benefits of joining the military though, with life long health care insurances and such. That's a good point. On October 05 2012 08:06 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:
[quote]
You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France).
I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones.
If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. 1. George Bush isn't even our current President. He spoke ineloquently, but did not mean a religious war when he said that: "The word "crusade" was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the more than 3,000 victims of the attacks. He said that "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."[1] The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic-speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of "crusade" argue that from context Bush had used the word in a military, non-religious sense, such as "The Great Crusade" which was the phrase used by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast.[2] They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal.[3][4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West." 2. Self Defense and Defense of Others Deadly force can be used if necessary against potentially hostile person(s) if they're posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Marine personnel or civilians. Read more: Marine Corps: Rules of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6321657_marine-corps_-rules-deadly-force.html#ixzz28NGH7cMT3. To better one's future, college benefits, professional experience, higher calling, to provide for ones family, there are countless reasons and a vast majority of people who join never see combat anyway 4. Exactly my point, I never knew one person who tortured anyone or murdered anyone and I met at tens of thousands of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors. 1. So that's the most frequent use of the word crusade huh? https://www.google.com/search?q=crusadeI wonder what dictionary that was. 2. So in what way do civilians pose a threat to marines again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs66.000 civilian deaths. That's 22 nine-elevens. 3. Imagine if those billions of tax dollars went to making all education and health care free of charge in the US. I can't imagine how much lost potential that's been wasted on war equipment and salaries to massacre muslims. 4. Oh what a surprise. Of course they would walk up to you and say "oh hey, I cut a man's balls off last Monday. I'd be in jail if I weren't in the army. 'merica!" Most criminals plead not guilty. 1. It was ineloquent and criticized, but not accurate. 2. Collatteral damage, it is a war. Some of them may have been murder (which should be punished), most were probably unintentional or strikes that occured on combatants near civilians 3. I agree, we spend too much on our military 4. Our job didn't deal with anything to do with that. Signals Intelligence, our unit had less than 1000 in it and dealt mostly with intelligence gathering, analyzing, and dissemination. I wasn't in the infantry. 1. Ok, so what's accurate then? There are many theories. a: The official. The US "thought" they had WMDs, even though every investigation showed they possibly couldn't. b: Oil. Iraq can produce large quantities of oil and didn't want to trade with the US. c: Racism, and the fact that even more needed to be done for Bush to have shown that he took action after 9/11. Personally I believe it's a mix of all three. 2. Most were probably collateral damage by the terrorists themselves, as I think that's added into the statistics. The thing is that "collateral damage" ie, it's totally ok level an entire neighbourhood in order to get a known terrorist and his family is disgusting and should be even less tolerable in an illegitimate war. 4. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I've already pointed out that it's obviously a very small minority of the army that deals with this sort of thing. The fact that torture is still legal and tolerated though is what's actually creeping me out.
1. Look, I'm not gonna say that we went on a crusade but I will admit the war was a big mistake. I'm gonna go with they used 1a to exploit 1b, where did these intelligence reports come from saying they had them? Did they just make them up for 1b? I can't agree with c though, Bush was stupid but not racist.
2. I agree, I don't think we should even be over there.
4. Again, I agree. I think torture is sick and disgusting. I just wish you would understand that people can be in the military but not necessarily be supportive of the disturbing things out government does. I don't like the argument "well you joined so you support x, y, and z bad things" it really is just not the case.
|
Pretty interesting to see even a feminist considers the all case ridiculous.
doesn't look very good for Sweden. Considering what happened to Gottfrid Svartholm, one has to question how politicized their justice system looks
|
On October 05 2012 15:30 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 15:11 Caihead wrote:On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right...
[quote]
In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries.
These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people.
How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror? ._. the war on terror was started by ronald reagan and the first major campaign was a terrorist war conducted by america against nicaragua, bush just re-declared it. Nah, the US was doing that type of crap loooong before Reagan. The Banana Wars was when it really started.
Irrelevant, not talking about the policy, if you are just talking about the policy it started with the annexation of Hawaii in 1898. The point was that the term "war on terror" was declared by Ronald Reagan and has been on going, 9/11 was hardly the biggest contributing factor in national policy terms, it was just the instigating event that made it convenient to go to open war. The US has a history of planning events such as Northwoods in case such events don't naturally occur to go to war regardless. Ofcourse you could say that the prime person for instigating / planning that operation was rejected by President Kennedy and fired from the position of Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, but he became the SACEUR (highest position in NATO) just one year later so that's how much that action had repercussions on his career in reality.
|
On October 07 2012 02:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 14:33 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 08:47 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:12 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 08:00 Brosy wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to.
This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home?
He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. I guess I'm confused on how Muslims are a "race" And you say there are never any objections but that can't be further from the truth. Sure if you watch is Fox News you might not hear anything about it, but the murdering and torturing of civilians and combatants are vilified by every other major news outlet in the country. As for reasons to join the military, financial incentives are pretty good. Once they are out of the service they have health care for life, the government pays for them to attend college. Arabs are usually muslim in the same way muslims are usually arabs. The point about objections is when it comes to the fellow soldiers they have with them when attacking civilians. Obviously media has to be against it, but the army itself doesn't seem to mind. I didn't know about the social benefits of joining the military though, with life long health care insurances and such. That's a good point. On October 05 2012 08:06 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to.
This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home?
He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. 1. George Bush isn't even our current President. He spoke ineloquently, but did not mean a religious war when he said that: "The word "crusade" was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the more than 3,000 victims of the attacks. He said that "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."[1] The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic-speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of "crusade" argue that from context Bush had used the word in a military, non-religious sense, such as "The Great Crusade" which was the phrase used by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast.[2] They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal.[3][4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West." 2. Self Defense and Defense of Others Deadly force can be used if necessary against potentially hostile person(s) if they're posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Marine personnel or civilians. Read more: Marine Corps: Rules of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6321657_marine-corps_-rules-deadly-force.html#ixzz28NGH7cMT3. To better one's future, college benefits, professional experience, higher calling, to provide for ones family, there are countless reasons and a vast majority of people who join never see combat anyway 4. Exactly my point, I never knew one person who tortured anyone or murdered anyone and I met at tens of thousands of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors. 1. So that's the most frequent use of the word crusade huh? https://www.google.com/search?q=crusadeI wonder what dictionary that was. 2. So in what way do civilians pose a threat to marines again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs66.000 civilian deaths. That's 22 nine-elevens. 3. Imagine if those billions of tax dollars went to making all education and health care free of charge in the US. I can't imagine how much lost potential that's been wasted on war equipment and salaries to massacre muslims. 4. Oh what a surprise. Of course they would walk up to you and say "oh hey, I cut a man's balls off last Monday. I'd be in jail if I weren't in the army. 'merica!" Most criminals plead not guilty. 1. It was ineloquent and criticized, but not accurate. 2. Collatteral damage, it is a war. Some of them may have been murder (which should be punished), most were probably unintentional or strikes that occured on combatants near civilians 3. I agree, we spend too much on our military 4. Our job didn't deal with anything to do with that. Signals Intelligence, our unit had less than 1000 in it and dealt mostly with intelligence gathering, analyzing, and dissemination. I wasn't in the infantry. 1. Ok, so what's accurate then? There are many theories. a: The official. The US "thought" they had WMDs, even though every investigation showed they possibly couldn't. b: Oil. Iraq can produce large quantities of oil and didn't want to trade with the US. c: Racism, and the fact that even more needed to be done for Bush to have shown that he took action after 9/11. Personally I believe it's a mix of all three. 2. Most were probably collateral damage by the terrorists themselves, as I think that's added into the statistics. The thing is that "collateral damage" ie, it's totally ok level an entire neighbourhood in order to get a known terrorist and his family is disgusting and should be even less tolerable in an illegitimate war. 4. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I've already pointed out that it's obviously a very small minority of the army that deals with this sort of thing. The fact that torture is still legal and tolerated though is what's actually creeping me out. 1. Look, I'm not gonna say that we went on a crusade but I will admit the war was a big mistake. I'm gonna go with they used 1a to exploit 1b, where did these intelligence reports come from saying they had them? Did they just make them up for 1b? I can't agree with c though, Bush was stupid but not racist. 2. I agree, I don't think we should even be over there. 4. Again, I agree. I think torture is sick and disgusting. I just wish you would understand that people can be in the military but not necessarily be supportive of the disturbing things out government does. I don't like the argument "well you joined so you support x, y, and z bad things" it really is just not the case.
Is the war a big mistake on the grounds of fundamental moral falsehoods and deprivation, or is it the same way that the Nazi Generals see fighting USSR as a big mistake (two front war, fighting in the winter, long supply routes liable to ambush and bombing, etc). Everyone already knows it's a huge tactical mistake to fight a war with out an exit strategy, ignore intel about the enemy's commander in chief, mistakenly attacking the wrong targets, collateral damage to civilians, destroying infrastructure then outsourcing the repairs to private firms who profiteered from it. Yet no high up with in the American administration is willing to admit that it was a fundamentally wrong war for moral reasons.
|
I read that article when it was published in Swedish, and even quoted some facts from it in this thread I believe. But later I read a response by Claes Borgström, where he pointed out several factual errors, such as him being a friend of the prosecutor. (He claimed to ever only have met her once before the Assange case.)
http://www.dn.se/debatt/manga-felaktigheter-i-artikeln-om-assange
When Helene Bergman wrote the final response in the same paper (DN) she chose to not back up her claims, but rather repeating her main points without providing further evidence. After this her credibility dropped in my eyes.
http://www.dn.se/debatt/assange-fick-klartecken-att-lamna-sverige
Also, Helene Bergman´s claim to fame as a "legendary" feminist is a radio show she did in the 1980:s.
My own point of view is still that Assange may have been hunted more fiercely because he is a famous provocative figure, and this is very wrong if it's the case. But the talk about state feminism and conspiracies is laughable.
|
On October 07 2012 02:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 14:33 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 08:47 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:12 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 08:00 Brosy wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to.
This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home?
He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. I guess I'm confused on how Muslims are a "race" And you say there are never any objections but that can't be further from the truth. Sure if you watch is Fox News you might not hear anything about it, but the murdering and torturing of civilians and combatants are vilified by every other major news outlet in the country. As for reasons to join the military, financial incentives are pretty good. Once they are out of the service they have health care for life, the government pays for them to attend college. Arabs are usually muslim in the same way muslims are usually arabs. The point about objections is when it comes to the fellow soldiers they have with them when attacking civilians. Obviously media has to be against it, but the army itself doesn't seem to mind. I didn't know about the social benefits of joining the military though, with life long health care insurances and such. That's a good point. On October 05 2012 08:06 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to.
This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home?
He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. 1. George Bush isn't even our current President. He spoke ineloquently, but did not mean a religious war when he said that: "The word "crusade" was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the more than 3,000 victims of the attacks. He said that "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."[1] The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic-speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of "crusade" argue that from context Bush had used the word in a military, non-religious sense, such as "The Great Crusade" which was the phrase used by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast.[2] They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal.[3][4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West." 2. Self Defense and Defense of Others Deadly force can be used if necessary against potentially hostile person(s) if they're posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Marine personnel or civilians. Read more: Marine Corps: Rules of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6321657_marine-corps_-rules-deadly-force.html#ixzz28NGH7cMT3. To better one's future, college benefits, professional experience, higher calling, to provide for ones family, there are countless reasons and a vast majority of people who join never see combat anyway 4. Exactly my point, I never knew one person who tortured anyone or murdered anyone and I met at tens of thousands of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors. 1. So that's the most frequent use of the word crusade huh? https://www.google.com/search?q=crusadeI wonder what dictionary that was. 2. So in what way do civilians pose a threat to marines again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs66.000 civilian deaths. That's 22 nine-elevens. 3. Imagine if those billions of tax dollars went to making all education and health care free of charge in the US. I can't imagine how much lost potential that's been wasted on war equipment and salaries to massacre muslims. 4. Oh what a surprise. Of course they would walk up to you and say "oh hey, I cut a man's balls off last Monday. I'd be in jail if I weren't in the army. 'merica!" Most criminals plead not guilty. 1. It was ineloquent and criticized, but not accurate. 2. Collatteral damage, it is a war. Some of them may have been murder (which should be punished), most were probably unintentional or strikes that occured on combatants near civilians 3. I agree, we spend too much on our military 4. Our job didn't deal with anything to do with that. Signals Intelligence, our unit had less than 1000 in it and dealt mostly with intelligence gathering, analyzing, and dissemination. I wasn't in the infantry. 1. Ok, so what's accurate then? There are many theories. a: The official. The US "thought" they had WMDs, even though every investigation showed they possibly couldn't. b: Oil. Iraq can produce large quantities of oil and didn't want to trade with the US. c: Racism, and the fact that even more needed to be done for Bush to have shown that he took action after 9/11. Personally I believe it's a mix of all three. 2. Most were probably collateral damage by the terrorists themselves, as I think that's added into the statistics. The thing is that "collateral damage" ie, it's totally ok level an entire neighbourhood in order to get a known terrorist and his family is disgusting and should be even less tolerable in an illegitimate war. 4. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I've already pointed out that it's obviously a very small minority of the army that deals with this sort of thing. The fact that torture is still legal and tolerated though is what's actually creeping me out. 1. Look, I'm not gonna say that we went on a crusade but I will admit the war was a big mistake. I'm gonna go with they used 1a to exploit 1b, where did these intelligence reports come from saying they had them? Did they just make them up for 1b? I can't agree with c though, Bush was stupid but not racist. 2. I agree, I don't think we should even be over there. 4. Again, I agree. I think torture is sick and disgusting. I just wish you would understand that people can be in the military but not necessarily be supportive of the disturbing things out government does. I don't like the argument "well you joined so you support x, y, and z bad things" it really is just not the case.
Awesome. Then we have nothing to argue about.
On October 07 2012 03:05 Nizaris wrote:Pretty interesting to see even a feminist considers the all case ridiculous. doesn't look very good for Sweden. Considering what happened to Gottfrid Svartholm, one has to question how politicized their justice system looks
It's not politicized, but I do wonder how open they are to bribery. Something in the piratebay case smells very very rotten.
As mentioned by Breavman, I too am of the the opinion that Assange is mainly hunted as a career move of the prosecutor. This is an extremely famous case, and if she does everything in her power to get Assange convicted, she will get huge cred and it's basically the best thing that could ever happen to her career.
|
On October 07 2012 03:05 Nizaris wrote:Pretty interesting to see even a feminist considers the all case ridiculous. doesn't look very good for Sweden. Considering what happened to Gottfrid Svartholm, one has to question how politicized their justice system looks
I don't think Sweden sweats the opinion pieces too much.
|
On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud.
Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
*Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life.
It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror?
I think he is referring to the fact that the war on the Middle East shouldn't have resulted from the bombings at 9/11. Especially not Iraq and Afghanistan seeing as the majority of hijackers were Egyption and Saudi's (and the whole thing is still a bit odd as is). The reason Iraq specifically was invaded was due to oil plain and simple, there were no WMD's and no proof that there were any WMD's along with no one involved in 9/11's plot whatsoever. There was a dictator put in place by the United States who decided maybe Iraq should get a bit more money for the oil they're producing, and seeing as civil absues have gotten 10fold worse since the invasion than under Saddam it really threw the country back in time even farther than Saddam was holding it.
The War on Terror is as big a farce as the War on Drugs or Alcohol (60's) and have the exact same result, alcohol related crime rockets, drug related crime rockets and now terrorism is expanding not shrinking like it was pre-invasion because most "Terrorists" are just kids who's homes and families have been blown to shit and want to defend what they have left, I pray if someone was bombing your homes constantly in America you'd be out for blood to defend yourself and family (or what's left). But obviously that's completely different! Freedom fighters at home or when you have interests and terrorist/rebels abroad when the only interest to you is negative.
A war for oil is a better way to present the data. If you think of all the other things that cause more death and poverty and how those trillions of wasted dollars would have helped them the last 10 years have possibly been the most wasted decade in recent human history with regards to progress. I feel sometimes like the world is trying to walk up an escalator with it's backwards mentality, someone killed 3000 of us? Let's pick whoever is closet to the gun barrel and drop 1000x that many!
It's all a shit show.
|
On October 07 2012 05:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
*Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life.
Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror? I think he is referring to the fact that the war on the Middle East shouldn't have resulted from the bombings at 9/11. Especially not Iraq and Afghanistan seeing as the majority of hijackers were Egyption and Saudi's (and the whole thing is still a bit odd as is). The reason Iraq specifically was invaded was due to oil plain and simple, there were no WMD's and no proof that there were any WMD's along with no one involved in 9/11's plot whatsoever. There was a dictator put in place by the United States who decided maybe Iraq should get a bit more money for the oil they're producing, and seeing as civil absues have gotten 10fold worse since the invasion than under Saddam it really threw the country back in time even farther than Saddam was holding it. The War on Terror is as big a farce as the War on Drugs or Alcohol (60's) and have the exact same result, alcohol related crime rockets, drug related crime rockets and now terrorism is expanding not shrinking like it was pre-invasion because most "Terrorists" are just kids who's homes and families have been blown to shit and want to defend what they have left, I pray if someone was bombing your homes constantly in America you'd be out for blood to defend yourself and family (or what's left). But obviously that's completely different! Freedom fighters at home or when you have interests and terrorist/rebels abroad when the only interest to you is negative. A war for oil is a better way to present the data. If you think of all the other things that cause more death and poverty and how those trillions of wasted dollars would have helped them the last 10 years have possibly been the most wasted decade in recent human history with regards to progress. I feel sometimes like the world is trying to walk up an escalator with it's backwards mentality, someone killed 3000 of us? Let's pick whoever is closet to the gun barrel and drop 1000x that many! It's all a shit show.
I agree, it is a sham and a joke. I only made that statement because he was taking what I said out of context thinking I meant the natural response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq. That wasn't the natural response, it is just what eventually culminated largely due to the growing fear of terrorism.
|
On October 07 2012 05:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 05:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right...
[quote]
In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries.
These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people.
How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror? I think he is referring to the fact that the war on the Middle East shouldn't have resulted from the bombings at 9/11. Especially not Iraq and Afghanistan seeing as the majority of hijackers were Egyption and Saudi's (and the whole thing is still a bit odd as is). The reason Iraq specifically was invaded was due to oil plain and simple, there were no WMD's and no proof that there were any WMD's along with no one involved in 9/11's plot whatsoever. There was a dictator put in place by the United States who decided maybe Iraq should get a bit more money for the oil they're producing, and seeing as civil absues have gotten 10fold worse since the invasion than under Saddam it really threw the country back in time even farther than Saddam was holding it. The War on Terror is as big a farce as the War on Drugs or Alcohol (60's) and have the exact same result, alcohol related crime rockets, drug related crime rockets and now terrorism is expanding not shrinking like it was pre-invasion because most "Terrorists" are just kids who's homes and families have been blown to shit and want to defend what they have left, I pray if someone was bombing your homes constantly in America you'd be out for blood to defend yourself and family (or what's left). But obviously that's completely different! Freedom fighters at home or when you have interests and terrorist/rebels abroad when the only interest to you is negative. A war for oil is a better way to present the data. If you think of all the other things that cause more death and poverty and how those trillions of wasted dollars would have helped them the last 10 years have possibly been the most wasted decade in recent human history with regards to progress. I feel sometimes like the world is trying to walk up an escalator with it's backwards mentality, someone killed 3000 of us? Let's pick whoever is closet to the gun barrel and drop 1000x that many! It's all a shit show. I agree, it is a sham and a joke. I only made that statement because he was taking what I said out of context thinking I meant the natural response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq. That wasn't the natural response, it is just what eventually culminated largely due to the growing fear of terrorism.
Well when the populace are in constant fear of a statistical improbability and the men suit up for war without hesitation it's rather easy to parade your nation around without them blinking an eye. Hopefully some people are waking up, hell most of your founding fathers warned about such things that the average conservative defends with their life. War? Security? Rich? Freedoms? all checks and all things the conservatives either want to expand (war/rich) or negate (freedoms for security).
The most used quote when it comes to this subject.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
Ben Franklin
|
On October 07 2012 05:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 05:38 kmillz wrote:On October 07 2012 05:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror? I think he is referring to the fact that the war on the Middle East shouldn't have resulted from the bombings at 9/11. Especially not Iraq and Afghanistan seeing as the majority of hijackers were Egyption and Saudi's (and the whole thing is still a bit odd as is). The reason Iraq specifically was invaded was due to oil plain and simple, there were no WMD's and no proof that there were any WMD's along with no one involved in 9/11's plot whatsoever. There was a dictator put in place by the United States who decided maybe Iraq should get a bit more money for the oil they're producing, and seeing as civil absues have gotten 10fold worse since the invasion than under Saddam it really threw the country back in time even farther than Saddam was holding it. The War on Terror is as big a farce as the War on Drugs or Alcohol (60's) and have the exact same result, alcohol related crime rockets, drug related crime rockets and now terrorism is expanding not shrinking like it was pre-invasion because most "Terrorists" are just kids who's homes and families have been blown to shit and want to defend what they have left, I pray if someone was bombing your homes constantly in America you'd be out for blood to defend yourself and family (or what's left). But obviously that's completely different! Freedom fighters at home or when you have interests and terrorist/rebels abroad when the only interest to you is negative. A war for oil is a better way to present the data. If you think of all the other things that cause more death and poverty and how those trillions of wasted dollars would have helped them the last 10 years have possibly been the most wasted decade in recent human history with regards to progress. I feel sometimes like the world is trying to walk up an escalator with it's backwards mentality, someone killed 3000 of us? Let's pick whoever is closet to the gun barrel and drop 1000x that many! It's all a shit show. I agree, it is a sham and a joke. I only made that statement because he was taking what I said out of context thinking I meant the natural response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq. That wasn't the natural response, it is just what eventually culminated largely due to the growing fear of terrorism. Well when the populace are in constant fear of a statistical improbability and the men suit up for war without hesitation it's rather easy to parade your nation around without them blinking an eye. Hopefully some people are waking up, hell most of your founding fathers warned about such things that the average conservative defends with their life. War? Security? Rich? Freedoms? all checks and all things the conservatives either want to expand (war/rich) or negate (freedoms for security). The most used quote when it comes to this subject. Ben Franklin
Yes, Patriot Act and the NDAA are prime examples of what Ben Franklin probably feared happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
