This is why appeasement doesn't work. [Archive]

chuck34

22nd April 2009, 13:25

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/22/pakistan.taliban/index.html

"Now the Taliban appear to have returned in force -- a move that indicates the recent government concessions may have emboldened the militants to expand their reach."

This is for all you around here that seem to think appeasement is the answer. You seem unwilling or unable to learn from history. Or maybe you think it all happened a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Is today too long ago for you? Do you still feel that we should just give these mad men what they want because if we do the demands will stop there?

Also does anyone still believe that Islamist are not going to force Sharia Law on anyone?

"Khan added that he would like to see sharia law implemented beyond Pakistan, even in America, a country he knows intimately. For four years, the Taliban spokesman lived in the United States, working as a painter near Boston, Massachusetts."

Eki

22nd April 2009, 13:37

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/22/pakistan.taliban/index.html

"Now the Taliban appear to have returned in force -- a move that indicates the recent government concessions may have emboldened the militants to expand their reach."

This is for all you around here that seem to think appeasement is the answer. You seem unwilling or unable to learn from history. Or maybe you think it all happened a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Is today too long ago for you? Do you still feel that we should just give these mad men what they want because if we do the demands will stop there?

Also does anyone still believe that Islamist are not going to force Sharia Law on anyone?
I think nobody has ever talked about "anyone", just that they try to force it mainly on their own people and countries, not export it to other religions and countries. Taliban is not the world history, a world leader or any other major power, but maybe you're right. Appeasement haven't also worked on Israel or the US who still insist doing things their own way, so maybe the International community should harden their stance against the US and Israel. Although it might be better to give Obama a chance first. Taking the American torturers to court and convicting them would be a positive step forward.

chuck34

22nd April 2009, 13:58

1) I think nobody has ever talked about "anyone", just that they try to force it mainly on their own people and countries, not export it to other religions and countries.
2) Taliban is not the world history, a world leader or any other major power, but maybe you're right.
3) Appeasement haven't also worked on Israel or the US who still insist doing things their own way, so maybe the International community should harden their stance against the US and Israel. Although it might be better to give Obama a chance first.
4) Taking the American torturers to court and convicting them would be a positive step forward.

1) Obviously you did not read the actual article. Plus you probably did not see my last edit (that one is my fault).

So here is an important quote. "Khan added that he would like to see sharia law implemented beyond Pakistan, even in America, a country he knows intimately. For four years, the Taliban spokesman lived in the United States, working as a painter near Boston, Massachusetts."

2) The Nazi party was "not the world history, a world leader or any other major power" in 1932 either. But I suppose that has no bearing to today's events does it?

3) If you have issues with what the US and/or Israel is doing, that is your right. Go to the UN or start a "new UN" and see how far you get. Just keep bringing it up maybe someone will listen. Or maybe someday your real tactic will work ... distracting people from the real points.

4) What is the definition of torture? And again nice tactic of distraction.

Eki

22nd April 2009, 14:06

1) Obviously you did not read the actual article. Plus you probably did not see my last edit (that one is my fault).

So here is an important quote. "Khan added that he would like to see sharia law implemented beyond Pakistan, even in America, a country he knows intimately. For four years, the Taliban spokesman lived in the United States, working as a painter near Boston, Massachusetts."

Again, what you want and what you get are different things. I don't think there's even a theoretical chance that the US or even Finland will ever be under Sharia Law, except maybe for Muslims (= "their people"), and that's what I think Khan meant, since Sharia law is only for Muslims.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/

Also meaning "path" in Arabic, sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna--the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual.

Eki

22nd April 2009, 14:12

2) The Nazi party was "not the world history, a world leader or any other major power" in 1932 either. But I suppose that has no bearing to today's events does it?

Germany was a major world power before WW2, Afghanistan has never been and most likely won't ever be a major world power.

chuck34

22nd April 2009, 14:39

Again, what you want and what you get are different things. I don't think there's even a theoretical chance that the US or even Finland will ever be under Sharia Law, except maybe for Muslims (= "their people"), and that's what I think Khan meant, since Sharia law is only for Muslims.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/

Then why are Westerners arrested in the Middle East for going against Sharia Law? You know women being out without covering their heads, buying booze, things like that. Also there are quite a few Muslims that believe it is their holy duty to convert everyone to Islam, by force if necessary.

chuck34

22nd April 2009, 14:41

Germany was a major world power before WW2, Afghanistan has never been and most likely won't ever be a major world power.

Afghanistan? Please read the article this is all about. It has nothing to do with Afghanistan. It has everything to do with Pakistan, you know that country right next to Afghanistan, the one with the nukes, the one that doesn't much like India, another nuclear armed country.

schmenke

22nd April 2009, 15:40

A few years ago, the Islamic community tried to have the Ontario province recognise the right to use Sharia Law to settle family disputes, bypassing the provincial judiciary system. This would have been the first western government to recognise Sharia Law.
Fortunately, the provincial legislate ruled against this proposal.

I didn't think anyone was trying to "appease" the Taliban. I thought we were at war with them. Just ask the families of the ~100 Canadian soldiers killed to date in Afganistan :s

Eki

22nd April 2009, 16:21

I didn't think anyone was trying to "appease" the Taliban. I thought we were at war with them. Just ask the families of the ~100 Canadian soldiers killed to date in Afganistan :s
Good point and observation, schmenke.

chuck34

22nd April 2009, 16:25

I didn't think anyone was trying to "appease" the Taliban. I thought we were at war with them. Just ask the families of the ~100 Canadian soldiers killed to date in Afganistan :s

I don't mean any disrespect, but did you read the article? The Pakistani government allowed the Taliban to control (or at least impose sharia law) the Swat Valley Region. They did this so that the violence the Taliban was inciting would stop. This is the very definition of appeasement. Then a week later, "emboldened" by their "victory", the Taliban marched into another territory.

And yes WE (the US, Canada, and some NATO allies) are at war with them. Pakistan is apparently not.

chuck34

22nd April 2009, 16:26

Good point and observation, schmenke.

It is not a good point. Read the d@mn article. Pakistan DID appease the Taliban!

It's like talking to a wall.

Eki

22nd April 2009, 16:26

Afghanistan? Please read the article this is all about. It has nothing to do with Afghanistan. It has everything to do wiith Pakistan, you know that country right next to Afghanistan, the one with the nukes, the one that doesn't much like India, another nuclear armed country.
Taliban is getting foothold in Pakistan because the US and other coalition troops chased them there from Afghanistan. To make things worse, they have bombed the Taliban in Pakistan without asking Pakistan first and killing Pakistani civilians in the process, which have understandably angered many Pakistani and steered their sympathy away from the US and towards the Taliban.

chuck34

22nd April 2009, 16:28

Jag_Warrior

22nd April 2009, 17:01

I don't want Chuck to get chest pains, but I tend to agree with him here. The Taliban has established bases of operations within the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have managed to gain political influence within Pakistan - which led to this "appeasement" that Chuck is referring to. And no, I do not believe it is possible to be reasonable with or to appease the Taliban, which Pakistan has done. It is important to remember that these are fanatical extremists. These are the very same people who supported Osama bin Laden as he launched an attack against the United States. And their dream of dreams would be to secure control over some of the nuclear weapons in Pakistan.

I agreed with the Bush Doctrine's method of dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan (a primary reason that I turned on Palin so hard was because she was too dumb or ignorant to even know what the Bush Doctrine involved). Afghanistan was the country and the Taliban was the group (the government of Afghanistan at that time) that supported the 9/11 attack on the United States. The full force of the United States military should have been brought down on them. But Bush and the neocons slapped them from power, claimed a quick victory and then focused on the country where we didn't have a fight: Iraq. The surviving Taliban quickly rebuilt their forces and now seem to be more emboldened than ever. My problem with Bush and the neocons regarding the Taliban is not that they went too far... IMO, they didn't go far enough.

The attitude of the Taliban in Pakistan seems to be one of, "what the government won't give us, we will take." The Taliban gaining access to the nukes in Pakistan is about the most frightening thing I can imagine for the globe. The Chinese will always be there to keep Kim Jong-il from getting too silly. They can threaten to stop sending him hair spray and take away his platform shoes and teenage concubines, and he'll get back in line. But there is no one and nothing to keep the Taliban in check. And that is damn scary.

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2009, 05:34

Taliban is getting foothold in Pakistan because the US and other coalition troops chased them there from Afghanistan. To make things worse, they have bombed the Taliban in Pakistan without asking Pakistan first and killing Pakistani civilians in the process, which have understandably angered many Pakistani and steered their sympathy away from the US and towards the Taliban.

Eki...news flash for you. As long as anyone from the Taliban is breathing air, they will hate the US and anyone from a Christian nation east of Beirut.

The US could have IGNORED the Taliban in Pakistan and the current situation would still be the Taliban are biding their time and fighting a war over the border to regain control over Afghanistan.

Chuck is correct also in that the Taliban were appeased in Pakistan because there are "moderate" Taliban ( I am still trying to figure out what a moderate Taliban is but that is the term given towards those Taliban members just set on gaining Sharia control of Swat) that the government is trying to use to calm what is basically a civil war situation in the northern provinces of Pakistan.

Pakistan in the north has been and was a civil war situation on many levels, with the moderate Muslims at war with the Taliban refugees from Afghanistan and the "moderate" Taliban tossed in for good measure. Islamabad hasn't had a true grip on this region for years, and they finally have admitted it. They have also given the US military a green light it seems to use their Predator drones for strikes here.

I wish the Taliban were reasonable people, but any religious fundamentalist group who treats women as they do, condones terrorism as they did, and supports Sharia law is no friend of anyone with democratic principles. They in short, are dangerous to only themselves in theory, but in reality their support of Bin Laden and Al Quaida says they cannot be left alone. Hence the NATO presence in the area. I can tell you I don't want my army over there any more than they want the Canadian Army there, but the point has to be reiterated that if the Taliban are going to continue to war with any one who doesn't agree with them and support terrorist organizations such as Al Quaida, then the military actions against them are going to continue.

Argue about that as long as you want, but they were ignored and deplored for years at a distance until Bin Laden's fanatics killed 3000 people in a few hours....

Camelopard

23rd April 2009, 05:46

until Bin Laden's fanatics killed 3000 people in a few hours....

Hey that's ancient history, get over it! :)

Easy Drifter

23rd April 2009, 07:59

I wouldn't call less than 8 years ago ancient history.
If we do not learn from history, ancient or not, it is bound to repeat itself.
According to the news tonight (A CTV station) the Taliban are now trying to expand the territory they control in Pakistan and place the area under Sharia law. By some reports they are endeavoring to overthrow the Govt. of Pakistan.
Wouldn't that be great considering that Pakistan is a nuclear power.
Obama and the rest of the world are facing a real danger here. India cannot afford to let the Taliban gain control in Pakistan any more than the west can but India is quite likely to take immediate and drastic action.
Both Russia and China will be watching and worrying.
The situation in that part of the world could explode into a major war fairly quickly. I certainly hope not but the conditions are ripe.
India does not trust Pakistan at the best of times and Pakistan under Taliban control would be an intolerable situation for India.
Neither China not Russia want a Taliban controlled Pakistan on their borders either. Russia in paticular does not want any part of radical Islamic extremists.

Camelopard

23rd April 2009, 09:08

I wouldn't call less than 8 years ago ancient history.
If we do not learn from history, ancient or not, it is bound to repeat itself.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself, when in another thread I heavily criticised the zionist terror groups (Stern Gang, Irgun etc) acting in the then British Mandate of Palestine, I was told it was ancient history and to get over it! Things like the first use of a car/truck bomb (King David Hotel), some of the first usage of an improvised explosive devices in 1948, the murder of US sailors when their unarmed ship was attacked by israeli jets in 1967 (http://www.rense.com/general26/ally.htm)

P.S., did you know that Menachem Begin was wanted by the British for being a terrorist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Easy Drifter

23rd April 2009, 09:21

Yes.

chuck34

23rd April 2009, 13:34

Yes.

Who didn't know about Begin? Not exactly a state secret.

markabilly

23rd April 2009, 20:13

Appeasement works great
It has been very successful in the past.
I can not think of one time it did not succeed in permitting the appeasee to sooner or later, screw the appeasor except where the appeasor failed to appease enough

Eki

24th April 2009, 13:14

Could "appeasement" work after all?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8015949.stm

Taleban announce key withdrawal

The Taleban say they are withdrawing from a Pakistani district where their consolidation of power this week has caused deep concern in the US.
A Taleban spokesman said commander Maulana Fazlullah had issued the order for fighters to pull back from Buner, just 100km (62 miles) from Islamabad.
The US has accused officials in Pakistan of abdicating to the Taleban.
The Taleban have agreed a peace deal bringing Sharia law to some districts in return for ending their insurgency.
The peace deal covers six districts of Malakand division, including the troubled Swat region, in North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

chuck34

24th April 2009, 13:28

Could "appeasement" work after all?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8015949.stm

Nice try, but next time read the whole thing that you post.

"But the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says circumstances suggest the militants are now under pressure and that a national consensus is building among the public and political parties that they must be challenged with force.
Pakistan's government has clearly stated that unless the Taleban lay down their arms, other options will be considered."

Or perhaps it was the Pakistani troops that were sent to the area.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/23/pakistan.taliban.control.swat/index.html

Easy Drifter

24th April 2009, 16:44

Now Chuck, you know Eki just reads and picks what suits his twisted view of the world.
He is forever quoting UN blather when it comes from leftist sections of the UN but is quick to ignore the UN when it doesn't suit his strange agenda.
I also note that the Taliban are gaining control, basically, of some areas of Pakistan which will then be under Sharia law. I seem the remember Eki saying that they didn't want to force Sharia law on others.
It will also be interesting to see if the Taliban keep their word regarding the area they are supposedly withdrawing from.
Of course, the fact they have effectively captured by force a portion of Pakistan is of no import.

chuck34

24th April 2009, 20:15

Eki

24th April 2009, 20:32

I seem the remember Eki saying that they didn't want to force Sharia law on others.

Other than Muslims. It's a Muslim law.

chuck34

24th April 2009, 20:43

Other than Muslims. It's a Muslim law.

Right. Then tell me why Western women get arrested in some Muslim countries for not wearing head coverings. Or why you can't drink alcohol? What do you think the F1 guys are going to be spraying on the podium this weekend?

Eki

24th April 2009, 20:43

Of course, the fact they have effectively captured by force a portion of Pakistan is of no import.
And how's that different from the US capturing by force a portion of Afghanistan and Iraq? You seem to think it's OK when the US interferes with lives of other people, takes their land and tells them how they should live, but not if someone else does the same.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/23/defense-department-release-prisoner-abuse-photos/

Defense Department to Release Photos Showing Detainee Treatment in Iraq, Afghanistan

The Department of Defense announced late Thursday that at least 44 photos depicting treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan will be released.

FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009

The Department of Defense -- on the heels of the firestorm over the release of Bush-era memos on CIA interrogation techniques -- said Thursday it plans to make public at least 44 photos depicting potentially abusive treatment of detainees at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The decision to release the photos was announced Thursday in a letter filed in a federal court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2004.

It sets a May 28 deadline for the Department of Defense to produce 21 images that the court in 2006 ordered the government to release and 23 additional related images, as well as "a substantial number of other images" in the Army's possession.

The images were part of the military's investigation of potential abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel at facilities other than Iraq Abu Ghraib, though the photos apparently aren't as shocking as those that set off a prisoner abuse scandal in 2004, the Los Angeles Times reports.

chuck34

24th April 2009, 20:48

And how's that different from the US capturing by force a portion of Afghanistan and Iraq? You seem to think it's OK when the US interferes with lives of other people, takes their land and tells them how they should live, but not if someone else does the same.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/23/defense-department-release-prisoner-abuse-photos/

Well let's see. In Afghanistan they (the Taliban led government) had just allowed the worst act of terrorism to happen. And Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions and the cease fire that ended the First Gulf War. What had Pakistan done to deserve the Taliban taking over regions of their country?

And nice post there at the end. What does that have to do with the current topic? Oh yeah I know, it's your favorite tactic again, distraction. Good try.

Eki

24th April 2009, 21:23

Right. Then tell me why Western women get arrested in some Muslim countries for not wearing head coverings. Or why you can't drink alcohol? What do you think the F1 guys are going to be spraying on the podium this weekend?
Because they are in Muslim countries. Tell me why Muslims in Western countries can't have Sharia Law. Could it be because they are in Western countries?

It would be interesting to see if the US police would let some native Africans who are used to walk around women with their breasts bare and men with a penis tube walk around like that on American streets or let some native South Americans and Somalis to chew coca leaves and khat openly, which is legal and OK in their own countries.

Americans don't seem to be that liberal with alcohol either. You have to be 21 when you buy beer (in Finland it's 18) and they even asked me for ID when I bought a six pack in a 7/11. I was 36. I've also heard they may not drink alcohol out in the open and that's why they have "brown bags".

chuck34

24th April 2009, 21:45

Because they are in Muslim countries. Tell me why Muslims in Western countries can't have Sharia Law. Could it be because they are in Western countries?

It would be interesting to see if the US police would let some native Africans who are used to walk around women with their breasts bare and men with a penis tube walk around like that on American streets or let some native South Americans and Somalis to chew coca leaves and khat openly, which is legal and OK in their own countries.

Americans don't seem to be that liberal with alcohol either. You have to be 21 when you buy beer (in Finland it's 18) and they even asked me for ID when I bought a six pack in a 7/11. I was 36. I've also heard they may not drink alcohol out in the open and that's why they have "brown bags".

So you are saying that as soon as a country allows Sharia Law, everyone in the country is automatically a Muslim? So you would be ok with the Muslim minority imposing Sharia Law on the Canadian majority?

That's the trap Eki, once Sharia Law is mandated, they FORCE EVERYONE to be Muslim. So you are correct, Sharia Law is only for Muslims. And you must remember a lot of Muslims want to convert everyone, by force if necessary.

chuck34

24th April 2009, 21:46

One more thing Eki. I think you are getting mixed up between common law and Religious law.

Eki

24th April 2009, 21:59

So you are saying that as soon as a country allows Sharia Law, everyone in the country is automatically a Muslim?

No, but in Muslim countries everyone should automatically obey the local laws regardless of their religion or nationality, even chastity laws, just like in Western countries.

That's the trap Eki, once Sharia Law is mandated, they FORCE EVERYONE to be Muslim. So you are correct, Sharia Law is only for Muslims.
EVERY law is mandated and forced, that's why they talk about law ENFORCEMENT in the US.

They don't force everyone to be a Muslim. Just to behave so that it doesn't disturb and offense the locals.

And you must remember a lot of Muslims want to convert everyone, by force if necessary.
I don't believe that.

Eki

24th April 2009, 22:08

One more thing Eki. I think you are getting mixed up between common law and Religious law.
Law is law. They are always dictated by the prevailing moral beliefs and culture.

Hondo

25th April 2009, 05:31

The Taliban will soon do what the Indian Government could only dream of.

Mark in Oshawa

25th April 2009, 06:16

Law is law. They are always dictated by the prevailing moral beliefs and culture.

Except when you don't agree with it. Then it is wrong.....

Eki, you have twisted yourself into a pretzel defending the undefensible once again. That's ok though, we are used to it.

anthonyvop

25th April 2009, 21:17

The Taliban will soon do what the Indian Government could only dream of.
The last thing India wants is a Taliban led Pakistan

Hondo

25th April 2009, 21:53

The Taliban will mellow out just a little bit, for awhile, after they get Pakistan.

Cooper_S

25th April 2009, 23:29

I do not know about appeasement, but as a citizen of a non combatant nation (in either Afghanistan or Iraq) from the outside looking in I saw a dastardly and horrific attack on the people of New York... this was perpetrated not by another nation, no declaration of war was ever issued by the former USA backed Taliban... but the terrorist who masterminded this atrocity where based in this sovereign nation... America react and invade.... hoping to chase down and capture/kill those responsible... no problem there... the world sympathise and rather than go down the UN route they play the NATO card which demands other members assist... sneaky but so far so good...

But they underestimate their foe and get bogged down in... the bad guy nowhere to be found and they are left with a country to rebuild (while still destroying in this cat and mouse game they instigated)

They without achieving what they set out to do they decide to settle some old scores and invade Iraq on fabricated evidence (well the WMD's was the pretext used to get support, to bad it was lies)... anyway this is all old news and we also know how it has all been one big pile of poo...

But I can't help but believe that had the USA concentrated their efforts on the original action... and just put maximum effort into finding Osama Bin Laden then it would have been done and dusted years ago... and the world would be back to DEFCON 5

Easy Drifter

26th April 2009, 02:38

Eki

26th April 2009, 14:32

Sharia law is more Islamic than Muslim. When the Islamics were pushing for Sharia law in Ont. (and our Liberal Govt. was considering it) some of the most vocal opponents were Muslims who disagreed with the ultra strict Islamic version of the Muslim religion.
The Islamic faction wanted Sharia law to apply to all Muslims and to overule the current laws of Canada [b]when Muslims were involved.[/]
What is your answer to that Eki?
To what? I didn't see any question marks. Like I have said, even the most fundamentalist Muslims don't require Sharia law on non-Muslims, even in Canada. So if I were, I wouldn't worry about someone trying to impose Sharia law on you.

And it was good that the most vocal opponents were Muslims, because I don't think non-Muslims have the right to decide what the Muslims should want and what's good for them. I wouldn't have a problem with Muslim's applying the Sharia law on themselves, if that's what they wanted and decided to do so democratically amongst themselves.

Easy Drifter

26th April 2009, 19:01

So you think the Islamic extremist minority should be able to impose their views on the rest of the Muslim population and overide the laws of the country they have both emigrated to?
In other words Canada, as an example, should allow an extremist Islamic minority to basically set up their own judicial system in Canada that would apply to all Muslims whether they agreed with with Sharia law or not. The majority of Muslims in Canada do not agree with the Islamic regressive credo. The laws or Canada would then no longer apply to Muslims in Canada!
Even for you this is a real stretch of twisted thinking.

Eki

26th April 2009, 19:29

So you think the Islamic extremist minority should be able to impose their views on the rest of the Muslim population and overide the laws of the country they have both emigrated to?
.
I said if they democratically chose to have Sharia law. Minority seldom wins in a democracy. And of course they should obey the common laws of the country when they deal with the non-Muslims. And of course everyone should be free to leave the Muslim community if they don't like the Sharia law. What they do with each other then doesn't that much interest me just as long as they're happy.

markabilly

26th April 2009, 19:32

Those nasty war mongering I-talian almost as bad as taliban just shot a bunch of somali pirates trying to take over a cruise ship....well now imagine that

Easy Drifter

26th April 2009, 20:17

You are still saying Muslims should have the right for their laws to overide those of the country that gave them refuge, if they so wish.
I DO NOT THINK SO!!!! At least not in my country.
Maybe Finland will give them that right.
I would also point out what should have been obvious, that "Islamics" does not include the majority of Muslims but a radical minority that wants to enforce their beliefs on all Muslims. In fact, although I expect you will disagree, their leaders have stated that they want to impose their beliefs on everybody.

Easy Drifter

26th April 2009, 20:35

Oh deary me. My my my.
Those nasty Italians are not playing fair with those sweet innocent Somali pirates.
They went and hired former Israeli soldiers as Security Guards.
That is just dastardly.
(I just thought I would save Eki the trouble of posting.) :eek: :D :rolleyes:

chuck34

27th April 2009, 13:53

I said if they democratically chose to have Sharia law. Minority seldom wins in a democracy. And of course they should obey the common laws of the country when they deal with the non-Muslims. And of course everyone should be free to leave the Muslim community if they don't like the Sharia law. What they do with each other then doesn't that much interest me just as long as they're happy.

So then you do understand the difference between common law and religious law. You just want to be a pr!ck. Just what I thought. You've twisted yourself into a knot just so that you can disagree with us evil Americans (or Canadians).

Eki

27th April 2009, 14:59

So then you do understand the difference between common law and religious law.
Religious law can be a common law too, if there's no alternative. Or there could be several religious laws, one for Muslims, one for Christians, one for Jews, etc., probably also one inter-religion law would be handy in that case.

chuck34

27th April 2009, 15:10

Religious law can be a common law too, if there's no alternative. Or there could be several religious laws, one for Muslims, one for Christians, one for Jews, etc., probably also one inter-religion law would be handy in that case.

Wow that sounds logical, well thought out, and totally workable.

Almost

Easy Drifter

27th April 2009, 16:07

I do think our dear friend Eki has managed to make himself look like a complete idiot once more.

Eki

27th April 2009, 17:30

I do think our dear friend Eki has managed to make himself look like a complete idiot once more.
That's your opinion. In my opinion complete idiots are only those who don't think with their own brains, take everything they are told for granted and don't try to find out and consider alternatives and other points of view before making decisions. You are so blinded by the "excellency" of the "Western culture" that you even refuse to analyze the alternatives objectively.

chuck34

27th April 2009, 23:10

That's your opinion. In my opinion complete idiots are only those who don't think with their own brains, take everything they are told for granted and don't try to find out and consider alternatives and other points of view before making decisions. You are so blinded by the "excellency" of the "Western culture" that you even refuse to analyze the alternatives objectively.

Or alternativly you are blinded by the "corrorptness" of "Western culture" and the "excellency" of all of the "Enemys of the US"? Just food for thought.

Eki

27th April 2009, 23:24

Or alternativly you are blinded by the "corrorptness" of "Western culture" and the "excellency" of all of the "Enemys of the US"? Just food for thought.
Fair point, but I don't think I am. You and I root for the "Western culture" and Osama Bin Laden roots against it. Unless you're ready to meet Osama in the halfway, you're as fanatical and fundamentalist as he is.

Mark in Oshawa

27th April 2009, 23:28

Fair point, but I don't think I am. You and I root for the "Western culture" and Osama Bin Laden roots against it. Unless you're ready to meet Osama in the halfway, you're as fanatical and fundamentalist as he is.

No Eki, it is not fanatical to want democracy, freedom of speech and thought, and equality for the sexes. That is called rational, and you and your moral equivalency argument is a dated left wing concept leftover from the days when smoking dope and protesting "the Man" was a hobby for baby boomers. History has shown repeatedely those who will sanction outright terrorist acts with no remorse are NOT going to be reasoned with. It is only naive people like you who think otherwise...

Eki

27th April 2009, 23:36

No Eki, it is not fanatical to want democracy, freedom of speech and thought, and equality for the sexes.
That's your opinion. It's not a universal truth. Someone may think otherwise. You are impregnated by the Western values and don't realize that those who have never experienced the Western values may not even miss them or even don't know what they are. Your ideas may be as alien to them as their ideas are alien to you.

chuck34

27th April 2009, 23:56

Fair point, but I don't think I am. You and I root for the "Western culture" and Osama Bin Laden roots against it. Unless you're ready to meet Osama in the halfway, you're as fanatical and fundamentalist as he is.

So, let me get this straight. The only time I'm being reasonable is if I meet a mad-man halfway? Good Lord, I'm not sure how you can defend that one.

chuck34

27th April 2009, 23:58

Mark in Oshawa

28th April 2009, 00:02

That's your opinion. It's not a universal truth. Someone may think otherwise. You are impregnated by the Western values and don't realize that those who have never experienced the Western values may not even miss them or even don't know what they are. Your ideas may be as alien to them as their ideas are alien to you.

I don't doubt my ideas are alien to them. My point is my values don't involve killing anyone who isn't of the same religion as me. My values are pretty standard in the Western World. My values may be "inflexable" but "My values" do not involve strapping bombs on teens to be suicide bombers.

You put me and "my values" on the same level with a terrorist. You say they are equally valid. They are valid to each of us, but if you let the people with values that involve terrorism, Sharia fanaticism and 12th century human rights values run the world, I guarntee you and I will not like the result. You don't have to agree with western values to understand that there is a limit to tolerance.

Where you really miss the point Eki is the values which you are always trying to demean or bring down to some esoteric argument about the validity of any opinion are the same ones that allow this forum and you and I to spend days and years arguing about it. Bin Laden and his ilk don't have time for people doing anything or thinking anything that isn't in concert with a strict and nasty form of Islamic thought. It isn't even a rational view of Islam by the majority of Muslims. I would still have no problem with Bin Laden's or the Taliban's view of the world however if they didn't keep trying to enforce it on MY culture. If they want to be that way in their country, I may not like it, but I could look the other way. But on 9/11, we as a society in the west were attacked and now the result is we wont look the other way. We saw where that got us.

Eki

28th April 2009, 06:27

Again, I want to be sure I'm getting you here. It is not a "universal truth" that you don't fly planes full of people into crowded buildings with the express intent to kill the maximum number of people?

Did I say it is?

It's not also a "universal truth" to blow up a building in a third world country with children inside with a laser guided missile.

Eki

28th April 2009, 06:29

So, let me get this straight. The only time I'm being reasonable is if I meet a mad-man halfway? Good Lord, I'm not sure how you can defend that one.
You think he's mad, he probably thinks the same about you.

Cooper_S

28th April 2009, 10:10

blow up a building in a third world country with children inside with a laser guided missile.

Is that blow up a building using a laser giuded missiles that has children inside it...

or

blow up a building in which children with laser guided missiles are inside...

:rolleyes:

F1boat

28th April 2009, 12:06

About the topic, for a first time in ages, I agree with chuck. The Taliban will never stop, ever, until radical Islam conquers the whole world. It will be a disaster if they impose the Sharia on Pakistan, a populous nuclear power. We have Muslims in Bulgaria and they are kind and generous people, but the Taliban are extremely dangerous. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Even the ayatollah in Iran disapprove the Taliban.

chuck34

28th April 2009, 13:16

Did I say it is?

It's not also a "universal truth" to blow up a building in a third world country with children inside with a laser guided missile.

*Sigh* I don't even know what to say to you anymore.

chuck34

28th April 2009, 13:19

You think he's mad, he probably thinks the same about you.

And that is fine Eki. But culture must be based on something, right. I'm willing to say that it should be at least be based on not killing innocent people intentionally. And no the US government/military does not kill innocent people intentionally, no matter what you think. There are innocent poeple killed in the crossfire, but even you can see the difference between that and intentionally flying a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. Right? Dear God, I hope you can see the difference there.

EuroTroll

28th April 2009, 14:09

Hey, I'm trying to write a play. I hoping to sell it to a theatre company, possibly in Finland. Haven't written much yet, but please tell me what you think, so I can improve it. ;)

It's called "Eki and the Madman".

---------------

SCENE 21: Eki is at home. Suddenly the door bell rings. Eki goes to answer it. The Madman is at the door.

MADMAN: Good day, sir. I'm here to rob and murder you.

EKI (happily): And good day to you, kind sir! Rob and murder, you say? Well, I do appreciate your position. I mean, I have a wide selection of items in my household, which I'm sure could be exchanged for money on the black market. And obviously you would want to murder me as well, because the process of carrying the items out of my house and into your - what I assume can only be a - van will then go much smoother.

MADMAN: Yeah, whatever mate... Can we get a move-on, like? I've got another place to do tonight.

EKI: Ah! In a hurry, are you? But we must discuss it! You see, I do not want to be robbed and murdered at all!

MADMAN (sarcastically): You don't, eh...

EKI: No. Not at all. No, no, no! No robbing and murdering for me, if you would be so kind.

MADMAN (somewhat angrily): Listen mate...

EKI: You see, what we have here is a legitimate conflict of interests! You want to rob and murder me, whereas I do not want to be robbed and murdered. Oh, I do enjoy this! Let's work out a compromise, shall we?

MADMAN (increasingly angrily): Listen, I've got a knife and if you don't shut up, I'm gonna...

EKI: A knife! Ah, so you've come prepared. Excellent.

MADMAN (now really quite angry): Yeah, and I'm gonna cut you, motherf***er!!

EKI: Now, now. Temper, temper. We can solve this issue, I promise you!

MADMAN: Did I not mention the other job I have to do today?? Tick-tack, tick-tack...

EKI: Here's what I propose. You do not kill me.

MADMAN: What...?

EKI: No, no killing. But you can stab me a few times - I have no objection to that! This will effectively incapacitate me, so you will be free to carry off my stuff to your van.

MADMAN: Listen, that's not really the way I do things...

EKI: Ah, but you see, this is an opportunity for you to grow - expand the variety of your methods!

MADMAN (confused): Right...

EKI: And, here's the second part of my proposal: you obviously take my television set, my micro-wave, my stereo and my jewelry. No objections to that! But - you don't take my computer.

MADMAN: What??

EKI: Yes. No, you don't take the computer. 'Cause I really need that, you see. I must have the ability to post on Motorsportforums, so that I can tell everyone about this wonderful experience I've had with you, and how we reached a mutually agreeable solution to a difficult problem.

MADMAN: Oh, f*** it! Alright, let's do it your way. This time! But next time... Next time there'll be more killing and less talking!

EKI (happily): Now, you see? Wasn't this fun?

MADMAN: Yeah, whatever mate...

(The Madman stabs Eki in the neck and three times in the thigh. He then carries off his television set, his micro-wave, his stereo and his jewelry.)

MADMAN: Well, all done, I guess.

EKI (bleeding, barely able to speak): Good for you! Really, I'm very happy for you. Can't wait for next...

(The Madman slams the door and walks away.)

Eki

28th April 2009, 15:08

EuroTroll

28th April 2009, 15:17

Maybe the Madman could speak with an Estonian accent and the black market be in Tallinn? Stereotypes are always funny.

Yes, I know they are. :)

But...

Stereotype: a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. ;)

You see? Very different.

As this play is just about you (or, more precisely, your forum character). :D And the Madman, of course. Two crazy cats who could be of any nationality. ;) That's why I think this play is gonna be a real good seller, all around the world. :D

Eki

28th April 2009, 15:38

And that is fine Eki. But culture must be based on something, right. I'm willing to say that it should be at least be based on not killing innocent people intentionally.
That's how you've been brought up under a moral code based on Christianity. But there have been cultures who even had human sacrifices to appease their Gods, and they didn't think there was anything wrong with it. One could also argue that none of us is innocent, some are just more guilty than others. For example, 9/11 attacks were not against some day care center, they were against the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the symbols of American economical and military power. Those powers have aided the Israelis to kill Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and destroy their homes. Bin Laden has said that one important cause behind his actions were when he saw what the American military was doing to the Lebanese:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

According to some observers a major motivation for the bombing was the ill will generated among Lebanese Muslims, especially Shiʿa living in the slums of West Beirut and around the airport where the marines were headquartered. They saw the MNF "not as a peacekeeping force but as another faction in the Lebanese war." U.S. troops particularly were seen as siding with the Maronite Catholics in their domination of Lebanon. Muslim feelings against the American presence were "exacerbated when missiles lobbed by the U.S. Sixth Fleet hit innocent by-standers in the Druze-dominated Shuf mountains."[10]

Do you really think it's morally more right to hit some Taliban headquarter than to hit Pentagon? I don't. They are both as wrong or as right. Two sides of the same coin.

chuck34

28th April 2009, 15:58

Hey, I'm trying to write a play. I hoping to sell it to a theatre company, possibly in Finland. Haven't written much yet, but please tell me what you think, so I can improve it. ;)

It's called "Eki and the Madman".

...snip...

I quite like this play. However to keep with the original topic you should add a scene. Basically the Madman comes back the next day, kills Eki, and steals his computer. That would show that appeasement doesn't work.

EuroTroll

28th April 2009, 16:02

I quite like this play. However to keep with the original topic you should add a scene. Basically the Madman comes back the next day, kills Eki, and steals his computer. That would show that appeasement doesn't work.

Well, I don't really want to give the ending away (as I hope you'll go see it on Broadway), but eventually the Madman does kill Eki. To Eki's great delight. ;)

chuck34

28th April 2009, 16:08

That's how you've been brought up under a moral code based on Christianity. But there have been cultures who even had human sacrifices to appease their Gods, and they didn't think there was anything wrong with it. One could also argue that none of us is innocent, some are just more guilty than others. For example, 9/11 attacks were not against some day care center, they were against the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the symbols of American economical and military power. Those powers have aided the Israelis to kill Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and destroy their homes. Bin Laden has said that one important cause behind his actions were when he saw what the American military was doing to the Lebanese:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Do you really think it's morally more right to hit some Taliban headquarter than to hit Pentagon? I don't. They are both as wrong or as right. Two sides of the same coin.

So you are seriously trying to say that the victims of 9/11 were not innocent? That somehow being economically successful is now a crime?

And don't give me this crap about the Pentagon being equivalent to a Taliban headquarters. Maybe in some twisted look at logic you might have a small point. But the biggest difference would be that the US military does not use civilian planes with innocent civilians on board to go bomb the Taliban headquarters.

If you insist on going down this path of trying to give Bin Laden or the Taliban or terrorists in general some sort of moral right to do what they do, I'm not sure how much longer we can have these debates. It is very hard to debate someone with no grounding in fundamental human rights.

chuck34

28th April 2009, 16:18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

And now to top it all off you are somehow suggesting that one of the causes of 9/11 was the fact that our Marines were bombed in Beirut while trying to save lives? Muslim, Christian, and Jewish lives?

And why is it that no one wants to give the US for saving Muslim lives when Christians were the oppressors. Oh that's right, it doesn't fit the "agenda".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War

Eki

28th April 2009, 17:04

Is that blow up a building using a laser giuded missiles that has children inside it...

or

blow up a building in which children with laser guided missiles are inside...

:rolleyes:
Guess.

Eki

28th April 2009, 17:19

And now to top it all off you are somehow suggesting that one of the causes of 9/11 was the fact that our Marines were bombed in Beirut while trying to save lives? Muslim, Christian, and Jewish lives?

Can't you read or are you just twisting my words and trying a distraction? Not because they "were trying to save lives" but because their missiles hit innocent by-standers in the Shuf mountains:

Muslim feelings against the American presence were "exacerbated when missiles lobbed by the U.S. Sixth Fleet hit innocent by-standers in the Druze-dominated Shuf mountains."[10]

Now, we can again try to figure out who's really innocent and who's not.

Eki

28th April 2009, 17:27

If you insist on going down this path of trying to give Bin Laden or the Taliban or terrorists in general some sort of moral right to do what they do,
I'm not trying to give Bin Laden or the Taliban or terrorists any moral right, but neither I'm trying to give the US government and military any sort of moral right to do what they do. Just trying to take an impartial look on how things really are and not how you feel them to be.

chuck34

28th April 2009, 19:08

Can't you read or are you just twisting my words and trying a distraction? Not because they "were trying to save lives" but because their missiles hit innocent by-standers in the Shuf mountains:

Now, we can again try to figure out who's really innocent and who's not.

Why were they there, and why were they firing missiles?

**sigh**

chuck34

28th April 2009, 19:10

I'm not trying to give Bin Laden or the Taliban or terrorists any moral right, but neither I'm trying to give the US government and military any sort of moral right to do what they do. Just trying to take an impartial look on how things really are and not how you feel them to be.

Yes you are. If you are trying to look at their "point of view" you ARE trying to give them a moral right to do what they have done. After you kill 3000+ innocent civilians ON PURPOSE you have lost all rights to a "point of view".

Eki

28th April 2009, 19:29

Why were they there, and why were they firing missiles?

**sigh**
Do you think those seeking revenge care any more than you care why al-Qaeda did the 9/11 attacks?

You said they were there "trying to save lives", but how do you save lives by firing missiles at people? If that's really possible, why weren't Americans firing missiles on Israeli military when they were murdering Lebanese civilians in 2006? If they had, maybe it would be easier for the Lebanese and others to believe that the Americans "are with them and not against them".

Easy Drifter

29th April 2009, 05:02

Absolutely nothing to do with what this thread is supposed to be about.
Just another moronic attack on the US for nothing.
Eki you have surpassed yourself in finding a way to critisize the US that has absolutely no sensible purpose.
Mind you it does suceed in making you look even more foolish than you usually do and that takes some doing.

Eki

29th April 2009, 07:57

Absolutely nothing to do with what this thread is supposed to be about.

Nothing? The title of this thread "This is why appeasement doesn't work", and I'm asking why would the Muslim world appease the US and Israel if they don't appease the Muslim world and if appeasement doesn't work. I think it has a lot to do with this thread.

Mark in Oshawa

2nd May 2009, 23:14

EKi....it shouldn't be up to the moderate and tolerant Western world to APPEASE an idelogy that endorses terrorism.

markabilly

3rd May 2009, 18:17

Appeasement is great and noble tool, when done right...but one must understand how to properly use appeasement:

The story of Remorca serves a great example. The prince was concerned about a particularly troublesome area, sent this very capable and loyal man to "cure" this troublesome group of people, granting him complete and unlimited power.

And very harshly and brutally he did so, quickly bringing a fearful quiet to the region (as machavellie [pronounced as "markabilly" by an old former prof of mine] once said a great leader should be both feared and loved, but seldom can you have both, so it is better to be feared)

Anyway, realizing that the remaining general population (now minus the ringleaders) had developed some resentment resentment over the brutual treatment, he decided to appease them

"And having taken this for his opportunity, he had him placed in the square in Cesena, one morning, in two pieces ] with a piece of wood and a bloody knife beside him. The ferocity of which spectacle left those peoples at once satisfied and stupefied."

And so they became loyal subjects, grateful for the "mercy" he had shown in appeasing them............

Some might understand this concept better, by reference to the term "scapegoat"

"...a prince must not care about the infamy of cruelty in order to keep his subjects united and faithful; because with very few examples he will be more merciful than those who, because of too much mercy, allow disorders to go on, from which spring killings or depredations: because these normally offend a whole collectivity, while those executions which come from the prince offend the individual...."

Eki

3rd May 2009, 23:10

EKi....it shouldn't be up to the moderate and tolerant Western world to APPEASE an idelogy that endorses terrorism.
Says who? Who makes the rules? God?

Don't you think that military operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon are forms of terrorism too?

Easy Drifter

4th May 2009, 03:59

Only in twisted minds of those who in reality hate the free world and prefer demented extremists.
Eki what is your opinion of the situation in Zimbawe and thoughts on Mugabe's rule?

Eki

4th May 2009, 06:37

Only in twisted minds of those who in reality hate the free world and prefer demented extremists.
Eki what is your opinion of the situation in Zimbawe and thoughts on Mugabe's rule?
I haven't thought about it and don't know much about Zimbabwe or Mugabe. But at least there aren't any foreign troops killing Zimbabweans, as far as I know, which is good.

steve_spackman

4th May 2009, 10:24

Says who? Who makes the rules? God?

Don't you think that military operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon are forms of terrorism too?

All those military operations were/are done for our greater good by our great leaders to protect us from the invisible enemy!!!

The enemy they themselves created!!!

Israel, AIPAC, Bush and Blair will never be tried for war crimes..wonder why?

steve_spackman

4th May 2009, 10:28

Only in twisted minds of those who in reality hate the free world and prefer demented extremists.
Eki what is your opinion of the situation in Zimbawe and thoughts on Mugabe's rule?

I think why hasnt we the mighty west not gone in and helped the people who have been affected by this terrible situation?

Could it be that they have no oil for us? They have nothing that we could want?

EuroTroll

5th May 2009, 15:08

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - W. Churchill

Rather good that, what? ;)

chuck34

5th May 2009, 20:50

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - W. Churchill

Rather good that, what? ;)

Gotta love Churchill. He's full of great quotes.

anthonyvop

6th May 2009, 04:15

The enemy they themselves created!!!

Right.
The 9/11 highjackers attacked the US because of our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq...........Oh.....Wait.
They attacked the US because of Abu-Grahb.........Oh????
They attacked the US because of Gitmo?

Using your Logic then we should blame the Jews for Hitler.

Eki

6th May 2009, 07:00

Right.
The 9/11 highjackers attacked the US because of our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq...........Oh.....Wait.
They attacked the US because of Abu-Grahb.........Oh????
They attacked the US because of Gitmo?

Using your Logic then we should blame the Jews for Hitler.
The world history didn't begin 9/11/2001.

They attacked the US because of aiding and supporting Israel since the 1940s.
They attacked the US for killing innocent bystanders in Lebanon and siding with the Catholic Lebanese in the 1980s.
They attacked the US because of US troops in Saudi Arabia since the 1990s.
They attacked Britain and Spain for joining the US in Iraq in 2003.
They have attacked American troops in Iraq because the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and have since killed a lot of Iraqis, including several civilians.
and so on

chuck34

6th May 2009, 13:37

The world history didn't begin 9/11/2001.

They attacked the US because of aiding and supporting Israel since the 1940s.
They attacked the US for killing innocent bystanders in Lebanon and siding with the Catholic Lebanese in the 1980s.
They attacked the US because of US troops in Saudi Arabia since the 1990s.
They attacked Britain and Spain for joining the US in Iraq in 2003.
They have attacked American troops in Iraq because the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and have since killed a lot of Iraqis, including several civilians.
and so on

And they conveniently forgot about our support for the Muslims in Bosnia. Or all the Muslim refugees we took in from Somolia. Etc, Etc.

Eki

6th May 2009, 14:04

And they conveniently forgot about our support for the Muslims in Bosnia. Or all the Muslim refugees we took in from Somolia. Etc, Etc.
They probably don't matter to them and some Somalian refugees may even be their enemies, if they have escaped the Somalian Islamists.

markabilly

6th May 2009, 14:05

only a fool argues with another fool-

chuck34

6th May 2009, 14:30

They probably don't matter to them and some Somalian refugees may even be their enemies, if they have escaped the Somalian Islamists.

Ok so when the US does something good, that doesn't matter. But when the US does something "bad", that is the biggest crime against humanity ever. Great logic there, good to know.

Also, I didn't mention this before, but should have. Every one of the things on your list was also a case where the US was trying to help out Muslims throughout the Middle East. Well maybe not supporting Israel, but that wasn't really Anti-Muslim either (originally two states).

chuck34

6th May 2009, 14:31

only a fool argues with another fool-

Call me a fool then. But it keeps me from being bored.

Eki

6th May 2009, 17:08

Ok so when the US does something good, that doesn't matter. But when the US does something "bad", that is the biggest crime against humanity ever. Great logic there, good to know.

If you've harmed someone's friend or a family member and he want's to revenge, he doesn't much care how much good you've done to some stranger. People are funny that way. Every Palestinian, Iraqi, Pakistani or Afghan Americans or Israelis kill make so much easier for the terrorist organization to hire new recruits. For example, I've read that many female suicide bombers whose number has been increasing have done it to revenge a husband, brother or some other family member who Israelis or Americans have killed.

chuck34

6th May 2009, 17:18

Eki

6th May 2009, 18:04

So who in the Bin Laden family has the US harmed?
Do you think he's done those attacks all by himself? He needs followers to survive.

Bush didn't lose any family members in the 9/11 attacks, but he exploited them and patriotic feelings of Americans in his politics, just like bin Laden exploits sufferings of Muslims in his career.

Eki

6th May 2009, 18:08

If you've harmed someone's friend or a family member and he want's to revenge, he doesn't much care how much good you've done to some stranger. People are funny that way. Every Palestinian, Iraqi, Pakistani or Afghan Americans or Israelis kill make so much easier for the terrorist organization to hire new recruits. For example, I've read that many female suicide bombers whose number has been increasing have done it to revenge a husband, brother or some other family member who Israelis or Americans have killed.

Just when I had written that, I heard about this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/afghan.us.airstrike/index.html

U.S. probes strike on Afghan civilians

(CNN) -- Afghan civilians were killed in U.S. airstrikes during fighting this week in western Afghanistan, local officials and the Red Cross said.

Villagers pray at a mass grave this week after an airstrike in Afghanistan's Farah province.

The reports come as concerns mount over casualties of noncombatants in the war against the Taliban.

The airstrikes occurred Tuesday in the western province of Farah after U.S. Marines, trying to aid Afghan forces under attack, came under fire themselves.

The U.S. military -- which is investigating after hearing claims of civilian deaths -- has preliminarily concluded that about 11 civilians were wounded and that 11 insurgents were killed, a senior U.S. military official said.

The news comes as Afghan President Hamid Karzai visits Washington this week. Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart, President Asif Ali Zardari, are talking with key congressional leaders and policymakers in advance of meetings with President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Karzai has denounced civilian casualties caused by warfare, and he reportedly is concerned that they have and will hurt the coalition's standing among the Afghan people. He raised the issue of avoiding civilian casualties in remarks Tuesday at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

The latest incident took place near the village of Granai in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, where there was fighting between Afghan soldiers, backed by coalition forces, and the "armed opposition," according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC.

The chief police commander in Farah, Col. Abdul Ghaphtar Watandar, confirmed that a number of civilians were killed in Tuesday's coalition military operation. However, he declined to discuss the number of dead and wounded until an investigating commission returns from the area.

The ICRC said it appeared that "dozens of people, including women and children, were killed in airstrikes," but couldn't determine the exact number of dead as many had been buried by the time ICRC officials arrived at the scene.

"We know that those killed included an Afghan Red Crescent volunteer and 13 members of his family who had been sheltering from fighting in a house that was bombed in an airstrike," said Reto Stocker, the ICRC's head of delegation in Kabul, Afghanistan, in a statement.

"We are deeply concerned by these events. Tribal elders in the villages called the ICRC during the fighting to report civilian casualties and ask for help. As soon as we heard of the attacks we contacted all sides to warn them that there were civilians and injured people in the area," Stocker said.

Way to go :roll:

chuck34

6th May 2009, 18:37

Do you think he's done those attacks all by himself? He needs followers to survive.

Bush didn't lose any family members in the 9/11 attacks, but he exploited them and patriotic feelings of Americans in his politics, just like bin Laden exploits sufferings of Muslims in his career.

YOUR premise was that only people who have had family members killed by the US are doing these things. So I'll ask again. How has the US hurt Bin Laden or his family? No one is talking about Bush except for you.

Eki's moto: when all else fails, BLAME BUSH!

chuck34

6th May 2009, 18:43

Come on Eki, I started this thread to talk about something new and different, appeasement and how it doesn't work. You've successfully highjacked another thread so that you can bash Bush and the US for everything under the sun.

How about we get back on topic?

I have given examples of how appeasement doesn't work. How about you post something that says it does? Looking back through this mess I'm not seeing you give any, yet you seem to support it.

Eki

6th May 2009, 20:41

YOUR premise was that only people who have had family members killed by the US are doing these things. So I'll ask again. How has the US hurt Bin Laden or his family? No one is talking about Bush except for you.
Why should we talk about bin Laden then? Another power hungry individual. I ask again: How did the 9/11 attacks hurt Bush or his family? Two sides of the same coin.

Chuck's motto: when all else fails, BLAME BIN LADEN!

Eki

6th May 2009, 20:48

YOUR premise was that only people who have had family members killed by the US are doing these things.
Where exactly did I say "only"? It wasn't only the family members of those killed in the 9/11 attacks who cried for revenge either.

chuck34

6th May 2009, 20:53

Why should we talk about bin Laden then? Another power hungry individual. I ask again: How did the 9/11 attacks hurt Bush or his family? Two sides of the same coin.

Chuck's motto: when all else fails, BLAME BIN LADEN!

Because you brought up 9/11 and bin Laden. I was answering you. I wasn't the one that came up with this crazy notion that you have to have had a member of your family hurt to do things, that was you. I never once said anything about Bush or his family being hurt on 9/11.

Two sides of the same coin? You've got to be kidding me. Your constant need to draw some moral equivalency between Bush/US and Bin Laden is laughable at best.

D@mn skippy I blame bin Laden for bombing the WTC, and killing thousands of innocent people for no good reason.

chuck34

6th May 2009, 21:01

Where exactly did I say "only"? It wasn't only the family members of those killed in the 9/11 attacks who cried for revenge either.

Exactly, thank you for proving my point. It wasn't only family members of those killed in the 9/11 attacks who cried for revenge. You are exactly right. Most of the world decried that dasterdly attack. That proves that most of the world has a moral center, and the attacks go completely against that moral grounding. Most of the world understands that there is no moral equivalency between what the US has done in Afghanistan and what bin Laden did to us. Most of the world understands that flying planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people is not right. Most of the world understands that the government that supported the group that carried out this act should not be allowed to maintain control over anything. Apparently you, my friend, are in the minority that sees "their point of view".

Eki

6th May 2009, 21:04

D@mn skippy I blame bin Laden for bombing the WTC, and killing thousands of innocent people for no good reason.
Many Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis probably blame Bush and the US for bombing their homes, villages, towns and cities killing thousands of innocent people for no good reason just the same (they most likely don't consider the 9/11 attacks a good reason, and neither do I).

chuck34

6th May 2009, 21:24

Many Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis probably blame Bush and the US for bombing their homes, villages, towns and cities killing thousands of innocent people for no good reason just the same (they most likely don't consider the 9/11 attacks a good reason, and neither do I).

The Iraqis, no that wasn't because of 9/11. That was because Saddam violated the cease fire that ended the First Gulf War along with a whole host of UN sanctions.

The Afghans, that was 9/11 and if they don't understand that, I'll be happy to explain it to them.

The Pakistanis, that was only tangentially related to 9/11. You know harboring the guys who pulled off 9/11 and all.

And one minor thing that you keep leaving out. None of these innocent civilians was intentionally targeted. Every one of them was a mistake. If I personally could do anything about it, I'd go back and take back the mistakes. And I bet if you ask him GWB would like to take back those mistakes too. That was not the case with the WTC. Bin Laden intentionally targeted civilians. They weren't caught in the crossfire, or mistakenly targeted or anything like that. They were the targets.

Eki

7th May 2009, 19:27

And one minor thing that you keep leaving out. None of these innocent civilians was intentionally targeted. Every one of them was a mistake. If I personally could do anything about it, I'd go back and take back the mistakes. And I bet if you ask him GWB would like to take back those mistakes too. That was not the case with the WTC. Bin Laden intentionally targeted civilians. They weren't caught in the crossfire, or mistakenly targeted or anything like that. They were the targets.
Everyone knows that mistakes happen, but the more careful you are the less mistakes happen. That's a fact. I don't think in Afghanistan and Iraq the Americans much care about their mistakes that take foreign lives. Everybody knows that people can get killed if you bomb them. If American military believed that there was a possibility of American civilians being on some area, I'm sure they wouldn't level the place with bombs and missiles, even if there were also Taliban fighters. But they don't care if there's a chance of Afghan
civilians being in the area in addition to Taliban fighters.

chuck34

7th May 2009, 22:48

Everyone knows that mistakes happen, but the more careful you are the less mistakes happen. That's a fact. I don't think in Afghanistan and Iraq the Americans much care about their mistakes that take foreign lives. Everybody knows that people can get killed if you bomb them. If American military believed that there was a possibility of American civilians being on some area, I'm sure they wouldn't level the place with bombs and missiles, even if there were also Taliban fighters. But they don't care if there's a chance of Afghan
civilians being in the area in addition to Taliban fighters.

So you don't think that the US military cares about the Afghan civilians? That's a good one. Now I know you ar joking. There can be no more doubt.

Why do you think the Taliban hide among the civilians? Since I'm sure you don't know, I'll go ahead and answer my own question. It's because they KNOW the US military will do anything they can to avoid bombing or even fighting in populated areas. Sometimes, if the target is of "high enough value", they will do it. But you can be sure there are painstaking decisions being made all the way up the command chain.

Eki

8th May 2009, 06:41

Why do you think the Taliban hide among the civilians?
Because it's their country and they live there.

Easy Drifter

8th May 2009, 07:41

A large percentage of the 'Taliban' are not from Afghanistan. Many are Islamic mercenaries.

Mark in Oshawa

9th May 2009, 05:38

Because it's their country and they live there.

No...it isn't their country anymore. They lost that privledge when they banned any personal freedoms to their citizenry, used their people as human sheilds and supported and exported terrorism in the name of Islam.

The people in these villages and farms once they know they are protected always point out the militant Taliban to the Canadian Army in Kandahar district. It is the reason the Taliban now are basing most of their operations out of Pakistan, where last time I looked, they were not wanted either.

The sad part is, no one was bothering with them (and it was sad for the people they tormented) until they gave Bin Laden license to export his terrorist cells from their nation and they harboured them. After 9/11 they defended him.

They complain about the west, but sadly, we were ignoring them and their cruel ways towards the Afghani people. This is a tribal war mixed in with Islamic fundamentalist radicalism and it was ignored once the Russians were driven out. If they didn't want the US, and NATO nations beating on them, they should of coughed up Bin Laden for extradition. It was that simple really......

That said..I know you will disagree Eki, you always side with the dictators, thugs and theives in this world if they are on the other side of any conflict with Americans. Moral equivalency means having to sleep with thugs....

Eki

9th May 2009, 08:10

No...it isn't their country anymore. They lost that privledge when they banned any personal freedoms to their citizenry, used their people as human sheilds and supported and exported terrorism in the name of Islam.

The people in these villages and farms once they know they are protected always point out the militant Taliban to the Canadian Army in Kandahar district. It is the reason the Taliban now are basing most of their operations out of Pakistan, where last time I looked, they were not wanted either.

The sad part is, no one was bothering with them (and it was sad for the people they tormented) until they gave Bin Laden license to export his terrorist cells from their nation and they harboured them. After 9/11 they defended him.

They complain about the west, but sadly, we were ignoring them and their cruel ways towards the Afghani people. This is a tribal war mixed in with Islamic fundamentalist radicalism and it was ignored once the Russians were driven out. If they didn't want the US, and NATO nations beating on them, they should of coughed up Bin Laden for extradition. It was that simple really......

That said..I know you will disagree Eki, you always side with the dictators, thugs and theives in this world if they are on the other side of any conflict with Americans. Moral equivalency means having to sleep with thugs....
Are you sure the alternative is that much better? Too much freedom for some can be bad for some others. This probably wouldn't have happened under Taliban:

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/05/finnish-funded_prison_turns_brothel_724554.html

Finnish-Funded Prison Turns Brothel?
published Wed 08:54 PM, updated yesterday 11:32 AM

Finnish officials suspect that a new women's prison in northern Afghanistan, built through Finnish money and political will, may have been turned into a brothel.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs suspects that inmates may have been forced to sexually service guards, employees and their guests.
"We suspect that the prison's top managers are involved, but we haven't confirmed this, as inquiries into the matter are still ongoing," says Rauli Suikkanen, a counsellor at the Foreign Ministry's Department of Asian and Oceanic Affairs.
"It's possible that this activity was not entirely forced upon all the women. Drug dealing and the presence of drugs may also be an issue," he says.
The ministry got wind of the abuse when its own staff members were offered the inmates' sexual services.
The prison was supposed to be a kind of haven for disenfranchised women. This may seem strange to Westerners, but many women in Afghanistan are imprisoned for adultery, various forms of 'dishonour', and for being the victims of rape. Children are often imprisoned with their mothers in squalid conditions.
The prison, which Finland paid for, was a way for aid workers to reach these women in order to provide security, health care and education for them and their children.
The prison's grand opening was celebrated just two months ago - on International Women's Day.

Garry Walker

9th May 2009, 13:17

It it quite worrying that people such as eki exist in world.

Eki

9th May 2009, 18:34

It it quite worrying that people such as eki exist in world.
It's also quite worrying that there are inflexible fundamentalists, such as Bin Laden, Bush and you, who only see one side of things, their own.

EuroTroll

9th May 2009, 19:38

Eki

9th May 2009, 21:04

Eki, can I ask you a personal question? Why do you do it?

Do really still get pleasure out of it, after... how many years has it been? 7-8? Finland has such beautiful nature, why don't you try fishing or hunting or hiking? :) Much healthier hobbies, those. :)

No offence. ;) It just seems to me that at least 75% of the time, you write stuff that you couldn't possibly really mean, being an intelligent person. You write it to piss people off, to get a reaction. You troll. ;)

Don't you think it's a bit perverse? I mean, what's the point of doing that for years and years and years? In the words of John Cleese, "Where's the pleasure in that??"

Or am I completely wrong?
I'd imagine that you too, as an Estonian, would be more skeptical about "super powers" who interfere with affairs of smaller countries and sometimes even invade them and force them under their will. I'm trying to make people think and understand that not everyone on this planet think and feel the same way as they do, there are also dissidents.

EuroTroll

10th May 2009, 12:37

I'm trying to make people think and understand that not everyone on this planet think and feel the same way as they do, there are also dissidents.

Ok, that's a fair cause... And your input into these threads certainly make them more interesting. :D I just wish though that you would post more honestly and sincerely. ;)

But hey, that's just a suggestion. To each his own, as they say. :)

Mark in Oshawa

11th May 2009, 05:01

Only Eki would worry about too much freedom. How about we censor you Eki, since you feel too much freedom is harmful?

Eki

11th May 2009, 07:12

Only Eki would worry about too much freedom. How about we censor you Eki, since you feel too much freedom is harmful?
That wouldn't be new to me. I've been banned from another forum for being "anti-American". They didn't even understand the irony when I compared them to China and Saudi-Arabia where the internet is also censored.

And I'm not the only one who worry about too much freedom. Our government for example forbids selling alcohol and tobacco to persons under 18 years and non-medicinal drugs are banned all together. There are also laws to control cars, firearms and even "indecent exposure".

Easy Drifter

11th May 2009, 18:45

Good grief Eki. Do you not fall under that last one?!!!! :s hock: :rotflmao:

steve_spackman

11th May 2009, 18:57

. Most of the world understands that there is no moral equivalency between what the US has done in Afghanistan and what bin Laden did to us.

But there is when it comes to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.

Eki

11th May 2009, 19:01

Good grief Eki. Do you not fall under that last one?!!!! :s hock: :rotflmao:
No, since the local law enforcement has forced me to wear burkha.

chuck34

11th May 2009, 21:28

But there is when it comes to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11. I have never said it did, nor will I ever say such a thing. Iraq happened because they were in violation of numerous UN sanctions with no intentions of even playing lip service to complying with. They were also in violation of the terms of the cease-fire that ended the First Gluf War (concurrent with the UN Sanction).

As a matter of fact, Bush never said there was a link between the two. Although one of his greatest downfalls was not speaking out against that falsehood that was perpetuated. What he did say was that Iraq had, from time to time, been used as a training ground for Al Queda. That is quite different than Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, right?

Hondo

11th May 2009, 21:40

I'd imagine that you too, as an Estonian, would be more skeptical about "super powers" who interfere with affairs of smaller countries and sometimes even invade them and force them under their will. I'm trying to make people think and understand that not everyone on this planet think and feel the same way as they do, there are also dissidents.

I figured that out about you years ago. Do I win anything?

Eki

11th May 2009, 21:44

Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11. I have never said it did, nor will I ever say such a thing. Iraq happened because they were in violation of numerous UN sanctions with no intentions of even playing lip service to complying with. They were also in violation of the terms of the cease-fire that ended the First Gluf War (concurrent with the UN Sanction).

As a matter of fact, Bush never said there was a link between the two. Although one of his greatest downfalls was not speaking out against that falsehood that was perpetuated. What he did say was that Iraq had, from time to time, been used as a training ground for Al Queda. That is quite different than Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, right?
Really?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/bush_contradicted_on_iraq_al_qaeda.html

Before the US invaded Iraq, President Bush said he had intelligence evidence that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." Vice President Cheney said Iraq was the heart of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." They repeatedly advanced the idea that Saddam could one day furnish nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to al Qaeda or other terrorists.

Neil Young has recorded evidence of that bolded quote in his song "Let's Impeach the President":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_cS_iQ-w0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOntdFjhd5c&NR=1

Hondo

11th May 2009, 21:45

Part of being from a small country depends on whether you view the super power as a protecter and friend or as a constant strong arm threat.

Hondo

11th May 2009, 21:46

steve_spackman

11th May 2009, 22:14

steve_spackman

11th May 2009, 22:20

Eki

11th May 2009, 22:26

Part of being from a small country depends on whether you view the super power as a protecter and friend or as a constant strong arm threat.
True, most of the Finns and probably also of the Estonians viewed the Soviet Union as a constant strong arm threat, and I'm quite sure that much of the Iraqis, Iranians, North Koreans and Afghans feel the same about the US. When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, they told their people and troops that they were going to "liberate the Finnish working class from their capitalist and fascist oppressors" and believed that the Finnish working class would join them and turn against their leaders. Many if not most of the Finnish working class agreed with the oppression part, but their patriotic feelings were deeper than their political feelings, so they greeted their Soviet comrades with bullets instead of roses.

Eki

11th May 2009, 22:28

I'm all for impeaching the President.
I'm sure you do, namely the present one.

chuck34

12th May 2009, 00:40

Really?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/bush_contradicted_on_iraq_al_qaeda.html

Neil Young has recorded evidence of that bolded quote in his song "Let's Impeach the President":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_cS_iQ-w0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOntdFjhd5c&NR=1

Don't you see a difference between "Iraq helped plan 9/11" and "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."?

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before 9/11 although not for very long and not the faction that planned 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has been overstated. And for that I do blame Bush. He should have always made clear that Iraq and 9/11 were two seperate issues that both came to a head at the same time.

chuck34

12th May 2009, 00:46

We all know why Bush invaded Iraq...and it wasnt because of the UN sanctions...

The theory that you and people on the left by in to is different than the truth, I'll give you that. But we don't all "know" that Bush invaded Iraq for something other than UN sanctions.

I don't want to go over this for the umteenth million time. You can believe what you want, and I'll believe what I feel the truth is. In my mind it is much easier to believe that the US went to war against Iraq because they were seen as a threat. That is much easier to believe (especially in light of the fact that the previous admin. had said so and took many of the same actions), than all conspiracy theories I've heard.

Ok I'm done with this now. If you guys want to talk about Iraq, go start another thread. This is supposed to be about appeasement.

Eki

12th May 2009, 16:59

Ok I'm done with this now. If you guys want to talk about Iraq, go start another thread. This is supposed to be about appeasement.
Iraq's current regime has been appeasing the US instead of joining the resistance. In Norway they used to call people like that Quislings, and I guess your people could call them Benedict Arnolds.

chuck34

12th May 2009, 17:16

Iraq's current regime has been appeasing the US instead of joining the resistance. In Norway they used to call people like that Quislings, and I guess your people could call them Benedict Arnolds.

How exactly has Iraq's current regime been appeasing the US? And what should they be resisting?

steve_spackman

12th May 2009, 19:29

How exactly has Iraq's current regime been appeasing the US? And what should they be resisting?

Its been doing as the US has wished and its a puppet government

Eki

12th May 2009, 20:07

How exactly has Iraq's current regime been appeasing the US? And what should they be resisting?
They let the US troops to occupy their own native country. What would you call a regime that collaborates with an invading and occupying force?

chuck34

12th May 2009, 20:58

They let the US troops to occupy their own native country. What would you call a regime that collaborates with an invading and occupying force?

So the fact that there is a "hard" date when we have to have troops out, means nothing to you? I'm not convinced that all Iraqis see us as invading and occupying forces, especially not in the government.

chuck34

12th May 2009, 21:01

Its been doing as the US has wished and its a puppet government

What has the US dictated to this "puppet government" that they didn't want to do, but went along with anyway?

Eki

12th May 2009, 21:28

What has the US dictated to this "puppet government" that they didn't want to do, but went along with anyway?
They ruled out a large part of the population (mostly the Sunni supporting the Baath party and Saddam's regime, but also many Shiia like supporters of Muktar al Sadr) from their so called "free elections" in Iraq. Of course the puppets were happy about that, since it meant they'll get the power in Iraq. Likewise Quisling's party was happy to rule Norway for the Nazis or the Soviet puppet regimes in Eastern Europe were happy to cooperate with the Soviet Union.

Camelopard

12th May 2009, 23:08

What has the US dictated to this "puppet government" that they didn't want to do, but went along with anyway?

Unlike the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza........

democracy is fine as long as you elect the government that the US wants........

chuck34

13th May 2009, 02:43

They ruled out a large part of the population (mostly the Sunni supporting the Baath party and Saddam's regime, but also many Shiia like supporters of Muktar al Sadr) from their so called "free elections" in Iraq. Of course the puppets were happy about that, since it meant they'll get the power in Iraq. Likewise Quisling's party was happy to rule Norway for the Nazis or the Soviet puppet regimes in Eastern Europe were happy to cooperate with the Soviet Union.

There is a difference between being appeasers and being defeated. Remember we went in there to depose the Baath party. It wouldn't make much sence to allow them to regain control right away. Well maybe to you it would.

chuck34

13th May 2009, 02:45

Unlike the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza........

democracy is fine as long as you elect the government that the US wants........

Not sure what you are getting at here. Hamas is still the government in Gaza aren't they? We may not like it, but they are still there.

Easy Drifter

13th May 2009, 03:03

We have a fine example of appeasement not working in Toronto over the past week. The Tamils are demanding the Cdn. Govt. intervene in Siri Lanka.
Toronto has a very large Tamil population, some of whom are allied with the Tamil Tigers, a group banned in Canada for terrorist actions.
Last week they blocked University Avenue for several days in protest of the actions of the Siri Lanka Government. That is a major north/south artery in Toronto. Affected were also 4 of Toronto's largest hospitals on University Ave. The police adopted a hands off approach. Tiger flags were prominent.
Sunday night they blocked The Gardiner Expressway the major east west route. Children were in the front row. Traffic chaos ensued. Tiger flags even more obvious. Police negotiated. Liberal and NDP politicians (the opposition parties) promised to raise the issue in Parliament. They did.
Now they are promising to totally disrupt downtown Toronto tomorrow.
I am not getting into the rights and wrongs of their position but this is Canada not Siri Lanka and the banned Tamill Tigers are front and centre. The general public are being totally incovienced and basically fed up. The Tamils have lost most public sympathy.
The politicians are bleating but so far have continued to allow the illegal demonstrations. So much for appeasement.
They are demanding Canada and the US intervene. Should they do so I am sure Eki would have more to complain about the US.

Eki

13th May 2009, 07:03

There is a difference between being appeasers and being defeated. Remember we went in there to depose the Baath party. It wouldn't make much sence to allow them to regain control right away. Well maybe to you it would.
If it had happened democratically in free, democratic and honest elections, I would have been OK with it. That's because I'd then know what the Iraqi majority REALLY want and not just what the US wants them to want.

Eki

13th May 2009, 07:08

There is a difference between being appeasers and being defeated.
Not every Iraqi were defeated. Some continued resistance and some still do. I think you can call those who went along with the US right away appeasers or traitors and those who quit resistance later were just quitters or losers.

chuck34

13th May 2009, 13:28

Not every Iraqi were defeated. Some continued resistance and some still do. I think you can call those who went along with the US right away appeasers or traitors and those who quit resistance later were just quitters or losers.

*sigh*

So if you go along with the US you are an appeaser or traitor? But if you go along with the Baath party (specifically Saddam) you are a "patriot"? You do realize that Saddam was never democratically elected, and that the Baath party was never a majority party, right?

Mark in Oshawa

13th May 2009, 14:37

If it had happened democratically in free, democratic and honest elections, I would have been OK with it. That's because I'd then know what the Iraqi majority REALLY want and not just what the US wants them to want.

Of course this is assuming in this "free" election that Baathist thugs weren't roaming the streets to make sure everyone voted their way. This would be assuming of course that someone would monitor to make sure the elections were free? You would of course object to the Americans monitoring them?

I think the Iraq elections were about as fair as any election in that part of the world ever HAS been.

I don't think the people there want another dictator. Heck Eki, you know Saddam used to win elections with 98% plurality, I assume you thought THOSE were fair?

Mark in Oshawa

13th May 2009, 14:39

Not every Iraqi were defeated. Some continued resistance and some still do. I think you can call those who went along with the US right away appeasers or traitors and those who quit resistance later were just quitters or losers.

So basically the only good Iraqi would be the ones who continue to fight even the local government, who the last time I looked spent no amount of time giving Bush a hard time over certain issues, and met with their neighbours in Iran. I don't think these guys are puppets for the US Eki. I know you might have a hard time believing that, but then again, your rose coloured glasses of dictators and thugs has always coloured your view of the legitmacy of a lot of governments.

Eki

13th May 2009, 19:40

*sigh*

So if you go along with the US you are an appeaser or traitor? But if you go along with the Baath party (specifically Saddam) you are a "patriot"?
Which party do you think was an Iraqi party in Iraq? A) Republican Party aka Grand Old Party or the GOP, or B) Baath Party?

Wouldn't you defend the US against an invasion now that your President is from the Democratic Party? Which one is more important to you, a political party or your native country?

Eki

13th May 2009, 19:45

Of course this is assuming in this "free" election that Baathist thugs weren't roaming the streets to make sure everyone voted their way. This would be assuming of course that someone would monitor to make sure the elections were free? You would of course object to the Americans monitoring them?

I think the Iraq elections were about as fair as any election in that part of the world ever HAS been.

I don't think the people there want another dictator. Heck Eki, you know Saddam used to win elections with 98% plurality, I assume you thought THOSE were fair?
There weren't any US troops to oversee the elections then. Of course Saddam wanted a result that was good for him, just like the US later wanted a result that is good for them. Neither one was going to jeopardize their own goals and victory by allowing totally free elections.

chuck34

13th May 2009, 20:30

Which party do you think was an Iraqi party in Iraq? A) Republican Party aka Grand Old Party or the GOP, or B) Baath Party?

Wouldn't you defend the US against an invasion now that your President is from the Democratic Party? Which one is more important to you, a political party or your native country?

I didn't realize that anyone from the GOP was on the Iraqi ballot. Who were they, and did they win?

You might find this little link interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iraq

Notice down at the bottom something very interesting.

The Baath party is not Iraqi either. It was founded on 7th of April 1947 in ... wait for it ...

SYRIA.

chuck34

13th May 2009, 20:34

There weren't any US troops to oversee the elections then. Of course Saddam wanted a result that was good for him, just like the US later wanted a result that is good for them. Neither one was going to jeopardize their own goals and victory by allowing totally free elections.

So you would have been ok with Bush calling out the National Guard to "oversee" the election of '04, and make sure that he got the result that was good for him? Oh wait, what am I thinking, of course not, everything Bush did was bad.

Let me re-phrase that. Will you be ok if Obama calls out the National Guard to oversee the election in 2010 to make sure he gets the result for Congress he wants, or in 2012 to make sure he gets re-elected?

steve_spackman

13th May 2009, 21:00

*sigh*

So if you go along with the US you are an appeaser or traitor? But if you go along with the Baath party (specifically Saddam) you are a "patriot"? You do realize that Saddam was never democratically elected, and that the Baath party was never a majority party, right?

Who helped Saddam gain power? Who helped Iraq in the Iraq/ Iran war? Who supplied Saddam with his weapons?

chuck34

13th May 2009, 21:07

Who helped Saddam gain power? Who helped Iraq in the Iraq/ Iran war? Who supplied Saddam with his weapons?

Yep, the US put him there. It was a mistake. Make no bones about it, it was a mistake.

But we cleaned it up, or at least are in the process of cleaning up that mistake. Too late in my book, but neither Bush I or Clinton had the stones to do it.

Eki

13th May 2009, 22:03

I didn't realize that anyone from the GOP was on the Iraqi ballot. Who were they, and did they win?

Obviously they won. They (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, Rove, Rice and other GOP thugs) overthrew the Baath party and got the regime they wanted (well not maybe exactly what they wanted but close).

Eki

13th May 2009, 22:08

So you would have been ok with Bush calling out the National Guard to "oversee" the election of '04, and make sure that he got the result that was good for him?

It would have been an American internal affair and none of my business, but Saddam Hussein sending the Iraq's Republican Guard to oversee the US election of '04 would have been a different story and an international conflict and therefore "free game" for the international community.

Camelopard

14th May 2009, 02:04

Yep, the US put him there. It was a mistake. Make no bones about it, it was a mistake.

But we cleaned it up, or at least are in the process of cleaning up that mistake. Too late in my book, but neither Bush I or Clinton had the stones to do it.

But that's just it, 'you' haven't cleaned it up, 'you' have just more of a stinking mess that was a 'relatively' calm place. just like 'you' have stuffed up in Afghanistan with 'your' support for the Mujahideen and helping form the Taliban into the nasty force that they are today.

Just as 'your' meddling created another despot in that area in the way of the CIA backed coup in Iran that put the Shah in power in the fifties and the mess that has turned out to be. (http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/25/50_years_after_the_cias_first)

What did some one quote in another thread, something along the lines of 'if you don't learn from history, you are prone to repeat the same mistakes over and over'. Very apt in my opinion.

Easy Drifter

14th May 2009, 02:29

Will someone explain to this dumkof what the last several posts have to do with the title of this thread?
We are back to blaming the US for most of the the world's messes.
Hijacked as usual by Eki.

Eki

14th May 2009, 06:54

Will someone explain to this dumkof what the last several posts have to do with the title of this thread?
We are back to blaming the US for most of the the world's messes.
Hijacked as usual by Eki.
At least we don't blame Canada:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI

anthonyvop

14th May 2009, 19:51

At least we don't blame Canada:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI
Eki,

You are not even close to be cool enough to even watch South Park.

Funny thing is that you should hate the show.

janvanvurpa

15th May 2009, 02:05

There is a difference between being appeasers and being defeated. Remember we went in there to depose the Baath party. It wouldn't make much sence to allow them to regain control right away. Well maybe to you it would.

Tell us then why the USA hired tens of thousands of Nazi party bureaucrats in late '45 to run the civil service?

And why did we re-arm Japanese troops in China and Vietnam in 45?

And why did the US hire the same Imperial bureaucracy to run the country in Japan itself?

It wouldn't make much sense to have a whole country descend into years of blood drenched religious/ethnic/tribal anarchy.

Well maybe to you it would.

Good planning there!

steve_spackman

15th May 2009, 05:22

There is a difference between being appeasers and being defeated. Remember we went in there to depose the Baath party. It wouldn't make much sence to allow them to regain control right away. Well maybe to you it would.

Im sure that Iran will be invaded next as they are not doing what you want them to do ..Its like the playground bully..if you dont do what he says, then he will make your life hard and hurt you.

Tell your great leaders in Washington and AIPAC and Israel to leave Iran alone.

Eki

15th May 2009, 07:15

Tell us then why the USA hired tens of thousands of Nazi party bureaucrats in late '45 to run the civil service?

And why did we re-arm Japanese troops in China and Vietnam in 45?

And why did the US hire the same Imperial bureaucracy to run the country in Japan itself?

It wouldn't make much sense to have a whole country descend into years of blood drenched religious/ethnic/tribal anarchy.

Well maybe to you it would.

Good planning there!
I think it was big mistake to disintegrate the Iraqi military after their defeat. The military men had no work and no money, so the only logical option for many of them was to join various resistance groups.

janvanvurpa

15th May 2009, 08:44

I think it was big mistake to disintegrate the Iraqi military after their defeat. The military men had no work and no money, so the only logical option for many of them was to join various resistance groups.

Seems so, and seems somebody could have figured that out in advance.

chuck34

15th May 2009, 15:04

Eki,

You are not even close to be cool enough to even watch South Park.

Funny thing is that you should hate the show.

Sum up this thread (any pretty much any others some of these jokers get involved in).

America is bad ... mmmm kay?

555-04Q2

15th May 2009, 15:13

America is bad ... mmmm kay?

Wrong, it is the root of all evil :cheese: :p :

EuroTroll

15th May 2009, 15:19

Wrong, it is the root of all evil :cheese: :p :

Isn't that 25.80697580...? :p :

chuck34

15th May 2009, 15:22

Isn't that 25.80697580...? :p :

I like that! I'm gonna have to steal that one.

steve_spackman

15th May 2009, 21:53

Just as 'your' meddling created another despot in that area in the way of the CIA backed coup in Iran that put the Shah in power in the fifties and the mess that has turned out to be. (http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/25/50_years_after_the_cias_first

As all Americans should know, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 to punish it for its efforts to nationalize the nation’s oil industry. It installed the Shah whose vicious rule provoked the most mass-based revolution ever to sweep an Islamic society in 1979.

steve_spackman

15th May 2009, 22:02

But that's just it, 'you' haven't cleaned it up, 'you' have just more of a stinking mess that was a 'relatively' calm place. just like 'you' have stuffed up in Afghanistan with 'your' support for the Mujahideen and helping form the Taliban into the nasty force that they are today.

Afghanistan: War on Demand. A Russian Perspective

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12261

Neither The US Nor Israel Is A "Genuine Party To Peace."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12116

Hondo

17th May 2009, 03:07

Here's a potential appeasment in the making:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6301926.ece

Now that Sri Lanka forces have backed the Tamil Tigers into their "last" stronghold, the Tigers say they will all commit suicide before they will surrender to the Sri Lanka forces. This is believed to be 10,000 fighters, women and children.

I really doubt all 10,000 really want to commit suicide and the "fighters" will enthusiastically assist the reluctant, hesitant, and undecided. If they really do have 10,000 people bottled up in a small area, hunger and disease from lack of sanitation will begin to thin them out pretty quickly.

If I were the military commander, I'd let them commit suicide. If you have 10.000 willing to die rather than surrender, you have a dedicated enemy. If they are allowed to surrender to the USA or Great Britain as they have requested, who, with the exception of the British MPs, can afford to house and feed 10,000 prisoners? Obviously the administrative screening process is going to return many fighters (including 12 year old male children) to the bush and freedom. The Tigers will begin to reorganize immediately making all the conflict that led up to this final battle absolutely meaningless.

Let them have their suicide party.

Mark in Oshawa

17th May 2009, 15:25

Fiero, with all the Tamils living in Toronto protesting what is going on there, I have come to the conclusion I just want the stupidity over there to stop. I have NO idea whether the Tamil Tigers are a legitmate "terrorist" group or the government of Sri Lanka is the problem. I really have reached a point where I don't care and I just don't want to have to hear about the Tamils and their protests tying up large sections of downtown Toronto, especially if I am trying to go down there and get to some place.

WE have had this going on and off for weeks and they are all bent out of shape about the fate of their countrymen but the thing is, there is very few people from Sri Lanka in Canada who are NOT Tamil, so we have no way of knowing whether these resistance fighters are fighting the good fight or just actual terrorists. The government declared them terrorists and banned them fundraising in Canada but to be honest, I don't know enough about this civil war to even pick a side, and even with that, there is nothing my opinion here will change in this mess anyhow.

That of course doesn't stop the Tamils from closing down highways by taking their kids up the on ramps and blockading the Gardner Expressway downtown. They seem to think the Prime Minister of Canada should do something. I would just as soon see him condemn all violence and then go back to trying to protect the pension of my father who may lose his house if GM goes bankrupt. Callous? Yes...damned right I am, because what is happening to my family right now really is all I can worry about.

Hondo

17th May 2009, 18:18

Mark, I don't have a dog in the Tamil-Sri Lanka race and could care less about either side. I will admit to having a sarcastic scorn for any group that feels they have a reason to protest the conditions in their home country by inconviencing the citizens of their host country. If you don't like the conditions, go home and help change them or learn to accept them.

My point was strictly from a military point of view. It's not very often a commander has the enemy willing to eliminate themselves for him. I'd take that deal, but the Tamil will probably waffle out on it.

Eki

17th May 2009, 18:28

Mark, I don't have a dog in the Tamil-Sri Lanka race and could care less about either side.
Speaking about independence wars, I just learned something new about the American Revolutionary War. It seems that it was a minority who wanted independence from Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

]Historians have estimated that approximately 40-45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion while 15-20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. The remaining 35-45% attempted to remain neutral.[5]
At least 25,000 Loyalists fought on the side of the British. Thousands served in the Royal Navy. On land, Loyalist forces fought alongside the British in most battles in North America. Many Loyalists fought in partisan units, especially in the Southern theater.[6]
The British military encountered many difficulties in maximizing the use of Loyalist factions. British historian Jeremy Black wrote, “In the American war it was clear to both royal generals and revolutionaries that organized and significant Loyalist activity would require the presence of British forces.”[7] In the South, the use of Loyalists presented the British with “major problems of strategic choice” since while it was necessary to widely disperse troops in order to defend Loyalist areas, it was also recognized that there was a need for “the maintenance of large concentrated forces able” to counter major attacks from the American forces.[8] In addition, the British were forced to ensure that their military actions would not “offend Loyalist opinion”, eliminating such options as attempting to “live off the country’, destroying property for intimidation purposes, or coercing payments from colonists (“laying them under contribution&#8221 ;) .[9]
Not very democratic IMO.

Funnily the same people who criticized the harsh methods of Saddam Hussein's regimes to quell the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in Iraq seem to care less how the Sri Lankan goverment treats the Tamili.

Easy Drifter

17th May 2009, 18:37

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Just another totally irrelevant bit of blathering from Eki.

Eki

17th May 2009, 18:40

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Just another totally irrelevant bit of blathering from Eki.
OK. How were Fiero's and Mark's posts about the Tamili relevant to the thread? They were the ones who started to talk about Sri Lanka and the Tamili.

If you want to talk about appeasement, let's put it this way: Should Saddam's regime have appeased the Kurds and the Shiias, or should they have appeased Saddam's regime? Or should they all together have appeased the US?

steve_spackman

17th May 2009, 18:57

Funnily the same people who criticized the harsh methods of Saddam Hussein's regimes to quell the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in Iraq seem to care less how the Sri Lankan goverment treats the Tamili.

Sri lanka doesnt have oil..Saddam did. Lets not forget here that we the west supported Saddams mass murder until he stopped appeasing his masters, which led to the Iraq war in 2003

Hondo

17th May 2009, 18:57

Unfortunately, the Tamil have nothing the rest of the world wants or needs, including themselves.

My first post was about potential appeasment, i.e., would Sri Lanka appease the Tamil wishes to save them from their mass suicide?

Easy Drifter

17th May 2009, 22:35

And Eki brings up something that occured over two hundred years ago that has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed just so he can take a meaningless shot at the US.

Camelopard

18th May 2009, 01:34

And Eki brings up something that occured over two hundred years ago that has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed just so he can take a meaningless shot at the US.

and you as usual bite, which means Eki gets the result he wants

Easy Drifter

18th May 2009, 03:11

Sigh. Only too true. :o

Eki

18th May 2009, 06:55

And Eki brings up something that occured over two hundred years ago that has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed just so he can take a meaningless shot at the US.
It has as much as Hitler's Germany in the 1930s has to do with Saddam's Iraq in 2003. You should learn from the history, eh?

chuck34

18th May 2009, 13:28

It has as much as Hitler's Germany in the 1930s has to do with Saddam's Iraq in 2003. You should learn from the history, eh?

So are you now agreeing with the rest of us in that there is something to learn from history and that there may be some simmilarities between Hitler and Saddam.

Or are you going to continue to say that there is no link between the two, therefore agreeing with Easy that your post about the US Revolution is a stupid off topic post?

Are you right now or right then?

Eki

18th May 2009, 14:08

So are you now agreeing with the rest of us in that there is something to learn from history and that there may be some simmilarities between Hitler and Saddam.

Or are you going to continue to say that there is no link between the two, therefore agreeing with Easy that your post about the US Revolution is a stupid off topic post?

Are you right now or right then?
You never know beforehand. I might be right now or right then or both times or neither time. There also might be some similarities between the Tamils, Kurds and the 18th century American colonists.

chuck34

18th May 2009, 14:16

You never know beforehand. I might be right now or right then or both times or neither time. There also might be some similarities between the Tamils, Kurds and the 18th century American colonists.

Wow, just wow! Even for you, that's some impressive double-speak.

Hondo

18th May 2009, 14:45

Actually, there was some appeasement around the American Revolution. Prior to the "Boston Tea Party", King George had already backed off the increased taxes on tea. Unfortunately, that made the tea still on board the ship cheaper than the stuff merchants had already purchased from smugglers and had on their shelves. The stuff in the harbor had to go.

Appeasment can work with specific and limited agendas and where all parties involved are willing to, without enforcement, abide by the terms of the agreement.

Eki

18th May 2009, 14:51

Appeasment can work with specific and limited agendas and where all parties involved are willing to, without enforcement, abide by the terms of the agreement.
There's something we can agree on.

anthonyvop

18th May 2009, 22:12

Appeasment can work with specific and limited agendas and where all parties involved are willing to, without enforcement, abide by the terms of the agreement.

And this has actually happened where?

Hondo

18th May 2009, 22:47

And this has actually happened where?

Numerous nations with common borders, business and labor, neighborhoods and families, lawsuits, etc. Many times compromise is in fact, appeasement.

Will appeasement work with extremist, radical Islam? No. Their stated goal is the world. I see no reason to believe otherwise. The only way to appease them will be to hand the world over to them. The only way to stop them is to wipe them out as completely as you can including the use of tactics similar to theirs. I know there is much hoo-haw on here when the western powers cause civilian deaths and injuries. I also note that the outcry is not as large when radical groups cause the same while actually targeting civilians. For the west or anyone one to win a fight against groups like the Taliban is going to call for the use of tactics you don't want to see in the newspaper. But it can be done. The whole concept of rules in warfare is ridiculous. You go to war, as a last resort, and you do it to win. All these UN peacekeeping missions do is put things on hold.

chuck34

18th May 2009, 23:39

Numerous nations with common borders, business and labor, neighborhoods and families, lawsuits, etc. Many times compromise is in fact, appeasement.

Will appeasement work with extremist, radical Islam? No. Their stated goal is the world. I see no reason to believe otherwise. The only way to appease them will be to hand the world over to them. The only way to stop them is to wipe them out as completely as you can including the use of tactics similar to theirs. I know there is much hoo-haw on here when the western powers cause civilian deaths and injuries. I also note that the outcry is not as large when radical groups cause the same while actually targeting civilians. For the west or anyone one to win a fight against groups like the Taliban is going to call for the use of tactics you don't want to see in the newspaper. But it can be done. The whole concept of rules in warfare is ridiculous. You go to war, as a last resort, and you do it to win. All these UN peacekeeping missions do is put things on hold.

+1

anthonyvop

18th May 2009, 23:58

Numerous nations with common borders, business and labor, neighborhoods and families, lawsuits, etc. Many times compromise is in fact, appeasement.

.
I am still trying to come up with an instance where appeasement has actually worked at the international level

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 02:44

And that is fine Eki. But culture must be based on something, right. I'm willing to say that it should be at least be based on not killing innocent people intentionally. And no the US government/military does not kill innocent people intentionally, no matter what you think. There are innocent poeple killed in the crossfire, but even you can see the difference between that and intentionally flying a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. Right? Dear God, I hope you can see the difference there.

The US and the Taliban are as bad as eachother when it comes to killing people. They both have their own agendas and will do what is needed to carry them out.

Every single country on this planet has blood on its flag (innocent or not)...you cannot deny that...

Hondo

19th May 2009, 02:53

Can someone define "innocent"?

anthonyvop

19th May 2009, 03:01

The US and the Taliban are as bad as eachother when it comes to killing people.

Are you seriously comparing the morality of the Taliban and that of the US as equal?

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 03:07

Are you seriously comparing the morality of the Taliban and that of the US as equal?

Not at all

Let me put that another way...

They both have a habit of killing innocent people. The Taliban did it on 9/11 and the US have done it in Iraq.

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 03:28

Not at all

Let me put that another way...

They both have a habit of killing innocent people. The Taliban did it on 9/11 and the US have done it in Iraq.

No one country is perfect..I wish that certain people arouind here would wise up and realise this.

anthonyvop

19th May 2009, 03:32

Not at all

Let me put that another way...

They both have a habit of killing innocent people. The Taliban did it on 9/11 and the US have done it in Iraq.

SO you are!

If innocent people were killed in Iraq their numbers were low and were by accident.

100% of the people murdered by the Taliban were innocent and targeted by those murderous thugs.

Any moral relativism between the US and Taliban on your part means you support the taliban terrorists.

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 03:37

SO you are!

If innocent people were killed in Iraq their numbers were low and were by accident.

100% of the people murdered by the Taliban were innocent and targeted by those murderous thugs.

Any moral relativism between the US and Taliban on your part means you support the taliban terrorists.

I do NOT support the Taliban. I will say that my post was worded wrong, therefore it was taken the wrong way

anthonyvop

19th May 2009, 04:20

I do NOT support the Taliban. I will say that my post was worded wrong, therefore it was taken the wrong way
Well then what did you mean to say?

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 04:38

Well then what did you mean to say?

I agree that the the Taliban are murderous thugs, but you must realise that Bush and his thugs killed many innocent Iraqis (some innocent and some not so innocent) for their own agenda.

That does not label me a supporter of the Taliban. Anyone whom supported Bush and his war should then be labeled supporters of terror

Eki

19th May 2009, 07:03

And this has actually happened where?
Finland and the Soviet Union. The cooperation worked well after the war.

Mark

19th May 2009, 13:09

I am still trying to come up with an instance where appeasement has actually worked at the international level

Northern Ireland. The protagantists on both sides were still very much alive and holding the same views but they were eventually presuaded that violence was not the answer.

Although tensions still exist.

BDunnell

19th May 2009, 13:10

Northern Ireland. The protagantists on both sides were still very much alive and holding the same views but they were eventually presuaded that violence was not the answer.

While one side was being funded by the ever-helpful USA.

chuck34

19th May 2009, 13:33

Steve, do you understand the difference between a regrettable accident and an intentional act? There is NO moral equivilency between the two acts. I won't go so far to say that if you try to equate the two that you are a supporter of the Taliban. But you are walking a fine line when you try to compare the intentional act of 9/11 and the wholy regrettable deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No one in the US would condone the innocent deaths in Iraq, and I'm sure at least 95% of the US would do anything they can to "take them back". On the other hand, the Taliban and their supporters regret that more lives weren't taken on 9/11. They are also planning more and more attacks everyday to take more and more innocent lives.

If you don't see a difference there, then I'm afraid we've ALL lost the war already.

chuck34

19th May 2009, 13:34

There I go again, being sucked into an OT conversation.

Sorry.

anthonyvop

19th May 2009, 14:00

Finland and the Soviet Union. The cooperation worked well after the war.
It did?
Being a puppet of the Commies is fine with you?

anthonyvop

19th May 2009, 14:05

Northern Ireland. The protagantists on both sides were still very much alive and holding the same views but they were eventually presuaded that violence was not the answer.

Although tensions still exist.

Tensions???

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/4965058/Northern-Ireland-violence-Policeman-shot-dead-in-Craigavon.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7930995.stm

Yep. Appeasement is working there.

BTW A negotiated settlement or treaty is not appeasement per-se.

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 15:40

While one side was being funded by the ever-helpful USA.

My father fought in Northern Ireland and saw first hand the results of the funding..

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 15:44

chuck34

19th May 2009, 15:52

Of course i see a difference..

Yes people in the US were against the killings in Iraq, but were labeled as anti american or supporters of the enemy for it.

I ment against the innocent killings. No one would be labeled anti-American for being against the killing of people caught in the crossfire. But you know that, and are just trying to make some twisted argument.

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 16:01

I ment against the innocent killings. No one would be labeled anti-American for being against the killing of people caught in the crossfire. But you know that, and are just trying to make some twisted argument.

Not at all..

Hondo

19th May 2009, 16:18

I agree that the the Taliban are murderous thugs, but you must realise that Bush and his thugs killed many innocent Iraqis (some innocent and some not so innocent) for their own agenda.

That does not label me a supporter of the Taliban. Anyone whom supported Bush and his war should then be labeled supporters of terror

I often see this "for their own agenda" phrase. Exactly, what would that agenda be? As far as I know, the agenda was to get rid of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. To date, I haven't seen any appreciable amounts of massively destructive weapons. On the other hand, neither have I seen any government or individual bemoan the loss of Saddam. None of the "insurgents" demanded the release of Saddam, none of their bombings have been in the name of Saddam, heck, they never even asked for an address for Saddam so they could send him a card. There are people that say things were a lot calmer when Saddam was around, but they don't want him back either.

What was Britain's agenda for being in Iraq? Saying the US bullied Britain into joining them is ridiculous, or, if true, doesn't say much for Britain. How is the US going to bully the UK into anything? The US tried to get a number of countries to assist in Iraq and were politely told to stuff it.

Hondo

19th May 2009, 16:27

It did?
Being a puppet of the Commies is fine with you?

What makes Finland a "puppet of the commies"?

Considering the huge amount of our (the USA's) debt China is financing nowadays, where does that leave us in the great puppet show?

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 17:33

I often see this "for their own agenda" phrase. Exactly, what would that agenda be? As far as I know, the agenda was to get rid of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. To date, I haven't seen any appreciable amounts of massively destructive weapons. On the other hand, neither have I seen any government or individual bemoan the loss of Saddam. None of the "insurgents" demanded the release of Saddam, none of their bombings have been in the name of Saddam, heck, they never even asked for an address for Saddam so they could send him a card. There are people that say things were a lot calmer when Saddam was around, but they don't want him back either.

What was Britain's agenda for being in Iraq? Saying the US bullied Britain into joining them is ridiculous, or, if true, doesn't say much for Britain. How is the US going to bully the UK into anything? The US tried to get a number of countries to assist in Iraq and were politely told to stuff it.

"Tony Blair is no more than George Bush's poodle." Thats the image he had here in the UK

Bush and Blair was also refered to as christian soldiers..a bible in one hand and a bazooka in the other

steve_spackman

19th May 2009, 17:34

What makes Finland a "puppet of the commies"?

Considering the huge amount of our (the USA's) debt China is financing nowadays, where does that leave us in the great puppet show?

Agree with you here

Eki

19th May 2009, 18:00

No one in the US would condone the innocent deaths in Iraq, and I'm sure at least 95% of the US would do anything they can to "take them back". On the other hand, the Taliban and their supporters regret that more lives weren't taken on 9/11. They are also planning more and more attacks everyday to take more and more innocent lives.

How do you know what the Taliban and their supporters regret or plan? Do you know many of them? I don't even remember there being any Talibans or even Afghans among the 9/11 attackers. I think they were all al-Qaeda and Arabs from the Middle East.

Hondo

19th May 2009, 19:03

The Taliban got brought into it by being the party in charge of Afghanistan and allowing al-Qaeda to have their primary base of operations there.

Hondo

19th May 2009, 19:08

"Tony Blair is no more than George Bush's poodle." Thats the image he had here in the UK

Bush and Blair was also refered to as christian soldiers..a bible in one hand and a bazooka in the other

That may be one image. Could Tony Blair order troops into Iraq on his own? Bush couldn't. Bush had almost the complete congress and senate backing him on the invasion. Of course, they've all forgotten that now.

Unless Blair could decide on his own, I'd guess Britain had a little agenda going on themselves.

Eki

19th May 2009, 19:21

The Taliban got brought into it by being the party in charge of Afghanistan and allowing al-Qaeda to have their primary base of operations there.
Lenin and Stalin were hiding in Finland before the Russian revolution, but I don't hear anybody blaming Finland for the Russian revolution.

Hondo

19th May 2009, 19:30

I think there may be a difference between hiding out and training for and staging large operations.

anthonyvop

19th May 2009, 19:35

Lenin and Stalin were hiding in Finland before the Russian revolution, but I don't hear anybody blaming Finland for the Russian revolution.

I do.

I also Blame the Germans who allowed Lenin to return to Russia to instigate revolt.

Hondo

19th May 2009, 19:58

Don't forget to give some credit to a long line of Russian nobility that left their people wallowing in poverty and despair while the royals lived it up.

You have to have a whole, big bunch of pissed off people to make a revolution work.

Eki

19th May 2009, 20:16

I think there may be a difference between hiding out and training for and staging large operations.
I thought the staging for 9/11 was done in the US. They stayed in the US for months and attended a flight school there.

Eki

19th May 2009, 20:19

You have to have a whole, big bunch of pissed off people to make a revolution work.
Very true. And in Iraq and Afghanistan people weren't pissed off enough to overthrow Saddam and the Taliban by themselves.

Hondo

19th May 2009, 20:28

I thought the staging for 9/11 was done in the US. They stayed in the US for months and attended a flight school there.

Well, we can't invade ourselves because we're already here. We can't attack and blow up our own flight schools because some idiot would say we did it just to give Haliburton the contracts to rebuild them, not to mention the insurance settlements. We can't shut down Wal Mart for selling the knives because then our citizens wouldn't have any place to go looting after natural disasters or civic disagreements.

So, you can appreciate our dilemma. We had to kick the sh!t out of something and Afghanistan was there and nobody seemed to care, so they got the nod.

Hondo

19th May 2009, 20:32

Very true. And in Iraq and Afghanistan people weren't pissed off enough to overthrow Saddam and the Taliban by themselves.

Based strictly on what I've read, I think they may have been pissed enough but lacked arms and testicles.

Eki

19th May 2009, 20:47

Don't forget to give some credit to a long line of Russian nobility that left their people wallowing in poverty and despair while the royals lived it up.

My great grandfather was a company chief in the Finnish Red Guard during the Finnish revolution. I ordered his court documents from the National Archive. It was interesting reading. To the question why he joined the Red Guard he had replied that work at the factory ended, they lacked food and funds, and the Red Guard offered wage and aid for the family. To the question what schools he had attended and could he read or write he had replied that he hadn't attended any schools but could read a little but not write. Although the revolution failed that time, the elite classes later had to appease the working class a little to avoid a potential new revolution. It was people like him who fought and often died so that people like me now have enough to eat and can get a university education.

Eki

19th May 2009, 20:53

Based strictly on what I've read, I think they may have been pissed enough but lacked arms and testicles.
At least that's what your government has told you and likes you to believe.

chuck34

19th May 2009, 20:56

At least that's what your government has told you and likes you to believe.

What? So the Kurdish uprising was a fake? Same with the Shia in the south? All of that was fake?

Eki

19th May 2009, 20:57

Hondo

19th May 2009, 23:27

At least that's what your government has told you and likes you to believe.

I read much of the same on foreign newspapers that are available in english on line also.

BDunnell

20th May 2009, 00:24

My great grandfather was a company chief in the Finnish Red Guard during the Finnish revolution. I ordered his court documents from the National Archive. It was interesting reading. To the question why he joined the Red Guard he had replied that work at the factory ended, they lacked food and funds, and the Red Guard offered wage and aid for the family. To the question what schools he had attended and could he read or write he had replied that he hadn't attended any schools but could read a little but not write. Although the revolution failed that time, the elite classes later had to appease the working class a little to avoid a potential new revolution. It was people like him who fought and often died so that people like me now have enough to eat and can get a university education.

Some people in East Germany had a nice life under the regime there, but I don't think that excuses the human rights atrocities — for that's what they were — committed by that regime during that period. And while one has to admire the heroism of Soviet forces during the 'Great Patriotic War', it is impossible for me not to think about the behaviour of Soviet soldiers as they rampaged through Berlin in 1945 when considering those deeds.

My views on many subjects may not exactly tally with those of certain contributors to this thread, but I agree with them in finding your defence of Soviet regimes rather difficult to stomach.

Eki

20th May 2009, 06:44

Some people in East Germany had a nice life under the regime there, but I don't think that excuses the human rights atrocities — for that's what they were — committed by that regime during that period. And while one has to admire the heroism of Soviet forces during the 'Great Patriotic War', it is impossible for me not to think about the behaviour of Soviet soldiers as they rampaged through Berlin in 1945 when considering those deeds.

My views on many subjects may not exactly tally with those of certain contributors to this thread, but I agree with them in finding your defence of Soviet regimes rather difficult to stomach.
That post was not defence of Soviet regimes, it was more defence of the Nordic social democracy. The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1918 but people who were exploited by upper classes, had no opportunity for education and often even went hungry did exist.

Eki

22nd May 2009, 20:14

Here's proof that appeasement sometimes works. Leningrad Cowboys and the Russian Red Army choir in Helsinki:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNHzRTK_OhM

Garry Walker

23rd May 2009, 13:14

And while one has to admire the heroism of Soviet forces during the 'Great Patriotic War', it is impossible for me not to think about the behaviour of Soviet soldiers as they rampaged through Berlin in 1945 when considering those deeds.

The soviet army was an army of rapists and hooligans from the start. Not heroes, but a bunch of criminals. The crimes they committed and the rapes did not start in 1945 and in berlin, it started far earlier, even earlier than the "great patriotic war" started.

I do.

I also Blame the Germans who allowed Lenin to return to Russia to instigate revolt.

Not to mention the fact that Germany financially assisted Lenin, when they should just have shot his sorry ass.

Eki

23rd May 2009, 15:32

The soviet army was an army of rapists and hooligans from the start. Not heroes, but a bunch of criminals. The crimes they committed and the rapes did not start in 1945 and in berlin, it started far earlier, even earlier than the "great patriotic war" started.

The rapes and other hooliganism they committed was much in revenge of what the Germans had done in the Soviet Union earlier. It's human nature. When the victorious White Army had squelched the Finnish revolution, they in revenge executed thousands of their Red prisoners without a trial or interrogations and starved thousands more in prison camps:

http://countrystudies.us/finland/15.htm

The tragedy of the civil war was compounded by a reign of terror that was unleashed by each side. In Red-dominated areas, 1,649 people, mostly businessmen, independent farmers, and other members of the middle class were murdered for political reasons. This Red Terror appears not to have been a systematic effort to liquidate class enemies, but rather to have been generally random. The Red Terror was disavowed by the Red leadership and illustrated the extent to which the Red Guard evaded the control of the leadership. More than anything else, the Red Terror helped to alienate the populace from the Red cause; it also harmed the morale of the Reds.

The Red Terror confirmed the belief of the Whites that the Reds were criminals and traitors and were therefore not entitled to the protection of the rules of war. As a consequence, the Whites embarked on their own reign of terror, the White Terror, which proved much more ferocious than the Red Terror. First, there were reprisals against defeated Reds, in the form of mass executions of Red prisoners. These killings were carried on by local White commanders over the opposition of White leadership. At least 8,380 Reds were killed, more than half after the Whites' final victory. Another component of the White Terror was the suffering of the Reds imprisoned after the war. The Whites considered these Reds to be criminals and feared that they might start another insurrection. By May 1918, they had captured about 80,000 Red troops, whom they could neither house nor feed. Placed in a number of detention camps, the prisoners suffered from malnutrition and general neglect, and within a few months an estimated 12,000 of them had died. The third aspect of the White Terror was legal repression. As a result of mass trials, approximately 67,000 Reds were convicted of participating in the war, and of these 265 were executed; the remainder lost their rights of citizenship, although many sentences were later suspended or commuted.

The civil war was a catastrophe for Finland. In only a few months, about 30,000 Finns perished, less than a quarter of them on the battlefield, the rest in summary executions and in detention camps. These deaths amounted to about 1 percent of the total population of Finland. By comparison, the bloodiest war in the history of the United States, the Civil War, cost the lives of about 2 percent of the population, but that loss was spread out over four years.