Do you really feel that the US way is right?

[Juize]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


The difference is...

I'M NOT A TERRORIST

I'm NOT going to be charged in any crimes internationally. Sorry, Juize, but the terrorists attacked America, not Finland.

(I don't mean that to insult Finland, by the way.)

So you attack foreigners, without trials, just with bullets?
:crazyeyes :crazyeyes

(not USA, I mean YOU)

 

[joespaniel]

A military tribunal was held in the pentagon during WWII. German saboteurs were "tried" and executed. No objections were allowed by the defense, and everyone who attended the "court" afterwards called it a rail-road.

Putting aside my personal feelings about the animals that killed 5000+ of my fellow countrymen three months ago, I cannot put aside the bad feelings I have about secret "trials". It has no place in an open society such as ours.

I see this as two issues:

Just punishment and deciding the method of delivery.

RMShape and I would be the first volunteers to "lock and load" at the firing squad. I would have no qualms nor remorse. We know the truth and want to prevent another massacre of innocent life in any country.

I would prefer to help avoid bringing more arabs into the anti-American fold in the future by allowing the world to see some of the trial (protecting witnesses would be one crucial factor). I am now completely confident in their guilt, but many arabs do not have access to the facts we do (re: Osama video, Al-Quaida confessions).

WWII was total war. Survive or perish. This war is about winning hearts and minds more than any war in history. We have nothing to hide. Punishment should be swift and final.

But everyone should have an understanding of exactly why that punishment is being meted out. Not just our president and a few generals. The arab world should know the truth .

 

[allan]

"The arab world should know the truth ."

AMEN to that!

I couldn't have said it better myself.... Who uses military tribunals? Usually dictatorships with something to hide. Countries with NOTHING to hide, and truth on their side, don't HAVE to use them--and shouldn't.

Thus the US shouldn't.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Terrorism = using violence for political means.
The USA uses violence for political means.
I'm not even gonna bother typing the rest.

 

[knowltok]

>>Terrorism = using violence for political means.
>>The USA uses violence for political means.
>>I'm not even gonna bother typing the rest.

I rather wish you hadn't typed the first part.

I agree that the entire world should see the truth, but the problem is that we have no way of delivering it to them. At least not the people we really need to reach. Those people will get the info second hand from a biased source who heard it in a mosque from a biased source.

The other problem is that much of the evidence collected is likely of the sort that is classified. Agent Johnson deep undercover in Iraq is not going to be able to fly to NY to testify in a trial. A defense attorney will pick apart any case that is based upon clasified intelligence assets. Imagine the OJ trial, but now we have Johnny Cochrain asking about the detailed specifications and rate of error in US spy sattelite technology. The last thing we need to do is tell the world's other terrorist exactly how we track them and monitor their movements and phone conversations.

 

[ComradeDavo]

My point is that people are branding people terrorists without fully understanding what terroroism is and forgetting the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that people have mixed feeling on who exactly should be branded a terrorist and with all the right-wingers here voicing their extremist criminal justice views I felt it was time to type what terrorism ACTUALLY means for once.

 

[knowltok]

Well, I am glad for the explanation, but I don't think that that is the true definition of terrorism. If it were, then Hannibal, Ceasar, Wellington, Montgomery, Eisenhower, and anybody else connected with almost any military action anywhere are terrorists. Terrorism has a much narrower definition than using violence for political means. Unless you want to draw no distinction between events like the Normandy landings and Flying a hijacked plane into a building. I for one choose to make such distinctions.

Terrorism to me is using violence in a time of peace to deliberately inflict pain and fear upon civilian populations to achieve political ends.

I admit that this definition isn't perfect, but there has to be more to it than violence for politics.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

So, how do you define "a time of peace"? If it is a time when no one has declared war, Al-Qaeda cleared itself several years ago by declaring war on American civillians. As for deliberately inflicting pain and fear on civilian populations, again the US doesnt get clear by this definition, nor does Israel, Nike, Ford Motors, Turkey, etc. etc. You are closer to the mark when you say all violence is terrorism. The WINNING SIDE become freedom fighters, like those who liberate German and Japanese holdings after world war 2 or the Americans who terrorized the Boston Harbor tea holdings (who would nowadays face stiff jail sentences and a solid tear gassing). The LOSING SIDE become terrorists, and this is a danger some folks on this forum are doing well to remind us; you cant build an army big enough to overthrow Global Corporatization and its government cronies. So if you want to fight, you have to act like a terrorist. The Tibetans who oppose CHina are thus terrorists, the folks who protest the WTO are terrorists, Jesus was a terrorist.

If you wanted to win a war on terrorism you would have to want to win a war on murder and killing. And nobody in power would really want to do that because it would mean improving the quality of life and the political freedom of everyone in the world, through peaceful means only. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and believe me, if the US government offered me a cushy job with a nice vacation and full health benefits, I'd stop criticizing it immediately.

 

[knowltok]

It is dangerous moral relativism to declare that those that would declare war specifically on civilians are justified because they don't agree with what a particular nation does. Perhaps, just perhaps these splinter groups don't really represent majority opinion in the areas where they live. If they did, they could organize protests and passive resistance on the Indian model to try to achieve their goals. I know, I know, the oppressive regimes propped up by the wicked US would never allow this. But I don't believe these masses exist in the first place. That is why the terrorists have to resort to their means. The are small groups that are not working for the people's benefit, but are actually on their own agenda. This is different than an occupied nation like Tibet (Though I haven't heard of Tibetins bombing Chinese embassies. Maybe I just don't read enough news.)

I'd also say that most people in these impoverished nations don't so much want the corperations to disapear, as they want them to actually go there in the first place. Are we now blaming corperations for not investing in places like Iraq and Afganistan? Despite all the abuses heaped on corperations for their factories in places like Vietnam, I notice that the Vietnamese (A people known for there tenacity in opposing organizations they don't like) haven't been bombing too many shoe factories.

and believe me, if the US government offered me a cushy job with a nice vacation and full health benefits, I'd stop criticizing it immediately.

So A. your beliefs can be bought, and B. the government should provide you with everything you need. Perhaps you could try one of the communist governments still in existance. I believe the philosophy is supposed to be: To each according to need, from each according to ability. Now all you would have to do is convince North Korea of your needs.

 

[vonork]

Now does anyone believe that this movie had past postproduction today? A critically acclaimed and well like movie but now, well the bad guys in the movie with their talk about “when someone blow up your house you will gladly give us more authority” sounds more like the so called good guys of today.

I don’t mind big-government, a big brother state is of no problem as long as the big brother only looks out for your own god. But there is a line here and the big brother should not cross that and start to try to take control.

And to know that the line as not been cross you have to have openness, a feeling of privacy and a low frequency of classified documents. But the last line of defence for all is the knowledge of getting a fair trail if you are ever accused of doing something. When you start to bend this you are travelling down a dangerous road. This line has sadly already been crossed with some of the new terrorist laws and lists of people classified as terrorists.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Isn't it ironic that John Ashcroft defended military tribunals by saying that American courts may be too lenient. Not only does the top attorney in the nation have no faith in his legal system, but also no faith in the American public? The American public overwhelmingly supports the attacks in Afghanistan, and are very willing to give up our liberties to get tough on foreigners and racially profile Arabs, yet Ashcroft thinks these same Americans would NOT convict an Arab!?!

America is in a state of paranoia, and the Bush administration is benefiting by getting across their personal politial agendas with little to no dissent. The losers will of course be the American people, and to some extent, the world.

 

[vonork]

(With Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington)
Has some good point’s too. Terrorist blowing up bombs in NY and the authority go bananas and start’s to arrest all Arabs even going so low as using torture to collect information.

Well luckily we have none of that in real life, or... Arrests of people that don’t know what they have been arrested for and we don’t know who has been arrested held for as long as they see fit, military trials and perhaps then the next line will be crossed. Then who knows what will happen.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by vonork
(With Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington)
Has some good point’s too. Terrorist blowing up bombs in NY and the authority go bananas and start’s to arrest all Arabs even going so low as using torture to collect information.

You mean "The Siege" right?

Well, it seems like that is exactly what is happening today, unfortunately.

 

[ComradeDavo]

definition of terrorism as 'use of violence and intimidation for political purposes': thats what the dictionary says so.......

 

[knowltok]

I don't take the Bible at face value, and I'm not going to take the dictionary that way either. What does the dictionary say about war? Violence AND Intimidation? Does that mean if I just use violence for political purposes I'm not a terrorist?

This definition of terrorism puts me in the mind of the US Senator who said, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

We all know that the definition is more complex than what is in the dictionary. During the war of 1812 the British captured and burned Washington DC. This was violence and intimidation for political purposes, but it was not terrorism. In 1944 Allied forces invaded Hitler's Europe and bombed military fortifications and rail assets. Propaganda leaflets were also dropped. Again an example of Violence and Intimidation, yet not terrorism.

We need a better definition than what comradedevo is getting from Webster, or whichever dictionary he is pulling from.

 

[SunTzu]

i say hold military tribunals and execute the bastards! try John Walker and execute him for treason!
I'm not going to argue this because i believe this is what we should do

 

[ComradeDavo]

We all know that the definition is more complex than what is in the dictionary

Of course it bloody well is, I THINK YOU MISUNDERSTAND ME SOMEWHAT, point is people are branding just about everyone who oppesess them terrorists (America with al-quedia, Britain with Irish diisedent, Spain with ETA, China with Taiwan, Israel with the palestinians...the list continues.....) when the fact is that to these people the roles are reversed somewhat.

To put it simply: one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
definition of terrorism as 'use of violence and intimidation for political purposes': thats what the dictionary says so.......

I think the REAL definition of terrorism is attacks against innocent civilians for the advance of social beliefs (and that has NEVER been done by the United States, as the America-bashers of this board would tell you).

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think the REAL definition of terrorism is attacks against innocent civilians for the advance of social beliefs (and that has NEVER been done by the United States, as the America-bashers of this board would tell you).

I mean no personal offence here BUT THAT IS THE BIGGEST LIE I HAVE EVER EVER EVER HEARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

America has done it:
VIETNAM
KOREA
INDONESIA
LATIN AMERICA
THE 2nd WORLD WAR!!!! (or have you forgotten the bombing of Dresden etc, not that I say it wasn't deserved but the fact is it was done for the 'advance of social beliefs ' i.e.the destruction of the NAZI's!)
NORTHERN IRELAND (dissededents funded by Irish americans)

It is carried out against military targets:
BOLIVIA (aasination of che gueverra in a CIA funded and trained operation)
PALESTIAN SUCIDE ATTACKS AGAINST ISREALI MILITARY POSTS!!!!(all the bloody time)
AL - QUEDIA FLYING A PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON!!!!!(no need to state when)

knowltok - sorry if I was a bit offensive in the last post, seems I kinda mislead you a bit, my original statement was that America itself has carried out/funded terrorist attacks so they should stop blabbering about a war on terrorism when it is in reality a war on their enemies.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Bravo Comrade Davo and the others who weigh in on the side of Justice rather than Fascism. I have a new term for the "good guys" (Israel, USA, England) in this conflict: The Homicide Bombers. After all, the "bad guys" are suicide bombers, "cowards" who give their life in the hope that they will jar the world into recognizing the plight of their peoples. SO the good guys are "homicide bombers", courageous folk who ignore the needs of their people in order to build expensive, massive arsenals and unload them from the heights without a personal fear that anybody on the other side can do more than hurl rocks at them.

PS Sun Tzu, I know America. John Walker will be a multimillionaire book author and talk show circuit guy, and will be "living proof" that our way of life is superior to extreme Islam. Much as Bush likes to execute folks...