PDA

View Full Version : Guantanamo man 'suing government'



Bluebird
06-02-2005, 11:20
This was posted on the BBC web site today...Talking about suing people...

Guantanamo man 'suing government'

Martin Mubanga said he suffered "brutal interrogation"
A British man held captive in Guantanamo Bay for 33 months plans to sue the government, it is reported.

Martin Mubanga claimed in the Observer that an MI6 officer played a key role in consigning him to the US camp in Cuba, following his arrest in Zambia.

Mr Mubanga, who holds dual British and Zambian nationality, says he was subjected to brutal interrogation at the camp and was daubed with urine.

For full story read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240107.stm

Sparafucile
06-02-2005, 15:08
He was arrested in Zambia and sent to Guantanamo??

I'm looking forward to hearing Koba's expanation of this one!!

According to our friends Koba and Kniga, the USA has the right to detain anyone, anywhere in the world, without charge and for no given reason. The period of their detention is unlimited - it could in fact be for the rest of their natural life. (Oh no? Then tell me where the term duration is specified?). During the period of detention, the detainee has no rights whatsoever, and can be legally tortured at will by persons unknown, who are not obliged to prove any authority to undertake such treatment.

AND THIS IS WHAT YOU ********* CALL "DEMOCRACY"????

Condi Rice better shut her fat mouth after this.

Bluebird
06-02-2005, 15:26
Originally posted by Sparafucile
He was arrested in Zambia and sent to Guantanamo??

I'm looking forward to hearing Koba's expanation of this one!!

According to our friends Koba and Kniga, the USA has the right to detain anyone, anywhere in the world, without charge and for no given reason. The period of their detention is unlimited - it could in fact be for the rest of their natural life. (Oh no? Then tell me where the term duration is specified?). During the period of detention, the detainee has no rights whatsoever, and can be legally tortured at will by persons unknown, who are not obliged to prove any authority to undertake such treatment.

AND THIS IS WHAT YOU ******** CALL "DEMOCRACY"????

Condi Rice better shut her fat mouth after this. Funnily enough, I too immediately thought of Koba and Kniga too...Here's a guy arrested in Zambia...Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's quite a long way from Afghanistan and Iraq...Well out of the way of any declared war zone; and here's a guy whose been detained, without charge - after two years of suffering hell - in a hell hole, and for good measure was even urinated on...What the hell's that all about???

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:26
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sparafucile
He was arrested in Zambia and sent to Guantanamo??

I'm looking forward to hearing Koba's expanation of this one!!

According to our friends Koba and Kniga, the USA has the right to detain anyone, anywhere in the world, without charge and for no given reason. The period of their detention is unlimited - it could in fact be for the rest of their natural life. (Oh no? Then tell me where the term duration is specified?). During the period of detention, the detainee has no rights whatsoever, and can be legally tortured at will by persons unknown, who are not obliged to prove any authority to undertake such treatment.

AND THIS IS WHAT YOU ********* CALL "DEMOCRACY"????

Condi Rice better shut her fat mouth after this. [/QUOTE

"We have never had a trial. We were found guilty without one. We are imprisoned indefinitely and probably forever. We have no idea why. We have not been told what the evidence is against us. We are here. Speak to us. Listen to us. Tell us what you think and why. The Forgotten Detainees, Belmarsh Prison, United Kingdom"

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:29
"British newspaper The Daily Mirror has published further allegations of British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners.

The newspaper claims it has further evidence of abuse and on Saturday its front page carried a photograph which apparently shows a soldier photographing a bound captive in the back of an armoured personnel carrier.

The picture was allegedly provided by another soldier from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, already embroiled in controversy over earlier revelations in the Daily Mirror.

The paper says it is "damning proof" that soldiers took "trophy photos" of Iraqi prisoners being abused.

The soldier, named by the paper only as 'Soldier D', told the paper: "There are no rules out there. I saw the man dragged into the vehicle beaten up, kicked and punched. It lasted about a minute. I took the picture as I opened the doors of the vehicle and could see dirt on his shirt and blood on his teeth."

And he claimed soldiers took photos and video footage to look tough and prove to friends what had happened.

'All genuine'

He told the Daily Mirror: "You'd come back from Iraq and people wouldn't know what you've been through. If you had pictures you could show them. While we were out there we were told to get rid of all of them. But if they had done a proper search they would have found CDs and all sorts of things.

"There was one CD going round our room with about 500 shots on it. Some were before and after pictures of beatings."

Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, speaking on Friday, insisted the photographs were all genuine, and represented the tip of the iceberg of abuse in Iraq, which he said was carried out by a small number of soldiers in Basra.

"I believe we've hit the tip of the icerberg here and there were a network, a small number of people who were committing, frankly, atrocities against POWs and detainees in Basra.""

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:30
"British Court Decision Undermines Global Torture Ban
(London, August 11, 2004) — A ruling by Britain’s second-highest court undermines the global ban on torture, Human Rights Watch said today. In a 2-to-1 ruling, the Court of Appeal said that evidence obtained under torture in third countries may be used in special terrorism cases, provided that the British government has “neither procured the torture nor connived at it.” "

Bluebird
06-02-2005, 15:36
Originally posted by Eddie Royle
"British Court Decision Undermines Global Torture Ban
(London, August 11, 2004) — A ruling by Britain’s second-highest court undermines the global ban on torture, Human Rights Watch said today. In a 2-to-1 ruling, the Court of Appeal said that evidence obtained under torture in third countries may be used in special terrorism cases, provided that the British government has “neither procured the torture nor connived at it.” " Which, of course, conveniently washes their hands of any wrongdoing...Bit like Pontias Pilot, the day he put Jesus on the cross - with nails...

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:38
"Torture in the United Kingdom - Membership Cards If you would like a membership card identifying you as a UK torture victim please e-mail us. The last thing British security wants is further worldwide publicity revealing torture in the United Kingdom, so this card may well help to lesson unlawful actions taken against you by MI5 and other security organizations there. The criteria for obtaining UK membership cards are the same as those needed for Citizens Against Human Rights Abuses (CAHRA) below. Full name and address must be given, plus other contact information where possible. We also require details of all actions taken against you by the British security services and other organizations. Please note: Though supportive of CAHRA's aims and objectives we are an entirely separate organization. UK victims of psychological torture, Microwave or Psychotronic Weapons now being widely used by the British Intelligence Services against British citizens should also try to maintain contact with the human rights sites listed below. All illegal actions taken by MI5 and MI6 against British citizens should be fully documented and reported to us and other international human rights organizations as soon as possible. It is important for UK victims to remember that they are not alone in their suffering. Disclosures of torture in the UK are beginning to crop up all over the Internet. Undoubtedly there are many more British torture victims who have been totally isolated by the security services and are without means of computer communication. We are well aware of how British security manipulates and interferes with the postal service and telephone lines in Britain so make and keep as many outside contacts as you possibly can."

85StoneWhiteFurball
06-02-2005, 15:41
Originally posted by Eddie Royle
"Torture in the United Kingdom - Membership Cards If you would like a membership card identifying you as a UK torture victim please e-mail us............. UK victims of psychological torture, Microwave or Psychotronic Weapons now being widely used by the British Intelligence Services against British citizens should also try to maintain contact with the human rights sites listed below......................We are well aware of how British security manipulates and interferes with the postal service and telephone lines in Britain so make and keep as many outside contacts as you possibly can."

How many of these membership cards would I need in order to qualify for a free tin foil hat from the NHS?

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:43
"Public judicial inquiries into the killings of Robert Hamill, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson

An Open Letter from Amnesty International, British Irish RIGHTS WATCH and the Committee on the Administration of Justice

The United Kingdom authorities’ failure to conduct prompt, thorough, effective, independent and impartial investigations into these killings has resulted in the need for public inquiries. The primary objective of these inquiries now must be to ensure that there be independent public scrutiny of those agents and institutions of the state who may have been implicated in these killings, and that those responsible be held to account, without fear or favour.
In order to enhance both family and public confidence in the transparency, effectiveness, independence and impartiality of the tribunals, we urge that at least one member of the panel should be a non-UK national. "

Bluebird
06-02-2005, 15:43
Originally posted by 85StoneWhiteFurball
How many of these membership cards would I need in order to qualify for a free tin foil hat from the NHS? One'd suffice...I should think...Maybe one'd be entitled to one of three different types, depending on the degrees of torture...Silver, gold, and platinum....

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:45
"NO JUSTICE:
Britain continues to hold 14 foreign nationals who have never been charged with any offence. The supposed evidence against them remains secret. They were never questioned by the police. They have not been put on trial.

These men are detained under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allows the Home Secretary to detain indefinitely any foreign nationals if he has 'reasonable suspicion' that they have links with 'international terrorism'. "

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:47
"Guantanamo UK

The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows foreign nationals to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial if they are accused by the Home Office of involvement in terrorism and if they cannot be deported to their home country, for example because they would be at risk of torture or death. The detentions breach the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The British government accepts this and has derogated from this part of the Convention on the grounds that there is a national emergency. Human Rights campaigners argue that the detentions also breach the right to protection from "cruel and unusual punishment."

Most of the detainees are being held in high security at HMP Belmarsh, in cells described as 'concrete coffins' and in conditions which are tantamount to torture. There is no prospect of release or trial and the detainees are not told why they are interned or when they might be released. The psychological pressure upon them and their families is immense. In December 2003, a committee of senior parliamentarians - on the Privy Council Review Committee - called for an end to indefinite internment in the UK and for the powers under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to be replaced "as a matter of urgency."

Estella Schmidt of the UK's Campaign Against Criminalising Communities says "Belmarsh is Britain's own Guantanamo. UK anti-terrorism legislation is being used to harass migrant and refugee communities and suppress dissent; it fans the flames of racial hatred and restricts the right of free speech."

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 15:57
Originally posted by Sparafucile
He was arrested in Zambia and sent to Guantanamo??

I'm looking forward to hearing Koba's expanation of this one!!

According to our friends Koba and Kniga, the USA has the right to detain anyone, anywhere in the world, without charge and for no given reason. The period of their detention is unlimited - it could in fact be for the rest of their natural life. (Oh no? Then tell me where the term duration is specified?). During the period of detention, the detainee has no rights whatsoever, and can be legally tortured at will by persons unknown, who are not obliged to prove any authority to undertake such treatment.

AND THIS IS WHAT YOU ********* CALL "DEMOCRACY"????

Condi Rice better shut her fat mouth after this.

"At least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been involved in terrorist acts, despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence, according to the Pentagon.
At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman, said last week. Others are at large.

The seven were among 203 detainees released from the prison at the U.S. naval base on Cuba's southeastern tip since it opened in early 2002.

Of those, 146 were let go only after U.S. officials determined they no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value."

Eddie Royle
06-02-2005, 16:13
Originally posted by Bluebird
This was posted on the BBC web site today...Talking about suing people...

Guantanamo man 'suing government'

Martin Mubanga said he suffered "brutal interrogation"
A British man held captive in Guantanamo Bay for 33 months plans to sue the government, it is reported.

Martin Mubanga claimed in the Observer that an MI6 officer played a key role in consigning him to the US camp in Cuba, following his arrest in Zambia.

Mr Mubanga, who holds dual British and Zambian nationality, says he was subjected to brutal interrogation at the camp and was daubed with urine.

For full story read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4240107.stm

"A DOSSIER gathered by US officials against the four British men freed this week from Guantanamo Bay alleges they all received military training in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, it emerged today.
The US Justice Department documents include claims that at least one of the men was taught how a jihad group works and was given instructions on how to use weapons and destroy vehicles. "

J.D.
06-02-2005, 16:47
The US has kidnapped accused criminals before, from countries that they could not be extradited from, and taken them to the US to stand trial. One may or may not agree with this tactic but at least those 'criminals' were afforded some basic rights in the American justice system once they arrived.


When the US last went into Panama DEA agents were on the front lines with soldiers so that if Noriega was found the DEA officer could arrest him before he would be taken prisoner by the military. Thus he would not have the rights of a POW.

J.D.
06-02-2005, 16:53
I think if you check the Dossier on Noriega you will find that he was trained at The School of The Americas. A U.S. run military training acadamey. Along with a host of other infamous Latin Americans.

Sparafucile
06-02-2005, 18:35
>>"A DOSSIER gathered by US officials against the four British men freed this week from Guantanamo Bay alleges they all received military training in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, it emerged today.
The US Justice Department documents include claims that at least one of the men was taught how a jihad group works and was given instructions on how to use weapons and destroy vehicles. " <<

The same "geniuses" who told us about the WMD???

ROFL!!!!

Keep looking for them, Eddie - one day you might find a box of matches you can talk up??? What's that strange noise - the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?

Bluebird
06-02-2005, 20:32
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>>"A DOSSIER gathered by US officials against the four British men freed this week from Guantanamo Bay alleges they all received military training in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, it emerged today.
The US Justice Department documents include claims that at least one of the men was taught how a jihad group works and was given instructions on how to use weapons and destroy vehicles. " <<

The same "geniuses" who told us about the WMD???

ROFL!!!!

Keep looking for them, Eddie - one day you might find a box of matches you can talk up??? What's that strange noise - the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped? That's a good question...From where do these dossiers appear, who pens them, signs them, then seals them???

I, for one, cannot take seriously, any more, the findings which emerge...and with perfect timing too, strangely enough; from (perhaps) the same and/or similar unknown and nameless persons, who sent people into battle...With completely inaccurate information - spun out till the cows came home - to suit one's self-proclaimed, moral beliefs...

And, here I'm talking about Mr. Blaire, of course, and how he pitched his reasons for going into Iraq, in the first place, to the British public and members of the government. All very convincing information....And all....Completely wrong!

koba65
06-02-2005, 20:40
Originally posted by Bluebird
That's a good question...From where do these dossiers appear, who pens them, signs them, then seals them???

I, for one, cannot take seriously, any more, the findings which emerge...and with perfect timing too, strangely enough; from (perhaps) the same and/or similar unknown and nameless persons, who sent people into battle...With completely inaccurate information - spun out till the cows came home - to suit one's self-proclaimed, moral beliefs...

And, here I'm talking about Mr. Blaire, of course, and how he pitched his reasons for going into Iraq, in the first place, to the British public and members of the government. All very convincing information....And all....Completely wrong!

But you'll take seriously any reports from newspapers? Kind of a double-standard, don't you think?

Bluebird
06-02-2005, 21:08
Originally posted by koba65
But you'll take seriously any reports from newspapers? Kind of a double-standard, don't you think? Well...No...I don't take seriously just ANY reports from newspapers...Especially the tabloids...What I do is treat a well-written report with a merit of respect - until that report's been proven to the contrary. Then whoever wrote duff or (proven) misleading that report should be confined to journalistic oblivion. And, rightly so too.

However, I've not seen or heard any Whithall mandarines losing their jobs, because they (in the intelligence services), screwed up on the Iraqi case...Or misled the country into the fact that Iraq had WMD, which could be targeted, primed, and launched, in 45mins. Which we now know, is technically impossible, anyway...Even if such weapons existed there, which clearly they did not.

The only man, who did lose his job, and (ultimately) his life over this intelligence fiasco, as he committed suicide, was Dr. David Kelly...

Sparafucile
07-02-2005, 01:41
>> Kind of a double-standard, don't you think? <<

Yeah, the same kind of double-standard as a "Christian" who believes in slaughtering innocent civilians in an all-out war over weapons claims that were a bare-faced lie???

Is that standard double enough for you?

koba65
07-02-2005, 01:51
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> Kind of a double-standard, don't you think? <<

Yeah, the same kind of double-standard as a "Christian" who believes in slaughtering innocent civilians in an all-out war over weapons claims that were a bare-faced lie???

Is that standard double enough for you?

I guess you defend the people who did this?

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

After all the claims were a BARE-FACED LIE and Saddam never gave us pause to think he might just have WMD and that he wouldn't think twice about using them. Take a gander...



Warning Warning - The pictures are extremely graphic - Warning Warning

Sparafucile
07-02-2005, 02:21
No, Koba, why don't you answer the QUESTION???????????

I said: "Yeah, the same kind of double-standard as a "Christian" who believes in slaughtering innocent civilians in an all-out war over weapons claims that were a bare-faced lie???"

Got any regrets over 110,000+ innocent civilians massacred in the name of your "Lord", Mr Oh-So-Damn-Pious????

Or have you got a pass from God Almighty on killing women and children??

It's certainly appalling that Saddam massacred those people.

Here's Donald Rumsfeld, shaking with Saddam on the deal that sold him the chemical weapons to murder them all. The man in the background is Dick Cheney.

koba65
07-02-2005, 03:27
(BTW, Dick Cheney is NOT the man in the picture, but why let facts bother us):
For those who cast stones:

"Revealed: 17 British Firms Armed Saddam With His Weapons
Investigation

SEVENTEEN British companies who supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation. "

"Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms-trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens. It sold medical machines with dual-purpose parts used to detonate nuclear bombs. The German government reportedly 'actively encouraged' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds. "

"In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab.

The UN claims publicly naming the companies would be counter-productive. Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades. "

"A spokesman for one of the British companies named, Endshire Export Marketing, said it had sold a consignment of magnets to a German middle-man who sold them to Iraq. Responding to claims that magnets could be used in a nuclear programme, the spokesman said: 'I've no idea if this is the case. I couldn't tell one end of a nuclear bomb from the other.' The company was included on a US boycott list in 1991.

He said the company considered the deal 'genuine business' at the time but that, with the 'benefit of hindsight', the firm would not have taken part in the deal. A spokesman for the MoD's International Military Services said he could not comment as no staff from 1991 were on the payroll and no documents from then existed. "

koba65
07-02-2005, 03:29
Originally posted by Sparafucile
No, Koba, why don't you answer the QUESTION???????????

I said: "Yeah, the same kind of double-standard as a "Christian" who believes in slaughtering innocent civilians in an all-out war over weapons claims that were a bare-faced lie???"

Got any regrets over 110,000+ innocent civilians massacred in the name of your "Lord", Mr Oh-So-Damn-Pious????

Or have you got a pass from God Almighty on killing women and children??

It's certainly appalling that Saddam massacred those people.

Here's Donald Rumsfeld, shaking with Saddam on the deal that sold him the chemical weapons to murder them all. The man in the background is Dick Cheney.

"UK firms that sold arms to Iraq



Key: A -- nuclear, B -- biological, C -- chemical, R -- rocket, K -- conventional



Euromac Ltd-UK (A)

C Plath-Nuclear (A)

Endshire Export Marketing (A)

International Computer Systems (A, R, K)

MEED International (A, C)

Walter Somers Ltd. (R)

International Computer Limited (A, K)

Matrix Churchill Corp. (A)

Ali Ashour Daghir (A)

International Military Services (R)

Sheffield Forgemasters (R)

Technology Development Group (R)

International Signal and Control (R)

Inwako (A)

TMG Engineering (K)

XYY Options, Inc (A) "

koba65
07-02-2005, 03:38
"Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad."

koba65
07-02-2005, 03:39
"The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

koba65
07-02-2005, 03:43
"Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders."

Sparafucile
07-02-2005, 22:55
>> "Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders."<<

Spara, Refrain from personal attacks, please. What I edited was beyond the type of discussion intended for this folder or site. I don't want to see it again----Mod

koba65
08-02-2005, 02:53
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> "Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders."<<

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS, YOU SPINELESS LUMP OF YANKEE SCUM?????????????????????????????

Bravo! Clap! Clap! Bis! Bis! You're doing a wonderful job of proving my point about you -Resort to name calling when someone disagrees with you. Plus k ehtomu, you just can't contain your anti-American mindset. Gotta put in the "Yankee" thing don't you? Vo vsem vinovaty Amerikantsy.. "Spineless Lump of Yankee Scum." I've been called worse by better than the likes of you.

Strange to see such vitiriol from a person who runs a tourism-based company. I'm sure you'll still take money from the "Yankees" you are always whinging on about ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Why is it that some self-described liberals are the quickest to shout down an opposing viewpoint, threaten violence, belittle another? I thought ya'll were supposed to be the "open-minded" ones...
Of course it's evident that you do so to stifle debate - someone disagrees with you about a race, ethnic group, or culture: call them a racist. With a matter on religion: assume they're a fundamental Christian and disparage that group. Disagree with you on political or military matters: call them a fascist, or a moron, or a liar. But, then again you're just a pseudo-intellectualist, so I suppose we can expect nothing else from you.

Here's another probable example of how you deal with people who disagree with you. It says alot about your maturity:

"...If I ever meet you, I will certainly say to you with great pleasure to your face what I wrote to you here on the forum. If you hear me saying it, it will be your sign to duck, because a punch on the nose will be the next way in which you'll feel the force of my feelings towards you, and I am not a small man. ..."

Strange statement from a man who derides the so-called violence of America and Americans.

I'll say it again- I have no desire to engage in any political related discussion with you because you cannot debate issues without making it personal - hence, my making it a little a personal for you. The world wide web isn't as "anonymous" as you think it is...

koba65
08-02-2005, 02:58
Originally posted by Sparafucile
YET AGAIN I ASK YOU THE QUESTION:

DO YOU, AS A SELF-PROCLAIMED "CHRISTIAN", HAVE **ANY** REGRETS ABOUT THE MASS-MURDER OF 110,00+ CIVILIANS IN IRAQ.

IT'S PATENTLY APPARENTLY FROM YOUR STRING OF SMOKESCREEN RESPONSES THAT YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING THIS QUESTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

BUT BELIEVE ME, YOU ARE GOING TO REGRET YOU EVER LOGGED-ON IF YOU FAIL TO ANSWER IT NOW.

SO COME ON, YOU HYPOCRITICAL LUMP OF SH*T - ANY REGRETS, MR GOD-SQUAD????

I don't see you cheering for Iraqi democracy in the thread I opened on that topic? I wonder why not????

Dude, you really need some medication. And, by the way, in order to be a "self-proclaimed Christian" I would have to be a Christian, wouldn't I?

And I sure hope this little statement wasn't a veiled threat:

"BUT BELIEVE ME, YOU ARE GOING TO REGRET YOU EVER LOGGED-ON IF YOU FAIL TO ANSWER IT NOW."

Ya got me shakin' in my boots.... You must be friends with a moderator or two to be able to make such statements with impunity.

koba65
08-02-2005, 04:16
Originally posted by Sparafucile
IT'S PATENTLY APPARENTLY

Oh, Neil, tsk, tsk, and after the grief you gave me about English... I guess you'll be signing up for those classes as well?

As you recently said:
"Why don't you learn basic English skills? There are several teachers offering their services on this site. It's hard to respect the illiterate, or their views, you see."

koba65
08-02-2005, 04:28
100,000 Dead—or 8,000
How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 3:49 PM PT


The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Sparafucile
08-02-2005, 10:16
>> I'm sure you'll still take money from the "Yankees" you are always whinging on about ad infinitum, ad nauseam. <<

Unlike you, you so-called "Christian", **I** have some principles.

My company has boycotted all American clients since your nation attacked Iraq.

AS I SAID - NO REGRETS FROM YOU ABOUT MASS-MURDER IN IRAQ??????????

J.D.
08-02-2005, 10:23
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>>
AS I SAID - NO REGRETS FROM YOU ABOUT MASS-MURDER IN IRAQ??????????

Now there's a 'have you stopped beating your wife?' question.

How does one answer a stupid question without looking stupid?
Well I guess it depends on who's looking.
If sparafucile's peers are looking try "Your mother dresses you funny"
If reasonably intelligent people are looking then - Why the hell are you wasting your time in this 'debate'?

Sparafucile
08-02-2005, 10:24
"THOU SHALT NOT KILL"

J.D.
08-02-2005, 10:26
and God said "Go into the city and kill every man woman and child"








____________________________________________
i don't mind looking stupid by playing with stupid people

Sparafucile
08-02-2005, 10:27
>> Now there's a 'have you stopped beating your wife?' question. <<

Welcome, J.D.

Another one who can reconcile the mass-murder of 110,000 innocent civilians?????????

Another supporter of illegal mass detention without charge or trial on Guantanamo.

Another YANK.

J.D.
08-02-2005, 10:28
Wow you're fast. You convicted me quicker than Bush did any of his detainees.

Sparafucile
08-02-2005, 10:32
>> and God said "Go into the city and kill every man woman and child" <<

Yup, and that would suit you FINE, wouldn't it, *** ********* ****** *****?

J.D.
08-02-2005, 10:35
Yeah you latched right onto the point of that post too. You're really something.



By the way if you check my postings you'll see that
I mean a literate person would see that
I Believe that Bush is an idiot, a war criminal and, unfortunately, a fellow Yank.

sfjohns67
08-02-2005, 11:36
Interesting when the more apoplectic among us start making threats.

I too am a card-carrying atheist (well, at least they tell me the card is in the mail), am against the war in Iraq, and believe that not a single death on either side was/is justified. At the same time, though, I don't believe the American government's actions, or even their motivations thereof, are grounds for casting every single American as "Yankee scum." You might try talking to a few more Americans before making such a bloated generalization.

Oh yeah, a few more things of perhaps particular import to you: I too am a Yank, served a year or two in my country's military, and am quite proud of both. I'll be at my Moscow office next Wed-Thu-Fri, which happens to be right around the corner from Belorusskaya. I like that little seafood cafe called Staraya Bukhta, you know, the one with the business lunch for 150 rubes? I have lunch there most days I'm working in the city.

Just in case any Yank will suffice for your little punch in the nose.

Ned Kelly
08-02-2005, 12:54
i understand you're passionate about iraq (i remember having pretty violent arguments with you about it a while ago) but it's making you overwrought.

as someone who believes in tolerance, generosity and understanding you surely cannot tar all americans with the same brush. i have to admit through much of my life i have been vehemently anti-american, at a political and personal level.

but in my time in moscow the americans i have met (and since befriended) have been among the most balanced, intelligent and fun people i've ever come across. (indeed, where i supported the invasion of iraq, i had them going purple in the face opposing it.) as a result i have completely changed my view and even give bush more latitude than he deserves in my determination to give americans a fair go (dislike of them is becoming pathological).

as to koba, i disagree with plenty of what he says but it is impossible to describe him as "stupid". he plainly is not, in fact he is a highly intelligent person (i've never met him, only read what he writes). so are you - and a knowledgeable and cultured person with lots to contribute.

so, i'd say to you both to restrain yourselves a bit. this is actually a pretty cool folder where interesting views can get a hearing. i'm from australia and as a citizen of the nation that sired paul keating am all for personal abuse and insults in political discourse (and there's always the deserving, like quincy). but there's got to be some entertainment value or a modicum of truth in there. it puts me off when i read physical threats or other silly stuff.

no need for it gents. i like a good title fight but keep it fair.

sfjohns67
08-02-2005, 12:59
Hear hear...the impartial and always-eloquent third party speaks!

When I read and/or hear you speak that way, Ned, it brings tears to my eyes and almost makes me forget you're the same person I once found lying in a toilet stall face-down in a puddle of his own vomit.

Ned Kelly
08-02-2005, 13:19
Originally posted by sfjohns67
the same person I once found lying in a toilet stall face-down in a puddle of his own vomit.

mate, the higher they fly, the farther they fall.

anyway, i just learnt that "to shake hands with the unemployed" is a euphemism for taking a piss. you never do stop learning...

SpruceGoose
08-02-2005, 14:59
That ones been around for years! Where the hell have you been?

But it only applies to those with appendages which arent employed of course.

"the same person I once found lying in a toilet stall face-down in a puddle of his own vomit. "

Did you perform a carrot count?

koba65
08-02-2005, 17:59
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> I'm sure you'll still take money from the "Yankees" you are always whinging on about ad infinitum, ad nauseam. <<

Unlike you, you so-called "Christian", **I** have some principles.

My company has boycotted all American clients since your nation attacked Iraq.

AS I SAID - NO REGRETS FROM YOU ABOUT MASS-MURDER IN IRAQ??????????

I must admit, I chuckle each time I see you refer to me as a "Christian." You obviously do not know me, or what I believe in.

Regarding your principles and integrity - your company just denied any American client boycott and was willing to book me on a trip. Better call the head office and tell them you unilaterally implemented a boycott - they have no idea. Perhaps to get the word out on this you should place an ad in the Moscow Times and on this website announcing that boycott. Or, are you being a tad bit dishonest?

And regrets about "mass-murder" - nope, sorry, just can't summon any remorse since the mass-murder did not occur, I personally did not order any military action, nor have I killed any innocent Iraqis. I can feel bad for the civilians (women, children, innocent men) who died as a result of ANY war. And I feel just as bad for the men and women who serve in the various armies in the Coalition who have lost their lives or limbs. I'm sure you, as a Brit, must have some regrets about your own nation's involvement and suppport of that action.

Perhaps you should add British citizens to your non-existent "boycott" since that nation (your nation) attacked Iraq as well. And might as well add Australians, Poles, Ukranians, Czechs, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Filipinos, Japanese, Nepalese, Italians, Dutch, Thais, Danes, Romanians, Hondurans, Dominico-Republicans, Norwegians, Mongolians, Azeris, Portugese, Latvians, Lithuanians, New Zealanders, Estonians, Kazakhs, and others - their governments are members of the Coaliton. After all, we're judging regular people based on what their nation's government does, aren't we? So, basically if we use your logic to judge people you're in the same boat as a "Yank."

I'd be interested in knowing the reason for your silence on the mass graves found after Saddam was ousted, the videos of torture deaths found by Iraqis, and coalition forces, the evidence of pogroms carried out against those who did not fully support Saddam's regime, the raping of enemies of Qusay Hussein, etc. etc. Or better yet, the downs-syndrome child who was used two weeks ago by your insurgent friends in Iraq to carry out a suicide bombing. Should we ignore that crime because the kid's targets were people you hate - Americans.

And here's the irony - I have expressed some (not total) support for various actions my country has engaged in, but I've never threatened you with violence. You have expressed outrage because of the killings, etc. You claim war and violence is evil (nobody can disagree with that - although some may argue that war and violence is, in some cases, a necessary evil). However, it is you, who resorts to threats of violence when someone disagrees with you.

Your resorting to threats of violence to resolve your differences with people puts you squarely in the camp of those you condemn (Bush and Blair - two men you say are resolving their differences with certain regimes through violence). Isn't that how wars get started - two nation-states have a disagreement, the level of rhetoric and name-calling increases to threats of violence and reprisals, and then, "Bob's your uncle" - actual violence occurs. Now, re-read your posts and tell me how you are any different from those who wage war.

yankee@moscow
08-02-2005, 19:23
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> and God said "Go into the city and kill every man woman and child" <<

Yup, and that would suit you FINE, wouldn't it, you spineless yankee moron?

Alright now, it's one thing to not believe in God, but stop using my name in vain! I'll rain down fire from a stealth aircraft on you for that one! :grind:

Halyavshik
09-02-2005, 10:16
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
so, i'd say to you both to restrain yourselves a bit. this is actually a pretty cool folder where interesting views can get a hearing. . it puts me off when i read physical threats or other silly stuff. no need for it gents. i like a good title fight but keep it fair.

Thank you Mr. Kelly. Geesh. Mod gets the flu for three days and all heck breaks loose.

Guys, Ned is right. I've warned both of you. If you can't keep it civil or disclose personal information, this thread will be closed and, you'll have access removed to this folder (and perhaps site-wide as well). I don't want see it, and after this, I won't. Got it ? Last warning.

Thanks,
Hal

Leslie Presley
09-02-2005, 10:35
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> Kind of a double-standard, don't you think? <<

Yeah, the same kind of double-standard as a "Christian" who believes in slaughtering innocent civilians in an all-out war over weapons claims that were a bare-faced lie???

Is that standard double enough for you?

We are not all like that. This little girl shows the Iraqi people that being an ugly 10 year old Republican in America is just as hard as the threat os having your balls shot off and them being decapitated for bvoting.

" I just wanted to show the Iraqi people that I support them and that I know what its like to be threatened by terrorists. Back in October my commie freedom hating neighbors stole our BUSH/JESUS 04 sign. "
Sally Newbolt, Thousand Oaks, California

jheisel
09-02-2005, 10:38
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1408237,00.html

C4 lines up Guantánamo-style torture show

Dominic Timms
Tuesday February 8, 2005

Channel 4 is to broadcast what it is styling a Guantánamo Bay-style reality show that will examine the effects of mild torture on seven male volunteers.
The Guantánamo Guidebook will recreate some of the practices used at the US naval base where hundreds of so-called "enemy combatants" have been held without trial or access to lawyers for nearly three years.

Using an east London warehouse and declassified internal documents obtained from US sources, programme-makers mocked up conditions as they are inside Guantánamo, before subjecting seven volunteers to some of the milder forms of torture alleged to have been used by US authorities.

The programme exposed the volunteers, three of whom are Muslim, to 48 hours of "torture lite" including sleep deprivation, the use of extreme temperatures and "mild" physical contact.

As at Guantánamo and more vividly in Abu Ghraib, the volunteers were also subject to periods of enforced nudity and religious and sexual humiliation.

The seven male volunteers, one of whom withdrew after just seven hours suffering from hypothermia, were recruited initially by adverts asking how "hard" they were.

After psychological testing there were then told what the programme was about and the list whittled down to seven. All were offered counselling after filming was finished.

The programme is part of a four-pronged investigation into the modern-day use of torture practices, in and outside the Cuban island base which Amnesty International has described as an "icon of lawlessness".

It is part of an upcoming season of films examining the use of torture in the "war against terror".

Presented by Jon Snow, Channel 4 says the programme is designed to examine the widespread use of torture and whether it can ever be justified in what the US and UK governments have called the wider war "against terror."

"The use of torture or of information gained through torture has been justified as essential on the war against terror," said the Channel 4 head of news and current affairs, Dorothy Byrne.

"This season of programmes challenges the viewers to watch torture techniques we know are used in Guantánamo [and asks whether] can such torture ever be justified. Does it work? And how the values of western society are undermined by the use of such torture."

Set for a late night slot at the end of this month, the 20/20-produced show is among a series of four programmes devoted to torture.

Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith, the first British lawyer allowed into the notorious island prison, introduces a film looking at whether torture actually works, while the investigative journalist Andrew Gilligan examines the use of torture against alleged al-Qaida suspects globally.

The final film looks at the use of torture within the US penitentiary system itself to discover that abuses against US citizens are often worse that those meted out to foreigners.

koba65
09-02-2005, 12:24
Originally posted by Leslie Presley
" I just wanted to show the Iraqi people that I support them and that I know what its like to be threatened by terrorists. Back in October my commie freedom hating neighbors stole our BUSH/JESUS 04 sign. "
Sally Newbolt, Thousand Oaks, California

Cheney's going be steamed when he finds out he was demoted.

Sparafucile
09-02-2005, 12:54
>> just can't summon any remorse <<

Well, it has taken two weeks to get this admission from you, but I am grateful that you have finally agreed to at least this level of honesty.

However, you immediate contradict this when you say "a mass-murder did not occur".

I realise that truth to you, Koba, is a relative term. For example, the WMD "exist" despite never having been found? And these murders "don't exist" despite 110,000 graves???

It's really barely worth discussing this topic with someone whose perception of reality is so badly impaired, that some abnormal psychosis is the only possible cause.

There is no shame in mental illness these days, and Moscow has a number of clinics where even complex psychological abnormalities can be treated with a high level of success.

As far as my company is concerned - I'm the owner. I have complete right to make any policies I choose. My business-hungry staff in London were obviously a tad too keen. Iif that's where you truly called? Interesting, the second day you're stalking me, first on the internet and now by phone around the world?? You are badly in need of treatment...). Thank you for bringing it to my attention - I will make sure they are properly briefed, we've taken on new staff recently due to business expansion.

Or perhaps you didn't call there? Who can say what reality is? Perhaps you only imagined it - like the WMD?

Sparafucile
09-02-2005, 13:11
To those Americans who are saying "not me, not me, it is unfair to blame a whole nation", I can say only this...

... your war in Iraq is not supported or sanctioned by ANY international body. The United Nations (despite Bush's cash bribes to the Govts of Romania and Bulgaria, who were temporary members of the Security Council) never debated it, because Bush's research showed him he would be humiliatingly defeated on absence of WMD evidence. More damningly, NATO (the organisation the USA itself called into being for exactly such occasions) refused to back the USA, citing massive holes in the evidence and rationale for war as their reasons.

There is no other body who can accept blame. This is a purely American initiative. Other countries (including my own GB, Italy, initially Spain, Japan, Bulgaria etc) have agreed to support the USA's war, but through no compulsion or international accord.

This is an American-initiated war. The evidence for WMD was faulty - even Rumsfeld and Powell now say so publicly - and the UN and NATO are vindicated in having refused to participate on that basis. No WMD or supporting evidence for them have been discovered, and the USA has called-off the search - an admission of abject failure.

It is not the Halliburton Corporation at war. It is not the Republican Party's Army fighting in Iraq. IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IT IS THE US ARMY AND USAF WHO ARE FIGHTING THIS WAR. It is your country's war, like it or not.

In the same way that Americans have been VERY ready to blame France - for what, exactly, is an interesting question? - or Germany, or Spain....

... then I blame America.

I refuse to accept or be told that this isn't correct. SOMEONE has killed all those people. SOMEONE killed the women and children of Fallujah in a single afternoon's bombing raids on civilian homes. YOUR OWN MILITARY gave out Press Releases confirming the attacks.

You may stay in denial for as long as you wish.

But you have no right to demand that you will not stand accused of the acts that you have committed, by your own admission and by documentary proof.

yankee@moscow
09-02-2005, 13:16
No, no, no.....blame me. It's alright. I can take it. It's all my fault. Don't forget. I live in Russia. I get blamed for anything bad that I'm involved in. I'm used to it. So, go ahead and point the finger in my direction. There, feel better? Good! We're all happy now. Everything that happened or happens in Iraq is all my fault. I'm to blame. Now we can all get along and call Yankee@Moscow names instead of each other.:)

Ned Kelly
09-02-2005, 13:27
Originally posted by Sparafucile
To those Americans who are saying "not me, not me, it is unfair to blame a whole nation", I can say only this...

... your war in Iraq is not supported or sanctioned by ANY international body. The United Nations (despite Bush's cash bribes to the Govts of Romania and Bulgaria, who were temporary members of the Security Council) never debated it, because Bush's research showed him he would be humiliatingly defeated on absence of WMD evidence. More damningly, NATO (the organisation the USA itself called into being for exactly such occasions) refused to back the USA, citing massive holes in the evidence and rationale for war as their reasons.

There is no other body who can accept blame. This is a purely American initiative. Other countries (including my own GB, Italy, initially Spain, Japan, Bulgaria etc) have agreed to support the USA's war, but through no compulsion or international accord.

This is an American-initiated war. The evidence for WMD was faulty - even Rumsfeld and Powell now say so publicly - and the UN and NATO are vindicated in having refused to participate on that basis. No WMD or supporting evidence for them have been discovered, and the USA has called-off the search - an admission of abject failure.

It is not the Halliburton Corporation at war. It is not the Republican Party's Army fighting in Iraq. IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IT IS THE US ARMY AND USAF WHO ARE FIGHTING THIS WAR. It is your country's war, like it or not.

In the same way that Americans have been VERY ready to blame France - for what, exactly, is an interesting question? - or Germany, or Spain....

... then I blame America.

I refuse to accept or be told that this isn't correct. SOMEONE has killed all those people. SOMEONE killed the women and children of Fallujah in a single afternoon's bombing raids on civilian homes. YOUR OWN MILITARY gave out Press Releases confirming the attacks.

You may stay in denial for as long as you wish.

But you have no right to demand that you will not stand accused of the acts that you have committed, by your own admission and by documentary proof.

that is one of the most convoluted arguments i've read in a long time.

it's pathetic neither you nor koba can show restraint. you're infantile, and bores.

koba65
09-02-2005, 14:49
Originally posted by Sparafucile
To those Americans who are saying "not me, not me, it is unfair to blame a whole nation", I can say only this...

... your war in Iraq is not supported or sanctioned by ANY international body. The United Nations (despite Bush's cash bribes to the Govts of Romania and Bulgaria, who were temporary members of the Security Council) never debated it, because Bush's research showed him he would be humiliatingly defeated on absence of WMD evidence. More damningly, NATO (the organisation the USA itself called into being for exactly such occasions) refused to back the USA, citing massive holes in the evidence and rationale for war as their reasons.

There is no other body who can accept blame. This is a purely American initiative. Other countries (including my own GB, Italy, initially Spain, Japan, Bulgaria etc) have agreed to support the USA's war, but through no compulsion or international accord.

This is an American-initiated war. The evidence for WMD was faulty - even Rumsfeld and Powell now say so publicly - and the UN and NATO are vindicated in having refused to participate on that basis. No WMD or supporting evidence for them have been discovered, and the USA has called-off the search - an admission of abject failure.

It is not the Halliburton Corporation at war. It is not the Republican Party's Army fighting in Iraq. IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IT IS THE US ARMY AND USAF WHO ARE FIGHTING THIS WAR. It is your country's war, like it or not.

In the same way that Americans have been VERY ready to blame France - for what, exactly, is an interesting question? - or Germany, or Spain....

... then I blame America.

I refuse to accept or be told that this isn't correct. SOMEONE has killed all those people. SOMEONE killed the women and children of Fallujah in a single afternoon's bombing raids on civilian homes. YOUR OWN MILITARY gave out Press Releases confirming the attacks.

You may stay in denial for as long as you wish.

But you have no right to demand that you will not stand accused of the acts that you have committed, by your own admission and by documentary proof.

Andrei Vyshinsky has spoken.

Leslie Presley
09-02-2005, 15:36
Originally posted by koba65
Cheney's going be steamed when he finds out he was demoted.

WE NEED DICK!


Cheney has revealed time and time again that he realises that everyone has a place in society. He knows that minorities have no business trying to obtain the jobs of true Americans and women belong in the homes. And he recognises that homo's belong nowhere.

Cheney has done his part to put the colored people of the world in their place too. He consistently voted against sanctions in Sth Africa for its policy on apartheid - which translated means God's chosen few.

Cheney had the moral backbone to stand up and say, "Nelson Mandela is no different from other black men - he's a criminal."

Oh! Yes! We need Dick alright!

Sparafucile
09-02-2005, 15:56
I fail to see what is convoluted about this idea:

"America started it, as a nation. America is therefore responsible for it, as a nation."

It is the most basic principle of law in the world.

I spelt it out for the benefit of those who can't see that, won't see that, or are in complete denial that anything has happened. Denial of civilian deaths in Iraq goes beyond basic dishonesty, and is the talk of either a crook, or a madman - there are only two alternatives.

alterego
09-02-2005, 16:00
/

Ned Kelly
09-02-2005, 16:10
yes, but people can dissent from a government policy and in this case clearly do.

anyway, fire away. i just thought there was a pretty interesting dynamic in this folder and it was sort of disappearing.

i hope that doesn't happen.

sfjohns67
09-02-2005, 19:11
Wait a second...I have it on good authority that Sparafucile and Broadmoor Bob and "85 kiloton fatass ursine" are one and the same.

In other words, a raging psychotic who forgot one time too many to have their prescription refilled.

I hope you don't stop posting, Sparafucile. You're cute in a certain way...I just watched Jurassic Park, and you remind me of the Tyrannosaurus flapping its ineffectual little forearms and bellowing at the top of its lungs. So cute. So...significant.

Bluebird
09-02-2005, 22:50
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Thank you Mr. Kelly. Geesh. Mod gets the flu for three days and all heck breaks loose.

Guys, Ned is right. I've warned both of you. If you can't keep it civil or disclose personal information, this thread will be closed and, you'll have access removed to this folder (and perhaps site-wide as well). I don't want see it, and after this, I won't. Got it ? Last warning.

Thanks,
Hal And, I agree with both of you. But, I would like to say this though Whil'st I do not neccessarily agree with Koba's views - he is entitled to them, and he backs up his views with good argument.

Never once has he got personal and got down into the gutter-sniping mode.

Sparafucile, has all but destroyed his argument, by doing just that. Although, I passionately disagree with the reasons, as to what and why we went into Iraq, I do find it somewhat contradictory, for him to start getting personal...Contrary to the views (of fair engagement) he purports to support here.

It seems rather boring and futile to accuse one of being the bully boy...I.e. Uncle Sam, when one is rather acting no differently here.

I'm not perfect nor an angel, but this (personal) mud-slinging is getting rather tedious, and detracts from what this forum/thread's all about.

Clearly this (personal) and aggressive ping-pong has to stop or be stopped. And, yes, you've a job to do. However, I cannot see why Koba should be punished though, for something that clearly he did not start.

Infact, I think he's risen above it all rather well, and has not stooped to take what is (nothing less, as far as I'm can see), than some rather nasty baiting, going down here.

Sparafucile, you've more than made your point...Chill out man...Roll one up, and listen to some Dylan's, "Like a Rolling Stone," and America's (the group that is), "Horse with No Name"....Followed by some classic Supertramp...Great music to get stoned to...Seems like you need to relax....:cool:

Sparafucile
09-02-2005, 22:58
>> Wait a second...I have it on good authority that Sparafucile and Broadmoor Bob and "85 kiloton fatass ursine" are one and the same. <<

That must be the same source that said there were WMD in Iraq, that the USA has killed no civilians in Iraq, and that all the Guantanamo Bay inmates are guilty, I suppose??

ROFL! You get more hopeless with every post you write!

Guess again, Boy Wonder!!

85StoneWhiteFurball
09-02-2005, 23:01
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> Wait a second...I have it on good authority that Sparafucile and Broadmoor Bob and "85 kiloton fatass ursine" are one and the same. <<

Whoever originally wrote the nonsense quoted above must be in my Ignore list, because until Spara quoted it, I did not see it. Normally I don't get involved in this forum at all (although I do read it), nor do I respond to anything posted by any of my Ignore-amuses, but this one has me falling out of my chair laughing. Thanks for the entertainment.

Leslie Presley
09-02-2005, 23:15
Who is NOT on your ignore list?

Bluebird
11-02-2005, 01:01
Originally posted by Sparafucile
I fail to see what is convoluted about this idea:

"America started it, as a nation. America is therefore responsible for it, as a nation."

It is the most basic principle of law in the world.

I spelt it out for the benefit of those who can't see that, won't see that, or are in complete denial that anything has happened. Denial of civilian deaths in Iraq goes beyond basic dishonesty, and is the talk of either a crook, or a madman - there are only two alternatives. Errr, Amercia and Britain actually...Together they...Sorry we - started it....Blair's too much of a lap dog to stand up and say...Nooooo!

"Here boy"....Said JWB 2.....And, there he was begging for his good-boy chocky drops, like the faithful Labrador he is....

He got lotsa praise from ol' Condy Rice....She said that we're the best friends America's got....There you go....A dog's always a man's best friend; irrespective of his masters' voices' flawed politics and bad judgements...:)

koba65
11-02-2005, 03:27
Originally posted by Bluebird
Errr, Amercia and Britain actually...Together they...Sorry we - started it....Blair's too much of a lap dog to stand up and say...Nooooo!

I would say it's not a one-way street and that TB is not really a lap dog. When Britain allies with the US it does so because this alliance allows Britain to significantly increase the projection of its own political-military influence. A British scholar once described this relationship as allowing Britain to "punch above its weight" in international affairs. Britain's strategic alliance with the US has increased proportionally as its own world power has decreased. The stronger Britain was, the less tightly linked it was to the US, the weaker Britain is, the closer it links itself to the US. (This by no measure implies that the British are somehow inferior, weaker, or American toadies - it's just global politics)

The ability to project power globally and have influence in the world drives most nations. In the case of the Anglo-American alliance, Britain's linkage to the US provides it with the power its ruling elite seeks. And, as it is not a one-way street, the US gains from being able to justify its actions (whether "just" or not) by saying, "The Brits are with us on this," i.e., borrowing on the credibility from a European nation with a fairly solid reputation. Add cultural, historical and blood ties to this strategic military-political union and you have a strong basis for this alliance.

War is the final level of politics. When the ability to diplomatically influence or coerce another nation in to doing something they don't want to do fails; war or local conflicts usually result. Wars have been fought to free enslaved peoples, to gain territory, to extract retribution (or revenge, some may say), and, yes, in the name of Christ, Allah, or other deities. War has been called necessary, unnecessary, just and unjust. But the bottom line in all wars is civilians (and soldiers) have suffered and sacrificed, usually because of politicians, despots, dictators, conquerers, and demagogues, who may or may not represent the actual desires of their own nations.

All civilian deaths in armed conflict are regrettable. Most civilians are just concerned with going about their daily lives and providing for their families. They do not ask to be thrust into danger because their government has a problem with another government. However, there is a difference between purposely targeting civilians and accidentily or unavoidably killing them. There are plenty of studies and after-action reports that show soldiers from democratic nations consistently put themselves at extreme risk or die themselves in order to avoid such so-called "collateral" casualties. Such is the nature of modern warfare, such are the weapons that are developed to reduce this possibility. But, these tactics and weapons are not infallible and civilians do die. However, I personally do not know one veteran, one soldier, or one pilot who does not anguish over the innocent loss of life. Most would gladly give up their own lives (and some have) so that a child, or mother, could carry on.

Most here would probably agree that WWII as fought by the Allies was a "just" war. Facism was defeated and nations were liberated. But how many of us know that the Allies purposely targeted German civilians? This is an interesting case to compare today's warfare with that waged only 60 years ago.

A plan known as "terror bombing" was developed by Charles Portal of the British Air Staff. The plan entailed targeting civilian population areas of German cities and towns in order to bring about a collapse in the morale of the German population. This plan was enacted in full force when 773 Lancasters of the Royal Air Force, followed by 527 USAAF heavy bombers, dropped incendiary bombs on Dresden, Germany. The result was the area caught on fire, the air above area became extremely hot and quickly rose. Colder air gushed in at the ground level from outside of the area and people were sucked into the fire. Over 36,000 civilians died in this bombing raid. (British Air Marshall Arthur Harris selected Dresden because it was unable to defend itself from air attack.) How is this not a war crime? The victors decide what is a crime and what is not.

Now compare this attack to any attack on Iraq. Firstly, civilians were not targeted. Secondly, the death rates of civilians have not approached that of any other similiar conflict (not justifying the deaths, just stating the facts). Thirdly, many numbers have been bantied about regarding the numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths - perhaps the actual numbers may never be known, but it is interesting to note that the BBC had to retract its statements about civilian deaths because they overstated the numbers.

Opposing sides always argue about the number of civilian deaths - one side says x number were killed the other side says xxxx number was killed. No one will be able to know with any certainty until the conflict is over and actual studies are conducted. No need to jump on the "holier-than-thou" bandwagon - I'll state it once again - all civilian deaths are regretable.

And to my "friend" Sparafucile: While I can understand your fervent passion about the innocent loss of life and your disgust about a war you sincerely believe is being waged unjustly, I cannot agree with the manner in which you chose to express yourself. Just as you label this war as unjust and immoral, I feel your description of me and my countrymen as murderers, crooks, Christian crusaders, rapists, etc., is just as immoral and unjust. The language you use to express yourself and to describe us is the same as the firebrands who whip people into a frenzy in order to wage these unjust and immoral wars. For it is the xenophobic demogague who is wont to condemn others based on their nation of birth, color, religious affiliation, ethnicity, or the actions of their government. I prefer to believe that you do not fall into this category, but somehow you just got a bit carried away defending what you passionately believe in.

Additionally, my responses to your attacks and my counterattacks to your responses illustrate just how conflicts can escalate into unnecessary violence if not kept in check. As you and I verbally slung it out believing our respective positions held the higher moral ground, the rest of the "world" (the forum), either allied itself with one of us, appealed for peace, or wanted to ally themselves with one us, but didn't agree with the level of our response/retaliation. Do you see some real world parallels here? For us, we have an fairly unbiased moderator who will step in and enforce the peace, or sanction one or both of us - unfortunately in the "real" world, the moderator (the UN) is somewhat broken at the moment...

No matter what I believe or you believe, the Iraq war was waged and the conflict continues. However, I think we have a choice to make now. Do we say sorry, withdraw and leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves? Or, do we stick it out, assist them to become the nation that THEY want to become? Perhaps the only good that can come out of this war is that the Iraqi people will be able to become democratic, or freely choose what they want to become. Perhaps this will lead to others in that part of the world to be able to gain their freedom from oppresive regimes (and hopefully through peaceful means).

Bluebird
13-02-2005, 03:56
Isn't life strange....If I were a politican, i could blow people away, with impunity...and invade a whole country....:)

Bluebird
13-02-2005, 03:57
Koba, as usual, you have put together, with a serious degree of thought too, a very logical, well-balanced piece here.

You are quite correct to mention about the Anglo-American Alliance and the way in which Britain can use it, as a small country, to "Punch above its weight." However, it all depends on the cause that one is "punching" for.

The fact that TB and/or his government ministers lied and/or spun intelligence information, to the British public and parliament; is totally inexcuseable and unforgivable - to a tax-paying public, who voted their confidence in him.

There are also certain questions which, to this day, have not been satifactorily answered on this issue too. One questions, as such, is:

Why was parliament not recalled for an emergency session (it was on holiday), when the battle cry was called - committing our troops into battle? That had never happened, in British history before.

Another question is this: TB was in bed, when the order went out to attack; as it was 3am in London, because of the time difference. By what right, did JWB have the right to order British troops into battle, without making a (at least) courtesty call to his ol' buddy TB? That's another historical first, and another unaswered question.

What the hell went on there? Was there already an old boys' agreement made, which was and never has been made public knowledge? Or did TB simply post the, "Do not disturb sign," on the door of his private quarters at 10 Downing Street?

Turning my attention to Dresden, whils't I feel sorry for the inhabitants of that beautiful city...One has too, to spare a thought for the victims of the blitz campaign (again'st Britain), when Hitlers' Luftwaffe bombs, rained down and "Doodle-bugs" rained down on the UK, for almost the entire length of the war.

Coventry was just a smouldering ruin, after just one night of a very bloody Blitzkrieg. And, make no mistake, the aim of that campaign, was not just to take out factories and logistics suppiles and infrastructures; but to completely demoralize and traumatize a nation into eventual capitulation.

The bombing was both discriminate and indescriminate. When the fuel supply in the Doodle-bug (for example), was exhausted, anywhwere over the UK, they just fell to the ground and boom....Another few Brits gone - forever. Deliberate and completely indecriminate....!!!

Multiply that by the hundereds that did make it past the Royal Air Force, (when they tried to shoot them down over the English Channel), the barrgage ballons and coastal, anti-aircraft guns - that's a hell of a lot of the British population blown to smithereens; I'd say.

My mother told me how ther'd just fall out of the sky, with a sickening swooshing sound, when the engine spluttered to a halt. She lost her neighbour, one night. The were never found, under the rubble of what was their house.

The fact that Air Marshall Harris of Bomber Command, was made a scapegoat for his orginising, of what was a direct order from above; was one of the most tragic outcomes of that episode, of WW2. Yes, Dreseden was raised to the ground, yes innocent people died, but the Hitler and his Luftwaffe had long ago, started that nasty tactic.

So, it was payback time. Churchill needed that, to demosnstrate to a war-weary country, that we could still strike back, and kick a certain Mr. Hitler and his regime, in the nuts....and, that's what he did, and why he ordered that attack. It was a much-needed tonic to a nation; which had been bombed to pieces, living on a measerly war ration and coupons, and seeing their men dying on the various fonts - for the best part of 6 "bloody" years.

The other thing is - and I say this with all due respect too. We were at war, fighting the Nazis, long before Uncle Sam got stuck in...America never knew, until Pearl Harbour, what it was like to be bombed, and/or live on rations. Infact the American GI's had the best of verything, even when they arrived in the UK. And the American GI, openly and quite unashamedly; fluanted it around too - infront of the (quite war-worn and deprived of most everyday things - from tights to cosmetics) local gals.

They had money, much more in terms of salaries paid, to that of their British counterparts. They also had good (army) food/catering srevices, and took the British gals too....What was the saying of the day? "Over paid, oversexed, and over here...No wonder the British troops didn't like em...Joining a war effort, against an evil tyrant 3 years late; and then wooing and taking their gals, whils't they were on the front, just for good measure and sex...Wow, talk about rubbing a little salt into the (British) battle-weary soldiers' wounds.

Anyhow, that's straying from the point, and you're right too. War is the final level of politics. Strange how they (them thar political leaders of ours), never seem to suffer or are brought to book for their follies though, isn't it? Yet, if I shot or bombed someone, I'd have hell to pay for....And all cos, I'm not a politician....That is to say, either a British (Labrador) for a PM and/or a US president - his masters' (for the Labrador, that is) voice. :)

J.D.
13-02-2005, 11:19
I read a great spoof on WWII by National Lampoon. It was called "What if WWII had been Fought like Vietman." In it an American pilot was courtmartialed for bombing civilians and the war was really run in a half-assed way. The out come was that the Germans conquered not only England but also the US.
It was done as humor but I thought it was some serious food for thought about how and to what end wars are fought.

Crazyeelboy
13-02-2005, 15:40
Hey Sparafucile:

Keep up the good work. Post more and more...

Bluebird
13-02-2005, 20:54
Originally posted by J.D.
I read a great spoof on WWII by National Lampoon. It was called "What if WWII had been Fought like Vietman." In it an American pilot was courtmartialed for bombing civilians and the war was really run in a half-assed way. The out come was that the Germans conquered not only England but also the US.
It was done as humor but I thought it was some serious food for thought about how and to what end wars are fought. Food for thought, indeed. Quite diturbing, actually...:)

Bluebird
13-02-2005, 21:04
Originally posted by J.D.
I read a great spoof on WWII by National Lampoon. It was called "What if WWII had been Fought like Vietman." In it an American pilot was courtmartialed for bombing civilians and the war was really run in a half-assed way. The out come was that the Germans conquered not only England but also the US.
It was done as humor but I thought it was some serious food for thought about how and to what end wars are fought. I've read today, that Schroeder, whilst in Dresden, for the 60th anniversary of the allied bombing raid there; paid homage to the city of Coventry - destroyed be the Luftwaffe, and for the Blitzkreig, in general...To the people of the UK.

I think, that, that was a wonderful gesture. Time's a good healer. Time to bury hatchets and the terrors WW2.

Putins speech, to the survivors of the Holocaust, recently was also delivered with tact and eloquence. A truly great speech...

Zephyr
07-03-2005, 03:01
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
yes, but people can dissent from a government policy and in this case clearly do.

anyway, fire away. i just thought there was a pretty interesting dynamic in this folder and it was sort of disappearing.

i hope that doesn't happen.
I am an American and I disagree with what this government does 90% of the time. To equate the people of a nation with that nations government is a grave logical fallacy, not to mention being unfair and factually wrong.

Sparafucile
07-03-2005, 08:58
>> To equate the people of a nation with that nations government is a grave logical fallacy, not to mention being unfair and factually wrong. <<

Whatever salves your conscience. Keep paying your taxes - GWB needs them.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 10:27
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> To equate the people of a nation with that nations government is a grave logical fallacy, not to mention being unfair and factually wrong. <<

Whatever salves your conscience. Keep paying your taxes - GWB needs them. Sorry man - that last comment's absolute nonsense, not called for, and you're just saying something for the sake of it. Do you pay UK taxes?

koba65
07-03-2005, 12:39
Originally posted by Bluebird
Sorry man - that last comment's absolute nonsense, not called for, and you're just saying something for the sake of it. Do you pay UK taxes?


I'd love to see the US reduce it's worldwide committments, especially on defense, and especially in Europe - that way more of our people would be able to see a bigger return on our taxes (and less of our guys would be killed doing something that's unappreciated). Likewise, Europeans could start paying more for defense and taking more responsibility in providing for a collective defense. Proferring criticism of every step the US makes is free - doing something to resolve problems in the world takes money.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 14:26
Originally posted by koba65
I'd love to see the US reduce it's worldwide committments, especially on defense, and especially in Europe - that way more of our people would be able to see a bigger return on our taxes (and less of our guys would be killed doing something that's unappreciated). Likewise, Europeans could start paying more for defense and taking more responsibility in providing for a collective defense. Proferring criticism of every step the US makes is free - doing something to resolve problems in the world takes money. Not only does it take money, but reaching a common concencus and way(s) of approach too. The money is only one part (although of paramount importance) of a very complex issue. At the end of the day, you cannot just throw money at things without a commonly and previously agreed plan. Sorry, for stating the obvious here though.

That mistake was made with Russia, after the collapse of communism, and it was done on Clinton's watch too. Look what happened with that money too....Or more to the point - what didn't happen.

koba65
07-03-2005, 17:04
Originally posted by Bluebird
Not only does it take money, but reaching a common concencus and way(s) of approach too. The money is only one part (although of paramount importance) of a very complex issue. At the end of the day, you cannot just throw money at things without a commonly and previously agreed plan. Sorry, for stating the obvious here though.

That mistake was made with Russia, after the collapse of communism, and it was done on Clinton's watch too. Look what happened with that money too....Or more to the point - what didn't happen.

It also takes resolve and a willingness to act - all I see eminating from Brussells is relentless pontification about what the US is doing wrong but no suggestions on how do to it right - and no steps taken to do it themselves.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 17:16
Originally posted by koba65
It also takes resolve and a willingness to act - all I see eminating from Brussells is relentless pontification about what the US is doing wrong but no suggestions on how do to it right - and no steps taken to do it themselves. *Sigh.* Unfortunately, it seems you're so right there. They couldn't even agree what to do on the former Yugoslavia, and for 10 years; they allowed a bloody civil war to rage right in their own back yard - complete with ethnic cleansing...:(

Sparafucile
07-03-2005, 20:51
>> Do you pay UK taxes? <<

I personally pay Russian taxes.

What gives YOU the right to determine whose comments are "called for", Bluebird?

You start flame-laden threads on one topic only - attacks on the USA.

You can hand it out, mate - but you can't take it, can you????

Sorry to tell you, but Her Britannic Majesty and her loyal subjects are the spineless, witless, craven cowards who do George Bush's bidding - and in my book, that's even worse than Bush. At least Bush has something to gain (re-election) from his war. What has Britain gained from it?

Any idea on the number of Brits killed so far? Any idea what percentage were killed in Friendly Fire incidents?

Now-now, that swelling artery on your neck will do you no good at all, Bluebottle.