PDA

View Full Version : Homicide or Suicide????


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


makuchg
07-18-2005, 06:13 AM
Has anyone noticed a shift in verbage used to describe people blowing themselves up for a cause? As far back as I can remember the term was always "suicide bomber." Recently, with American's falling victim more and more to these attacks the media has changed the name to "homicide bombers."

I'm curious people's thoughts on this change. :hypno:

Yann Golanski
07-18-2005, 07:31 AM
It is the latest new speak. I tend to pretty much agree with the Volokh conspirators:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_07_10-2005_07_16.shtml#1121192168
http://volokh.com/2002_11_17_volokh_archive.html#85705142

James Davis
07-18-2005, 11:11 AM
Has anyone noticed a shift in verbage used to describe people blowing themselves up for a cause? As far back as I can remember the term was always "suicide bomber." Recently, with American's falling victim more and more to these attacks the media has changed the name to "homicide bombers."

I'm curious people's thoughts on this change. :hypno:

I can't speak for the reporters about their reasons for changing the way they write about these bombers, but my personal opinion is that we should define them based on their intentions. If someone wants to strap an explosive device to their chest and walk out into a desert to detonate it, then I'd call them a suicide bomber. If they walk into a crowded market place... :(
If a suicide bomber wants to make a statement, they can walk into a government building and blow themselves (and the building) sky high after warning other human beings to leave. Setting out to kill other people is homicide, reagardless of the manner in which it's done.

makuchg
07-18-2005, 11:29 AM
See that's just it James, is he really a suicide bomber if he just want to kill himself? Is someone who shoots themselves a suicide shooter? No, they just committed suicide. Is someone who shoots others called a homide shooter? We are being redundant for dramatics, IMO.

mj
07-18-2005, 11:56 AM
Hmmm...so what about the first suicide bomber?

Was he also a murder bomber?

Judges 16: 28-30

Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." 29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, 30 Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.

/ducks

James Davis
07-18-2005, 04:43 PM
See that's just it James, is he really a suicide bomber if he just want to kill himself? Is someone who shoots themselves a suicide shooter? No, they just committed suicide. Is someone who shoots others called a homide shooter? We are being redundant for dramatics, IMO.
In some instances, I think you're right. "If it bleeds, it leads; if it burns, it earns." Newspapers want to put something really disturbing on the front page to sell the paper.
I still say that whether you pick up a knife or a stick of dynamite to off yourself speaks volumes about your intent.

The comedian Chris Rock once said after the Columbine tragedy:

(I'm paraphrasing)
"Everybody's askin' what movies they watched and what music they listened to to make them that way. Everybody's looking for someone to blame. What ever happened to just plain crazy?" :crazy:

makuchg
07-18-2005, 07:39 PM
James, Well said.

Adam Alexander
07-19-2005, 02:50 PM
Agreed: It's new-speak. I swear, I don't think hardly anyone else in this world read 1984. Nor do I think they know what a DEFINITION is.

So, WTF? What do you call the terrorist who bombs something without killing him/herself? What, they're not a "homicide-bomber?" It's the differentiation "suicide" that conveys the concept. It's totally stupid to change it.

Warms my heart to know that everyone's vote counts...even the people who'll buy into this.

mj
07-19-2005, 04:30 PM
So, WTF? What do you call the terrorist who bombs something without killing him/herself? ...
Fighter Pilot?

Thomas Ambrose
07-19-2005, 08:53 PM
If I recall, I think it was just Fox News that started this trend, referring to attacks in Israel shortly after 9/11. My timing could be off. At any rate, suicide bomber or homicide bomber? Both really.

Although personally I think there should be a distinction not between whethor or not the bomber killed himself/herself in the process, but whom they targeted. Did they blow up a bus full or children or other innocents, or did they attack valid military targets? Innocent Civilians: homicide. Military target: war, not just cold-blood murder.

makuchg
07-20-2005, 05:31 AM
Target is really not a fair distinction because one man's innocent civilian is anothers military target. In WWII we carpet bombed entire cities, we considered it a military target. Today if we did that we would be considered as targeting civilians. I really depends on the bombers ethics. What we considered acceptable 50 years ago is not so. To us they may be targeting civilians, but to them they are military targets designed to weaken the will to fight and weaken the financial structure by keeping people from shopping or going to restaraunts. Not really sure what the terrorists are thinking but can you see my point?

Nito
08-08-2005, 08:51 PM
As someone who has seen close up the results of a SVBIED (suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device) <-military acronym for ya, I know that in Iraq, we just called what was left of the individuals a crude name that described the process of fornication (can I say that here?). Fortunately(?), the guys who targeted us were amateurs and mostly only managed to spew themselves all over. I guess that is why we officially went with the suicide part. Suicide or Homicide, it's all bad ju-ju.

Anat Amitay
08-09-2005, 11:02 AM
Actually, we call them "terrorist bombers".
As for seeing a target as an enemy or a military target- as long as the intention is of killing children- sorry, there is no excuse to call them "soldiers of the future"- it's just simply murder, nothing else.
Not that I agree with the killing of anyone, but just my comment on the written above.
Anat

Neil Mick
08-09-2005, 11:09 PM
Actually, we call them "terrorist bombers".
As for seeing a target as an enemy or a military target- as long as the intention is of killing children- sorry, there is no excuse to call them "soldiers of the future"- it's just simply murder, nothing else.

Anat

Yeah, I'm with Anat, on this one. Children as targets is murder, plain and simple.

Tim Gerrard
08-10-2005, 02:28 AM
Fighter Pilot?

Don't you mean bomber pilot.

Jeez

:rolleyes:

Why do people insist on calling the armed forces terrorists? They're just doing a job. Got a problem, take it up with the government. :grr:

Dirk Hanss
08-10-2005, 02:48 AM
Yeah, I'm with Anat, on this one. Children as targets is murder, plain and simple.

Agreed, using them as soldiers, too!

Dirk

Adam Alexander
08-10-2005, 12:30 PM
1)Why do people insist on calling the armed forces terrorists? 2) They're just doing a job. 3)Got a problem, take it up with the government. :grr:

1)I didn't notice anyone doing that. However, gunning down a police chief and his company in a drive-by shooting sounds a lot like a terrorist act. Seems like the acts are what makes the terrorists. But, I don't know.
2)They made the decision to take that job--same as if you chose to be a mugger...you're "only doing your job." I've always viewed that excuse as a cop-out...The Nazis were doing their jobs too.
3)Governments action can only expand to the point to which people will act for it. If the terrorist...er, I mean, soldier;), didn't act for the government, it'd be crippled. So, we take it up with the government directly and those who believe that "just following orders" is more important than innocent people dying.

Hogan
08-10-2005, 12:47 PM
1)I didn't notice anyone doing that. However, gunning down a police chief and his company in a drive-by shooting sounds a lot like a terrorist act. Seems like the acts are what makes the terrorists. But, I don't know.
2)They made the decision to take that job--same as if you chose to be a mugger...you're "only doing your job." I've always viewed that excuse as a cop-out...The Nazis were doing their jobs too.
3)Governments action can only expand to the point to which people will act for it. If the terrorist...er, I mean, soldier;), didn't act for the government, it'd be crippled. So, we take it up with the government directly and those who believe that "just following orders" is more important than innocent people dying.

"Logic works. Your logic doesn't. Don't confuse the two." - 'Hiroshi' Hogan, Aikikai.

Huker
08-10-2005, 03:57 PM
Here's twenty bucks, can you take that package over there for me? Don't look inside, I'll be keeping an eye on ya!!

Adam Alexander
08-11-2005, 12:40 PM
"Logic works. Your logic doesn't. Don't confuse the two." - 'Hiroshi' Hogan, Aikikai.

Yeah, "individual responsibility" is the underpinning premiss of most of my stuff...I guess that's fallable to some.

Fallable like the idea of acting moral...hmmm, what's going on with Bush now anyway?

Hogan
08-11-2005, 02:21 PM
Yeah, "individual responsibility" is the underpinning premiss of most of my stuff...I guess that's fallable to some.

Fallable like the idea of acting moral...hmmm, what's going on with Bush now anyway?


Hmmmm, maybe you should be upset in your own back yard of Detroit, first....

http://www.wndu.com/news/032003/news_19147.php

Hey, I have been working on some new tourism slogans for Detroit (well, not me really); tell me what you think:

* Statistically speaking, you probably won’t get shot.
* Cheaper than Disney!
* Smokey the Bear says urban fires are A-OK!
* Our hospitals treat more bullet wounds before 5 AM than most hospitals do all day.
* They’re not rioting, they’re just making s’mores!

Tim Gerrard
08-11-2005, 03:07 PM
[QUOTE=Jean de Rochefort]Yeah, "individual responsibility" is the underpinning premiss of most of my stuff...I guess that's fallable to some.
[QUOTE]

Maybe there are some of us who believe that going to Iraq was the right thing to do?

Neil Mick
08-11-2005, 04:32 PM
Maybe there are some of us who believe that going to Iraq was the right thing to do?

Maybe there are some of you who ignore the costs, the legal and moral breaches, and the lack of any tangible result in the defense of your belief, that it was the "right thing to do?"

Neil Mick
08-11-2005, 05:08 PM
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:V3syXDZaO1gJ:home.adelphia.net/~thensley/images/demseal.jpg

*looks around, scratching head* Democrats? Huh?

Where? :hypno: :crazy:

Hogan
08-11-2005, 05:09 PM
*looks around, scratching head* Democrats? Huh?

Where? :hypno: :crazy:

I can't get that damn image to post !!!! How can you make it come up on screen !?

Neil Mick
08-11-2005, 05:35 PM
I can't get that damn image to post !!!! How can you make it come up on screen !?

Do you honestly think for a second that I'd tell you how to post it?? :D :freaky: :D

Hogan
08-11-2005, 06:17 PM
Do you honestly think for a second that I'd tell you how to post it?? :D :freaky: :D

C'mon; I'll admit to sometimes Bush being wrong on some things....


C'monnnnnnn.....

Dirk Hanss
08-12-2005, 01:30 AM
John and Neil !!
You both are great and best as a paur of you.

I stopped reading your arguments as there are about 10 on each side with just hundreds of variations.

But I enjoy your posting principle, which is pure aiki-ken (or aiki-jo?). One attacks, the other one parries and replies, and so on. Limited basic techniques with nearly unlimited variations. But while ken and jo katas are usually limited length - not by defeat but by offer to end -, you seem to have found an infinite one.

Congratulations! Maybe you should continue in the humor section - or technique section?

Cheers Dirk

Nevertheless - mostly I tend to follow Neill's logic ;)

Oh John, you might have to offer Neill one of the positions you think Bush is wrong in order to get Neill help you. And obviously it should not be tax regulation.

Tim Gerrard
08-12-2005, 02:30 AM
Maybe there are some of you who ignore the costs, the legal and moral breaches, and the lack of any tangible result in the defense of your belief, that it was the "right thing to do?"

What do you mean tangible results? Hussein was a lunatic who killed thousands of his own people, not to mention Kurds and Kuwaitis.

Dirk Hanss
08-12-2005, 04:06 AM
What do you mean tangible results? Hussein was a lunatic who killed thousands of his own people, not to mention Kurds and Kuwaitis.

Yes he was, supported by German, Saudi, and even Kuwaiti money and French, Russian, and American weapons (officialy deivered, of course).
We should have international laws to allow UN to intervene in such countries - without any veto right. The world might have been better. but it is not as easy.

And what I still do not understand. What do you think about this:

A policeman sees a bad guy threatening a good guy, weaponed with an arch and a knife. The policeman stops the bad guy and takes the arch. The the "good" guy accuses the "bad" one that the knife is forbidden throwing knife, takes his gun and shoot the "bad" guy. The policeman is watching the scene and everything he does is saying to the good guy "that is not a good idea, my friend."

With peaceful greatings

Dirk

Adam Alexander
08-12-2005, 12:55 PM
[QUOTE=Jean de Rochefort]Yeah, "individual responsibility" is the underpinning premiss of most of my stuff...I guess that's fallable to some.
[QUOTE]

Maybe there are some of us who believe that going to Iraq was the right thing to do?

I don't doubt it a bit, Tim. My issues are 1)Don't use the name of the U.S. to do it...There's a lot of civilians being killed in my name. I don't care for that. 2)Don't confiscate my money (taxes) to do it.

For all who think it's right, please...pay for it yourself.

For all who think it's helping the Iraq people...I think about it like this: Why do/did we need welfare reform? Because, people do what's easiest. Welfare weened a segment of society that's dependant on the government for sustenance.

Similarly, just as a welfare recipient who isn't hungry for a higher quality of life will sit and wait for a check, Iraq is a country of people who sat on their proverbial couches and waited for "freedom". Sooo, rather being a country of patriots blood-thirsty for freedom, they're a bunch of welfare recipients dependant on the teet of the U.S. to maintain it.

When the U.S. leaves, it'll go back to the same thing...just a different Saddam.


As far as "being the right thing," he was no threat. Neil has posted significantly on this.

Further, Bush has put the U.S. in a position (stretching resources) where countries posing potential nuclear-threats (N.Korea, Iran, Pakistan) are free to run with the ball. Cat's away the mice will play.


Finally, I think of it like this...the end does NOT justify the means. Bush lied. Seems like he lied a lot...and not just little ones.

He screwed up by letting 3,000+ people die in the Trade Centers. Then he used it as an excuse to carry out an irrelevant agenda--Iraq.


If that's what you call "the right thing," with friends like you...?

Adam Alexander
08-12-2005, 01:01 PM
Hmmmm, maybe you should be upset in your own back yard of Detroit, first....

http://www.wndu.com/news/032003/news_19147.php

Hey, I have been working on some new tourism slogans for Detroit (well, not me really); tell me what you think:

* Statistically speaking, you probably won't get shot.
* Cheaper than Disney!
* Smokey the Bear says urban fires are A-OK!
* Our hospitals treat more bullet wounds before 5 AM than most hospitals do all day.
* They're not rioting, they're just making s'mores!

Yeah, it's, I think, along the lines of the welfare society that's been developed...A lot of people that just don't want anything better enough to do something effective about it.

Being a union-city, I think that the sense of entitlement is so huge, it'll take something serious to turn it around.

I don't get the Hussein link?

Hogan
08-12-2005, 02:31 PM
...My issues are 1)Don't use the name of the U.S. to do it...There's a lot of civilians being killed in my name. I don't care for that. 2)Don't confiscate my money (taxes) to do it.

That's called being a citizen and taxpayer - you have no choice.

For all who think it's right, please...pay for it yourself.

ahahahh... quaint.


Finally, ...Bush lied.

God, back to this ? Lie is intential, and you, or and no one else, has ever proved he INTENTIANALLY said one thing while believing another. He based his decisions on intelligence that Clinton and the dmocrats before him, and the UN, and the rest of the world said - he had WMD. So, then you must believe they ALL lied. And tell me, why did the dmocrats support Clinton when he acted against Iraq, when he signed legislation calling for regime chg in Iraq, and all said Saddamy was a threat, but then chgd their mind when Bush aid it ? Interesting, huh ?

He screwed up by letting 3,000+ people die in the Trade Centers.

Are you family with that crazy congresswoman ?

Hogan
08-12-2005, 02:35 PM
...I don't get the Hussein link?

You don't get it as in don't understand or can't open it ?

Neil Mick
08-12-2005, 05:26 PM
What do you mean tangible results? Hussein was a lunatic who killed thousands of his own people, not to mention Kurds and Kuwaitis.

Ah, the cry of the Bush-faithful--we did it for "humanitarian" reasons. After all the other reasons for invading have been proven false, they still hang onto that

Funny, but in ransacking my copies of the Consititution and the UN Charter: I have yet to find any law that places the US in the position of global cop, lawfully endowed with the right to invade countries run by "lunatics." We have no moral problems with supporting other lunatics who kill thousands of their own ppl; and so I find your contention a bit biased.

But no, no tangible result, in the invasion of Iraq.

WMD's? Nope.

Freedom from torture, and due process? Not that, either. The Iraqi gov't is funding (with our $$) Iraqi units that use torture; to say nothing of our own torture. Speaking of freedom: no freedom to even walk the streets, without fear of being kidnapped, blown up, or shot by US soldiers.

Reconstruction? No electricity, water, or adequate hospital supplies. But I hear that Halliburton is recording record profits...

On the flip side, the Pentagon loses billions of dollars in Iraqi aid; and no one can even say when we'll know that we have succeeded, in winning the "War of Terror" in Iraq. No, we went to war to disarm Hussein because, Bush claimed: he was a threat to the US. Well, we "got" Hussein; but what a bitter victory it was.

Neil Mick
08-12-2005, 05:36 PM
God, back to this ? Lie is intential, and you, or and no one else, has ever proved he INTENTIANALLY said one thing while believing another.

Wrong again.

"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

- George W. Bush,
Mar. 8, 2003 Radio Address

"I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable."

- George W. Bush,
Aug. 10, 2002 while golfing

"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

--July 23, 2002

LIE

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

He lied: face it. He "deceived:" that is, he misrepresented the involvement of Iraq and al Qaeda, over and over again. I could well go on about the range and extent of his lies (in other topics. If interested, click on the link in my sig, below): but I imagine that you'd claim that he did not know, and round and round we'd go, again. A lie is also about deception, and misrepresentation.

So, then you must believe they ALL lied. And tell me, why did the dmocrats support Clinton when he acted against Iraq, when he signed legislation calling for regime chg in Iraq, and all said Saddamy was a threat, but then chgd their mind when Bush aid it ? Interesting, huh ?

Yes, it is. And on this point, we agree. Clinton and his Admin has much to answer for.

Neil Mick
08-12-2005, 05:47 PM
C'mon; I'll admit to sometimes Bush being wrong on some things....


C'monnnnnnn.....

No.

But, here's a hint... ;)

http://www.bushflash.com/jpg/svu_2.jpg

Adam Alexander
08-13-2005, 02:01 PM
Hogan, I don't understand it.

Regarding the rest, I guess Neil's pretty much spanked you on it;)

But, just my opinion...even if Bush hadn't been caught in lies, I think it's like Clinton and the definition of "is". We all know he was trying to sneak something...same as Bush even if he wouldn't have gotten caught.

Regarding being a citizen and tax-victim...yup. And that's why I'm griping, because I'm getting screwed by a bunch of morons.

Hogan
08-14-2005, 08:28 AM
Wrong again.


"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

- George W. Bush,
Mar. 8, 2003 Radio Address

"I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable."

- George W. Bush,
Aug. 10, 2002 while golfing





Downing Street Memo wrote:
"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

--July 23, 2002


.

Sorry - but he did what he said he was going to do. Not a lie; a promise. And the Downing St Memo is, in fact, an OPINION.

Hogan
08-14-2005, 08:30 AM
Hogan, I don't understand it.

It means that your own city loved Saddam - so much so that they made him an honorary citizen, much like the US made Churchill an honorary citizen. It means your city is screwed up. So maybe you should yell at them.


Regarding being a citizen and tax-victim...yup. And that's why I'm griping, because I'm getting screwed by a bunch of morons.

Get used to it.

Hogan
08-14-2005, 08:33 AM
http://www.bushflash.com/jpg/svu_2.jpg


I am going to put that up on my office wall.

Neil Mick
08-14-2005, 09:34 PM
.

Sorry - but he did what he said he was going to do.

When someone says that they "have no plans" to do a thing; and yet evidence is produced that shows that they were planning to do this thing all along, this is called a lie, because they misrepresented their intentions.

Sheesh. I imagine that Jean is entirely right, when he says that Bush's supporters exercise moral relativism. :rolleyes:

And the Downing St Memo is, in fact, an OPINION.

Ahem...all together now....ahahahahahahah!!!!! Gosh, that comment sure made the Relativism Meter dial hit the red. An official report by the Head of MI-6 is an "opinion??" :D :D :D :D

Oh please: at this level, I guess that you could state that everything is subjective. The Iraqi's represented by my sig weren't actually killed; they were sacrificed, in the name of freedom. :rolleyes: Bush didn't really lie: he promised. And, for that matter, Clinton didn't lie either: it all depends upon your definition of sex (or "is"). In fact, no one really lies: they merely present information that, in the words that great spinmeister Ronald Reagan, "is no longer operative." Hey, I know: let's just ban the word entirely, when discussing the actions of leaders. :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
08-14-2005, 09:36 PM
I am going to put that up on my office wall.

Glad to be of service. Too bad you missed the irony (what is it about Conservative's and irony, anyhow?) ;)

Neil Mick
08-14-2005, 09:39 PM
Get used to it.

Nah, getting "used" to corruption, lies and needless death is throwing in the towel for democracy.

Don't mourn: organize! :cool:

Neil Mick
08-14-2005, 09:51 PM
In 1980 when Saddam Hussein was on good terms with America, he was quite the giver.

It means that your own city loved Saddam - so much so that they made him an honorary citizen, much like the US made Churchill an honorary citizen. It means your city is screwed up. So maybe you should yell at them.

Yeah, ya gotta just hate ppl who screw up by shaking hands with dictators, (http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000018.php) way way back in the '80's...right, John?

Tim Gerrard
08-15-2005, 04:43 AM
Neil, so can you honestly say that Iraqis are worse off now, than under Saddam?

Dirk Hanss
08-15-2005, 05:07 AM
Neil, so can you honestly say that Iraqis are worse off now, than under Saddam?
Many are, many are not.

But that is not the point.
If I would come to the States and kill the ten political leaders that I believe are the most corrupt, most American citizens would be better off.

Does anyone here think, that would be ok?

Of course, before I would promise that I have proof, which I only can present afterwards. And in some cases I can, in others not.

Sorry, Tim, you asked Neill and he also argues on the way, how Iraq was invaded and what has been done afterwards. There has been done many mistakes and illegal or unmoral steps, but not everything done there was wrong. The first illegal step was invading a souvereign country, based on a UN resolution but without any mandate to do so.

And probably Neill would not agree, when I say the first mistake might have be done by George senior. He should not have stopped the first Gulf war, without taking Saddam out of office. He had UN authorisation, but unfortunately not enough back-up in public opinion as this was before 9/11.

Peace to you all

Dirk

Hogan
08-15-2005, 07:47 AM
An official report by the Head of MI-6 is an "opinion??" :D :D :D :D

OK, then if the CIA, in an official report, says Iraq had WMD and was a supporter of terrorism, would you believe them, then, since you believe MI-6 ? Or is just because they said what you believed all along ?

Hogan
08-15-2005, 07:56 AM
Nah, getting "used" to corruption, lies and needless death is throwing in the towel for democracy.

Don't mourn: organize! :cool:

Calm down; we were talking about taxes.

Hogan
08-15-2005, 08:00 AM
...If I would come to the States and kill the ten political leaders that I believe are the most corrupt, most American citizens would be better off.

Does anyone here think, that would be ok?
If we were governed by a murderous, corrupt dictatorship, c'mon down.....
(Left you an opening here, Neil....)

The first illegal step was invading a souvereign country, based on a UN resolution but without any mandate to do so.
Sorry, but a nation will act in its defense the way IT sees fit, not the UN.

Did you favor action in the Balkans when Clinton used military force ?

...George senior. He should not have stopped the first Gulf war, without taking Saddam out of office. He had UN authorisation, but unfortunately not enough back-up in public opinion as this was before 9/11.
UN did not authorize the US coalition to remove Saddam.

Hogan
08-15-2005, 08:03 AM
Glad to be of service. Too bad you missed the irony (what is it about Conservative's and irony, anyhow?) ;)


Who said I missed the irony ?

Hogan
08-15-2005, 08:09 AM
Yeah, ya gotta just hate ppl who screw up by shaking hands with dictators, (http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000018.php) way way back in the '80's...right, John?

Reagan met and shook hands with the Pres of Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega) when we were mining her harbors..... doesn't mean we liked him. And at least Reagan never made Ortega an honorary citicizen and accepted money from him, like Detroit and her lover Saddam.

Neil Mick
08-15-2005, 08:57 PM
OK, then if the CIA, in an official report, says Iraq had WMD and was a supporter of terrorism, would you believe them, then, since you believe MI-6 ? Or is just because they said what you believed all along ?

I would believe it if they were stating it in an official report, and Iraq and the US were allies.

You forgot that minor detail.

Neil Mick
08-15-2005, 08:59 PM
If we were governed by a murderous, corrupt dictatorship, c'mon down.....
(Left you an opening here, Neil....)

ROFL.

OK, I'll bite.

US...........

Murderous (100,000 Iraqi's killed)? check.

Corrupt (Think Tom DeLay)? That's a 10-4

Dictatorship (Ideological extremists controlling all the major branches of gov't)? Hmm....it's a grey area. We're close, but Bush can't simply dictate solely by his word.

Yet.


UN did not authorize the US coalition to remove Saddam.

Dirk: John's right.. the UN did not authorize removal.

Neil Mick
08-15-2005, 09:00 PM
Who said I missed the irony ?

OK, now you're scaring me.

Neil Mick
08-15-2005, 09:08 PM
Reagan met and shook hands with the Pres of Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega) when we were mining her harbors..... doesn't mean we liked him.

And at least Reagan never made Ortega an honorary citicizen and accepted money from him, like Detroit and her lover Saddam.

No, he just sent Rummy over to shake his hand, ignore the gassing of Iranian's, and give him some money (and technology, and the green light to kill more ppl). Thus, my link to the pic.

A bit more of a spicy romance than Saddam got from Detroit, IMO.

Neil Mick
08-15-2005, 09:25 PM
Neil, so can you honestly say that Iraqis are worse off now, than under Saddam?

I believe that a stifled press, no electricity or water, and a US dictatorship (yeah, yeah, I know: "Iraqi's have their own democracy. Freedom is on the march!" Some freedom, when every Iraqi rep has to report to a US rep, for approval of gov't'l actions) is in all likelihood little better than a vicious dictatorship under Hussein, WITH running water and electricity.

Notice? I said "in all likelihood." Neither you, I, nor even John really knows how the Iraqi's are doing. Why?

Two reasons:

1. Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world right now, for foreign reporters. The stuff you're getting on the news now is all "hotel coverage."

2. The US Occupation Army censored the press in Iraq, last year (not to mention jailing and beating up some Iraqi journalists). We have no idea what the Iraqi's think about the occupation, except for the few polls which suggest a significant (but not overwhelming) majority in favor of the US going home.

But I do know one thing: US troops are the catalyst for suicide bombings and insurgencies. We screwed up, and now Iraq has to pay the price for our blunder. Even BushCo is backing away from the idea of a "model" democracy coming out of this debacle.

In the end, Dirk is right. We have no mandates to replace bad leaders. Even if we did, we sure have selective vision, about "bad" leaders. We hate Iraqi and Iranian leaders, but we're fine with leaders in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Darfur, Haiti, Israel and Indonesia, all subjecting minorities to torture, wrongful imprisonment, or worse.

Would we have gone to all this trouble and wrung our hands over the horrible regime of Hussein if Iraq were located in the Caribbean? I don't think so.

Hogan
08-16-2005, 08:12 AM
I would believe it if they were stating it in an official report, and Iraq and the US were allies.

You forgot that minor detail.

So, Britain and Iraq were allies ?

Dirk Hanss
08-16-2005, 08:52 AM
If we were governed by a murderous, corrupt dictatorship, c'mon down.....
(Left you an opening here, Neil....).
I did not want to compare this with the occupoation of the Iraq, I only wanted to point out, that who is better off afterwards is not the question.


Sorry, but a nation will act in its defense the way IT sees fit, not the UN..
Against an aggressor, yes. But not against Iraq.

Did you favor action in the Balkans when Clinton used military force ?.
At least from legal aspects, it was much better.


UN did not authorize the US coalition to remove Saddam.
You're right, but just a few days later they could have stopped the action in Bagdad.


Ciao Dirk

Hogan
08-16-2005, 01:21 PM
Against an aggressor, yes. But not against Iraq.

I guess it depends on what your definition of 'agressor' is.
(by John "Clinton" Hogan)...



At least from legal aspects, it was much better.
How so ? It didn't have UN approval, nor did they attack the US, nor did they have WMD, nor did they have any connection with terrorists, nor had they ingnored 12 yrs of UN resolutions, nor were they in violation of same, nor did they fire and try to shoot down UN patrols.... What did they do ? Kill a people ? Hmmmm... sounds like Saddammy & the Kurds....

Adam Alexander
08-16-2005, 01:48 PM
How so ? It didn't have UN approval, nor did they attack the US, nor did they have WMD, nor did they have any connection with terrorists, nor had they ingnored 12 yrs of UN resolutions, nor were they in violation of same, nor did they fire and try to shoot down UN patrols.... What did they do ? Kill a people ? Hmmmm... sounds like Saddammy & the Kurds....

The hell you say. They had some money and connections. Therefore, they had WMD.

They were in existence when someone attacked the U.S. Therefore, they attacked the U.S.

They did have a connection to terrorists...they drank water, so do terrorists...therefore, they must be dealt with.

etc., etc., etc.

I'm almost a Republican again:)

Hogan
08-16-2005, 02:16 PM
The hell you say. They had some money and connections. Therefore, they had WMD.

They were in existence when someone attacked the U.S. Therefore, they attacked the U.S.

They did have a connection to terrorists...they drank water, so do terrorists...therefore, they must be dealt with.

etc., etc., etc.

I'm almost a Republican again:)



Are you smoking those funny little cigs again ? C'mon, man, exhale.....

ehhhxxxxhaaaaaaaale.....

Neil Mick
08-16-2005, 04:43 PM
So, Britain and Iraq were allies ?

Yes, if Britain and Iraq were allies, and the CIA released an official report that stated that Iraq was a supporter of terrorism--if all other circumstances were the same as today (i.e., the US and Britain were allied, this was not another sleazy attempt of weird, Rov'ian spin), yeah: I'd give it a lot of creedence.

Esp if the CIA were reporting results from a particular meeting of notables.

Mark Uttech
09-08-2005, 03:11 PM
Look at this simple example. Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire to protest the VietNam war. This is a type of suicide. On the other hand there were buddhist kamikaze pilots who "sacrificed themselves to the cause of the emperor". This is also suicide. The media in the West is going a little crazy with "spin". That is because they do not want to address the issue. Why do muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up? They are desperate, and they have a desperate cause.