No such thing as free speech in the new world order

[AlphaTroll]

AlphaTroll, the military is the enforcer of a political system/ruler. Our particular system is based, as is our country, on laws & justice. People don't volunteer to join the miltary & expect to not learn how to kill. They aren't coerced to hate the enemy. They are taught to dismantle the enemy by any means necessary & when called off, to step aside. If they were taught to hate, they wouldn't be able to follow through on the orders to help re-establish safety & security. You, like so many, have a clearly misguided view of what our armed forces are here to do.

Just to clear up - do I have a misguided view of the American armed forces or armed forces in general?

Because I made no reference to the USA whatsoever, I was speaking of any country. And if you take certain African countries (think Rwanda, Burundi or even Zimbabwe if you want to) the actions of the armed forces are indeed of hate. Yes it may be on orders and to defend a political system / ruler. But those political systems and rulers are of the opressive nature and the armed forces are used to kill innocent civillians who just happen to disagree with the nature of the system they are supposed to ascribe to. In the case of Zimbabwe for instance they have a system in place with their so-called land reform acts that enables the government to seize farms owned by white farmers for no apparent reason. It is done by the millitary and so-called war veterans (these 'veterans' are often young boys who have definitely not faught in any war to earn the title of veteran). And even without orders these 'veterans' go around pillaging and murdering purely out of hate for the farm owners. A hatred based on the colour of their skins.....hatred and actions condoned by the government.

But in their view they are only protecting their political system, beliefs and rulers. They are dismantelling the enemy by any means possible. It is their way to restore peace, safety and security in their country.

But I guess it's OK then, because after all it's not murder - they are just following the law and seeking justice.

Or don't they count as a millitary force because they happen to defend a system different to yours?

The world is bigger than just the US or Northern Hemisphere you know

 

[Gonz]

With oppressive rulers come oppressive militaries. That is why war is used these days. To remove rulers like that from power. Personally, I want to know, where is the UN? Genocide in Rwanda & they stand around with their thumb up their ass bitching about US policy. Shouldn't they be protecting the citizens since the ruler isn't? Mugabe is a tyrant & needs to follow Taylor into exile & onto a war crimes warrant list. See, we're busy at the moment with our own kettle of fish. Ask Koffe for help unless he doesn't care.

 

[MrBishop]

With oppressive rulers come oppressive militaries. That is why war is used these days. To remove rulers like that from power. Personally, I want to know, where is the UN? Genocide in Rwanda & they stand around with their thumb up their ass bitching about US policy. Shouldn't they be protecting the citizens since the ruler isn't? Mugabe is a tyrant & needs to follow Taylor into exile & onto a war crimes warrant list. See, we're busy at the moment with our own kettle of fish. Ask Koffe for help unless he doesn't care.

The problem comes when you choose one kettle of fish over another. In this case, Iraq was the target again, even though there are no WMD's to be found...instead, they should've gone to Rwanda, where mass-graves are found easily and everyone would want to join in.

I can understand the attack on Afghanistan, but I cannot understand the one on Iraq...as of yet. Sure...Saddam was corrupt and violent, but then again, so are a lot of despots. There are a lot of places where mass-graves can be found...why aren't we there? Why aren't we sweeping through Africa, knocking despots aside like ten-pins? Is it that Saddam is more in the spotlight and a more 'popular' target?

Please illuminate me.

 

[Gonz]

We've already found many, many mass graves in Iraq. Since WE doesn't seem to include Canada, you go help the Africans, we're busy.

 

[MrBishop]

We've already found many, many mass graves in Iraq. Since WE doesn't seem to include Canada, you go help the Africans, we're busy.

S'cuse me??!? Tell you what...next time that my brother-in-law calls from Afghanistan, I'll just tell him and his buddies (RCHA) to pack up and come home before christmas. It's not like he's doing anything over there other than finishing up what was started and actually 'making peace'.

You know that despite our lack of 'recognized' troops on the ground, that we had more troops in Iraq than most of the 'willing'?
You do know that we had more ships than most of the 'willing'?
You know that we fired more shots than most of the 'willing'?

You know that your american ego is too big for the internet?

Now you do!

 

[Gonz]

I distinctly remember the Canadian government saying they weren't getting involved in Iraq. The US gov't supplied a list of the "willing" & Canada is missing

Full list of coalition countries:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Source: US State Department

And it says that there are an additional 15 countries which are providing assistance, such as over-flight rights, but which do not want to declare support.

 

[Gonz]

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, wary of antagonizing the country's most important military ally and trading partner, has, until now, consistently declined to rule out contributing forces to such a coalition. But on Tuesday he told Parliament that Canada would not join an unsanctioned campaign.

Source


I don't have a problem with Canada, Bish. I have a problem with the UN.

edit to add update Nov 28

 

[MrBishop]

I distinctly remember the Canadian government saying they weren't getting involved in Iraq. The US gov't supplied a list of the "willing" & Canada is missing

No...you're right. We weren't willing to join an attack without proof or UN approval.

BUT

We had troops there (under exchange policy with the Americans) somewhere over 40...we had 7 ships (if memory serves), captured several and killed some too. We could've pulled our troops out of the exchange and that would've been it, but we didn't.

I'll get the exact numbers if you like. Most of those "willing" didn't even send troops at all...jsut said that they wish they could.

 

[Gotnolegs]

Gonz, I can't help but notice that you passed straight over my questions without bothering to answer them. Is it because they prove you to be the hypocrit you are?

 

[Gonz]

Gonz, I can't help but notice that you passed straight over my questions without bothering to answer them. Is it because they prove you to be the hypocrit you are?

Mostly because it's ridiculous.

How about Osama bin Laden? Are you saying that he has every right to incite people to kill US citizens?

]
Yes, he does. We also have the right to find & destroy him because he financed & planned the acts of terrorism.

 

[Gotnolegs]

Mostly because it's ridiculous.

]
Yes, he does. We also have the right to find & destroy him because he financed & planned the acts of terrorism.

But Gonz, he didn't commit them and so he was only exercising his right to freedom of speech. Even if he paid good money the actual terrorists had free will and could have refused. They should be the ones you are hunting down. Oh, hang on a minute, they're dead.

So if the people that actually carried out the attacks are already dead what the fuck are you doing in Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

[Gonz]

He committed a crime, by US & international standards. Terrorism is an act of war by a group of people not directly affiliated with a country but acting under nearly the same set of rules as an organized military. Had he been on the radio preeaching at his listeners to kill Americans & went no further, then we would have a good debate. His actions violated laws that wouldn't fall under the heading thought police.

 

[Gotnolegs]

Ok, other than inciting other people to violence what were his actions?

Is it just the fact that you might be affected by this one that makes you change your tune or is it simply because he has a long beard and isn't a Right wing clean cut American College boy?

You might want to see who's been logging onto your pc because someone with your username said

Individuals have the right to their opinion & they have the right to express them. Hate speech is censored speech & that is not right.

earlier on. I guess you'd disagree?

 

[Gonz]

You can't read?

Had he been on the radio preeaching at his listeners to kill Americans & went no further, then we would have a good debate.

Is it just the fact that you might be affected by this one that makes you change your tune or is it simply because he has a long beard and isn't a Right wing clean cut American College boy?

Do not assume things.

 

[Gotnolegs]

Yeah I can read.

I read this:

You can tell me to kill Squiggy all you want, no crime is committed until I act, at which point I am guilty, not you.

and this

An individual, without taking action, has done nothing but flap their gums. Individuals have the right to their opinion & they have the right to express them.

and this:

Coercion wouldn't cover the act of murder. No matter the scenario, blatantly murdering someone is wrong, without exception. If you can be coerced it's already in you to do the act

Now I could be wrong but it seems to me thhat you have said that if someone coerces someone else into commiting a crime then only one of them is a criminal.

Now again I could be wrong but I would say that the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were a direct consequence of the WTC attacks. Now the people that committed those atrocities died too. Therefore by your reckoning no one alive was guilty. So why then do you support the war agains (by your own definition) innocent people?

 

[outside looking in]

Is Saddam a murderer?

Originally posted by Gonz:
Saddam 'killed missile chief' to thwart UN team:

"Western intelligence agencies are investigating claims that Saddam Hussein ordered the murder of a senior Iraqi missile engineer to prevent him passing vital information to United Nations weapons inspectors."

saddam has a horrendous human rights record. I've seen estimates from one to 2 million of his countrymen have been brutalized, raped, disfigured, maimed or murdered, by him, either of his two sons or by their orders, directly or standing.

I'm sure there are other quotes similar to this, but I didn't feel like searching extensively. So, do you consider Saddam a murderer or not? Did he ever actually pull the trigger?

 

[Gonz]

Damn you guys...one at a time.

Usama is the financier & leader of an organization whose very existence violates United States & Internatioanl laws. He should be brought to justice under laws that exist against terrorism. His death would work too. There is no coercion. His followers weren't "talked into" anything. They acted on their own accord & paid the ultimate (albeit foolish) price. The organization still exists with the sole purpose of hurting, maining & killing. Those involved with the organization joined without outside prejudice. They knew they are/were breaking the law. The organization, as well as similar ones, are non-national militaries. Thus, they will be treated as such. If the host country does not act in the best interest of worldwide law, then they too will become targets.

saddam was the leader of a country. He falls under a category already explained.

 

[Gotnolegs]

Damn you guys...one at a time.

Usama is the financier & leader of an organization whose very existence violates United States & Internatioanl laws. He should be brought to justice under laws that exist against terrorism. His death would work too. There is no coercion. His followers weren't "talked into" anything. They acted on their own accord & paid the ultimate (albeit foolish) price. The organization still exists with the sole purpose of hurting, maining & killing. Those involved with the organization joined without outside prejudice. They knew they are/were breaking the law. The organization, as well as similar ones, are non-national militaries. Thus, they will be treated as such. If the host country does not act in the best interest of worldwide law, then they too will become targets.

saddam was the leader of a country. He falls under a category already explained.

I know exactly why BinLaden is being hunted down, why Al-Qaeda is specifically being targetted. My point is though that by your own argument you said he shouldn't be. Yes he is breaking the law, just as manipulating someone to kill on your behalf is breaking the law.

You said it should not be illegal.

Unless of course people with lots of money don't deserve the same freedoms as us poorer folk...

 

[Gonz]

by your own argument you said he shouldn't be.

I did not say that. I said that people who use "hate speech" should not be expected to pay for crimes they did not commit. Usama committed crimes. He should be brought to trial for those. He is not guilty of murder in NYC, DC or PA. He is guilty of terrorism & many other numerous acts.

There is a difference between saying "shoot him" & having an organization that will shoot him. You cannot put somebody like Rush Limbaugh in the same category as La CosaNostra.

 

[freako104]

just to make sure I understand and this should clear up the question. you say kill Eric Smythers(or freako104 if you prefer). you cannot be arrested until i have the knife in my back and am dead correct?