Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 6, 2010 19:44:38 GMT -4
The only parts of the news we really want to watch are the weather and maybe sports, but we watch most of the rest anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 6, 2010 20:39:55 GMT -4
The only parts of the news we really want to watch are the weather and maybe sports, but we watch most of the rest anyway. Watching the weather reports creates anxiety for me too - I don't like hearing that the there is a big snowstorm coming or freezing rain. I kid you not.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 8, 2010 7:33:50 GMT -4
Sarkozy said that they opened to Syria and exaggerated the good treatment towards it to implant doubt in the Iranians. I can't believe this stupidity. They made Syria feel relaxed while they didn't take any promise frm it only to make the Iranians doubt Syria and try to separate them this way..
Wikileaks says that KSA wanted to form a force to fight HA in the May 2008 events, and was backed by the PM then. the PM denied
The biggest explosive for our Defense Minister who said things in favor of Israel and against HA. the minsiter also denied sayign that it what was published was only parts of what he said..
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 12, 2010 3:38:57 GMT -4
Like I said, it's as clean and humane as a war can be, but it's still a war. War is by its nature dirty and inhumane. And that justifies....what, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Dec 13, 2010 8:28:45 GMT -4
There are several wallpapers on the wikileaks.ch mirror, probably user-donated. This is one of them: wikileaks.ch/img/wallpapers/wall3.jpgLook at the box in the corner bottom. (It looks like the Weighted Companion Cube from Portal, but with a different decal.) The author of the wallpaper probably wanted to put in as many conspiracies as possible, but some people are interpreting it as some kind of hint...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2010 12:40:46 GMT -4
Like I said, it's as clean and humane as a war can be, but it's still a war. War is by its nature dirty and inhumane. And that justifies....what, exactly? If you have to fight a war, then you can't minimize civilian casualties and damage to the infrastructure any more than the US is presently doing, especially considering the unconventional nature of our enemies. We are minimizing the suffering of civilians better than just about anyone else in history ever has - including the US in earlier wars. I'm not sure if it's the best way to win a war, but there you go.
|
|
|
Post by rmaxwell on Jan 30, 2011 0:34:04 GMT -4
Hi lionking,
You are discovering the nobility of the Americans after posting the video. We have
(a) the people who opened fire on some journalists (b) the people who denied involvement with (a) (c) the people who revealed the truth about (a) and (b)
So then you get people like Jason who shrug their shoulders over (a) and (b), saying that war is war, but demand prosecution for (c), calling those people terrorists.
Noble people, aren't they?
|
|
|
Post by rmaxwell on Jan 30, 2011 0:57:15 GMT -4
That's what I am arguing for - the ability to kill anyone I want at any time! It does sound like it: It looks very much like a peer into Assange's true motives in getting these documents out in the first place - to damage the US government. NOT to reveal the truth. He is looking more and more like a terrorist. You have a rather expansive definition of terrorist. Are you a terrorist, Jason? Do you want to damage anyone's government? Or do you have to be against the US government to be a terrorist? Just keep chanting your mantra about how you're the good guys.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 30, 2011 1:04:16 GMT -4
I promise you that Jason doesn't speak for all Americans. Not even all Americans here.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jan 30, 2011 6:51:44 GMT -4
Hi lionking, You are discovering the nobility of the Americans after posting the video. We have (a) the people who opened fire on some journalists (b) the people who denied involvement with (a) (c) the people who revealed the truth about (a) and (b) So then you get people like Jason who shrug their shoulders over (a) and (b), saying that war is war, but demand prosecution for (c), calling those people terrorists. Noble people, aren't they? It's o.k.. you expect people to be different in ideas, but most people at least can see the truth.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 30, 2011 10:06:18 GMT -4
Hi lionking, You are discovering the nobility of the Americans after posting the video. We have (a) the people who opened fire on some journalists (b) the people who denied involvement with (a) (c) the people who revealed the truth about (a) and (b) So then you get people like Jason who shrug their shoulders over (a) and (b), saying that war is war, but demand prosecution for (c), calling those people terrorists. Noble people, aren't they? A broad brush you paint with, rmaxwell. Jason's opinions shared on this board are for a large part not shared be the other Americans here. If you believe that he represents the country as a whole, please show us your evidence or STFU. As to your logic, well if what people do in producing Wikileaks is a crime, no matter how "noble" someone proposes the motives are, then it is within reason to call it a crime and say it should be prosecuted. Nobility of motive does not, and should not, exempt anyone exempt anyone from the punishment of not following the law. Why? Because nobility of motive is purely a matter opinion and allowing such would swing the legal system further toward a court of public opinion. The very thing we want to fight.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 30, 2011 14:08:20 GMT -4
I have always believed that an important part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of your actions. Break a law you believe to be unjust? Great! But the Civil Rights Movement taught its adherents how to go to jail afterward. Peacefully.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 30, 2011 17:23:01 GMT -4
You are discovering the nobility of the Americans after posting the video. If you judge all Americans based on the events of one video, I guess that no country on Earth is worthy of respect in your view. Even from the footage it is not clear that the men fired on include Journalists, it's rather difficult to see their press creditials from quite some distance. The Journalists took the risk of coming under fire when they decided to work with insurgents to get a story. Had the journalists been in with US troops and come under fire do you believe that the Insurgents would have given them a free pass? War zones are dangerous places, frontlines are even more dangerous Admittly once it was known that US military actions were involved they should have come clean. The actions themselves were understandable from a military point of view, though what likely was the cause of the coverup was the unprofessional converstations of the players involved. The major thing about the people in (c) is, did they break the law? I suspect that it will be rather hard to say that Wikileaks has broken the law. Looking at the current laws of the US that people keep citing as possibles, I'd be hard pressed to twist them enough to say that Wikileaks broke them. There is also the question of Juristriction. War is war, and it's never clean. These ones (Iraq and Afghanistan) are worse that others in that those that are being fought are actually in breach of the Geneva Convention from the get go. The conventions state that combatants are to wear uniforms and are prohibited from hiding amongst the general population precisely to prevent these sort of trageties. When it is all but impossible to determine the difference between enemy combatants and civilians then civilian deaths are assured, and the rule of law falls not on those that pull the trigger, but on those that hide in the general population. Had, in the above case, the insurgents been wearing clear uniforms, the pilot and gunner of the helicopter involved would likely have been able to distingush the combatants from the reporters. However, since they were all dressed the same, and in combat cameras are quite often mistaken for weapons, the incident was an accident waiting to happen. Under international law, the fault of the action is squarely on those that endangered the civilians by blending in with them, the insurgents, not the pilot and his crewman. They are merely guilty of inappropriate behaviour in their discussion and eagerness to engage the targets. Having said that, the numbers of civilians killed by US fire, even with the above issues, has been incredibily low with everything considered, so it is clear that majority of US Military personnel are taking the matter seriously and indentifying their targets well. The insurgents aren't quite so unwilling to deliberately target civilians. If a law was broken, and I suspect strongly that this is the case with one of the people involved, then they should be prosecuted. This seems to be coming from the far right wing for the most part, and from what I have seen isn't a view held by most Americans. Again, if you are going to judge a entire country based on the actions of a few of its people, then no country on the planet, even your own would be noble. Hey but what would I know, I'm from the un-noble New Zealand with it's security guard shooting, SAS, right?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 30, 2011 18:06:29 GMT -4
You are discovering the nobility of the Americans after posting the video. If you judge all Americans based on the events of one video, I guess that no country on Earth is worthy of respect in your view. Yes, I wonder what perfect country Rmaxwell is from.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jan 31, 2011 3:28:01 GMT -4
Phantomwolf , it is endless evetns of torture and killing commited by the Iraqi soldiers under the eye of the Americans who didn't move one finger to defend the so called democracy in Iraq and not merely one incident
|
|