"Humiliating" the Arabs? And if so... so what?

[Skeptic]

Every time some despot falls in the middle east--an all-too-infrequent occurence, unfortunately--we hear from the left that this is wrong, because it "humiliates the Arabs" (or the Muslims), with their presumably ultra-sensitive national pride. (Of course, the same sort of pride--in a much milder form--is considered intolerably "racist xenophobia" when displayed by Americans, but I digress.) As proof, we get video clips of the latest mob-for-hire shouting "Death to America!" out of their own free will with no coersion whatsoever--in Teheran or Islamabad or Cairo or Tripoli, those bastions of free expression of public opinion.

Well, Saddam fell. The supposedly "humiliated" Iraqis were SO humiliated this time, they danced in the streets for joy, openly claiming this is the happiest day of their lives. And on the same day the pride of the Arab world, the great and brave Hussein, was captured by evil imperialist forces, too!

What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with it is that the USA is NOT "humiliating the Arabs". It is merely humiliating the despots who rule the Arab world and the terrorists who would like all of the world to be (their kind of) Muslim. Most Arabs--and most Muslims--fervently wish for their "dear leaders" to be humiliated in this way, and the sooner, the better. If I were living in Libya, I'd be praying to Allah every day that the Americans will decide to humiliate Quaddafi next--and most of them no doubt are doing just that, if they can get a glimpse of the truth from their state-controlled press.

(By the way, one unintentional side effect of state-controlled press is that the public learns to read between the lines. "GREAT DEFENSIVE VICTORY" = retreat and/or defeat, "THE MOTHER OF ALL WARS HAS STARTED" = Saddam failed to stop American invasion, "ARAB PRIDE WILL AVENGE THIS IMPERIALIST AGRESSION" = Saddam finally captured, etc. Those Libyans who learned this art are probably quite happy right now. But I digress...)

In addition, even if it WERE true that "humiliating the Arabs" was a result of toppling Saddam, just like Quaddafi and Hamas fervently claim, SO WHAT?

When you fight a war, you have three options. 1). To lose; 2). To eliminate the enemy to the last man; 3). To defeat the enemy and NOT take revenge upon him, leaving him "humiliated" at having lost a war.

LOSING A WAR MEANS BEING HUMILIATED. DUH! But this is precisely what the USA did to Germany and Japan in WWII, to England in the Revolutionary war, to the south in the civil war, and to the USSR in the end of the cold war, etc., etc. A humiliated enemy come part and parcel with winning war. When the left says "don't humiliate the Arabs", what it really means is "don't you dare win the war, your enemy might not like it!".

But surely, "humiliating" the enemy--as opposed to losing the war or eradicting the enemy--is the least of the three evils, and it usually QUICKLY PASSES, especially since the US was always willing to show good will to a defeated enemy. When your "humiliating" victor comes back the next day and says, "OK, we won the war, now here's this money to reconstruct the damage you suffered and to build a democracy", it's hard to keep a grudge for long. Do we see many German or Japanese suicide bombers angry about their country's humiliation in WWII (and they were FAR more humiliated than the Iraqis ever were)? Where are the Russian jihadist out to avenge the fall of the Berlin wall?

So, first of all, I think that the Arabs, far from being "humiliated", are--unlike their despotic governments--hoping and praying for a lot more "humiliation" of this sort, and the sooner the better. In addition, even if they ARE humiliated, this is by far the least of a few possible evils, and certainly no reason for the USA to stop.

[Tmy]

Ummm who said that Saddams caprture humilated the arabs? The magic super-liberal robot that lives in your basement?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ummm who said that Saddams caprture humilated the arabs? The magic super-liberal robot that lives in your basement? See here, for starters. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32304)

[plindboe]

I haven't heard such an argument. Who said it?

[geni]

He need to be captured. Once the war had started we had to either capture or kill him. Wether this humileates the Arab world does not matter by this stage we had no choice.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by plindboe
I haven't heard such an argument. Who said it?

Well, aside from the link I just posted, see here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870230201#post1870230201) and here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870230323#post1870230323)

[Tmy]

Ok if you want to say that seeing Saddam all scruffy and being examined is humiliating, ill agree with that. (I believe the footage was chosen because it humilated Saddam and it destroys his mystique)

But Skept talks about how we "here from the left". This thread implies that there are left thinking americans who feel we shouldnt captur Saddam because it'll hurt some arbs feelings.

Can you find me somone whos said that? Other than the magic uberleftist outragous quote generating robot. :p

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ummm who said that Saddams caprture humilated the arabs? The magic super-liberal robot that lives in your basement?

One need not search long. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/04ED8C25-1CBE-412F-AC41-7D0B86142FD8.htm)

I felt extremely humiliated," said Egyptian writer Sayyid Nassar, who interviewed Saddam three weeks before the US-led invasion of Iraq on 20 March. "I felt it was not only a humiliation of Arabs but of all humanity."

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, aside from the link I just posted, see here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870230201#post1870230201) and here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870230323#post1870230323)

Thanks. I disagree with Capel and Cleo. I thought the footage of Saddam was perfect to show in every way, as it's needed to convince the iraques that he has in fact been caught. I just find it strange that Skeptic's long rant, against the left, was provoked by a few posts. I don't even think Cleo is a leftist. Oh, well.

[rikzilla]

More from AC's link:

The Iraqi political analyst Ali al-Dabbagh, who lives in the United Arab Emirates, said Arabs were shocked and humiliated because of the "collapse of a myth" which forced "Arabs to face their sad reality and impotence.

"Many were those who were shocked that this 'hero', whom the media covered with a halo and glorious titles like the 'valorous', did not resist" US forces coming to arrest him, Dabbagh said.

"Suddenly, Arabs saw the true face of Saddam: a dwarf who did not have the courage to resist or even commit suicide as he had for so long claimed he would do," Dabbagh said.

How true....

[Tmy]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


One need not search long. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/04ED8C25-1CBE-412F-AC41-7D0B86142FD8.htm)



A quote from an Egyptian writer??? Does he count as "the left". Whats next, some quotes from Bath Party members? How about some suicide bombers? Maybe Castro wants to weigh in. Arent they all card carrying Democrats!!

[Mel]

The "humiliation" that the Arabs are complaining about is just more of the usual scapgoating.

Rather than hold their own governments/regimes accountable they find it safer to blame the modern world for all their troubles.




Arabs express mixed emotions (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C5AB7236-8A51-44C4-8A69-79EB38FE69EF.htm)


Here's just ONE opinion & this by a member of Jordan's parliament.

"Of course it's bad news. To us, Saddam was a symbol of defiance to the US plans in the region. And we support any person who stands in the face of the American dominance," said Azzam Hinaidi, an Islamist member of Jordan's parliament."

[headscratcher4]

Palistinian Editor on CNN yesterday said that the pictures of US treatment of Saddam were humiliating to Arabs and would, in the end, cause great resentment against the US.

It is an interesting spin. Arabs who want the pretext, will of course, be humiliated. They didn't need US treatment of Saddam for that, in any event.

In the end, it is Iraqis that matter. If (and it is a big if) Saddam's capture and facing a trial liberates the country...i.e. makes it possible for people to speak their minds, become more comfortable with participating in post-Saddam Iraq, and lessens fear ... than it is a good thing.

BTW, not that any arab nationalist who wants to feel humiliated would care, I actually thought that the US treatment of Saddam was appropriate and on the humaine side. They gave him a medical check...they didn't frog march him naked in front of cameras, they didn't call out his name in a mass assembly and have him taken out and summarilly shot. They didn't have him tortured or have the soles of his feet beaten. They didn't rape his daughters in front of him. THey didn't amputate any of his limbs. They didn't attach batteries to his private parts and turn on the juice. They didn't gas him. They didn cut him with knives. THey didn't turn him over to his son's weilding baseball bats...and on and on.

They gave him a physical, a shave and checked his DNA. Pretty bad and darn humiliating.

The difficulty, and the US will never be the right ones to make this argument, btw, is that the only humiliation that Arabs should feel about Saddam is the humiliation that he has brought on himself and them...he wasted the resources, both human and natural, of the Iraqi nation for years. He robbed them, he murdered them, he got them into pointless wars that killed millions of them (and Iranians). Arabs need to use this opportunity to "try" Saddam, and to establish a rule of law that holds leaders in their nations responsible.

Indeed, the trial of Saddam should make Saudis and Syrian Baathist think a little harder about the world they are building. The masses turn to fundumentalist Islam, because leaders like Saddam are theives and murderers and put themselves and families above the law and justice. Some in the Arab masses have grabbed on to this sort of fundumentalist Islam in an effort to find Justice.

Anyway, in the end, Saddam is his own humiliation. Redemption for Arab honor lies in trying him and convicting him for his perversion of their dignity and his usurpation of their honor.

I don't expect it to happen, but it could....

[Lothian]

The BBC suggested that the Americans were treating him as a POW. As such the pictures showing him having his saliva swabbed was an example of the behaviour they objected to when the Iraqis displayed their POWs.

I think the point being made was to win hearts and minds of the rebels you don’t sink to the level of the Saddam Regime rather you show yourselves to be above it.

I dare say that the American higher command felt that by humiliating Saddam the people currently ambushing them and the civilians in Iraq would feel more inclined to give themselves up.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Lothian
The BBC suggested that the Americans were treating him as a POW. As such the pictures showing him having his saliva swabbed was an example of the behaviour they objected to when the Iraqis displayed their POWs.

I think the point being made was to win hearts and minds of the rebels you don’t sink to the level of the Saddam Regime rather you show yourselves to be above it.

I dare say that the American higher command felt that by humiliating Saddam the people currently ambushing them and the civilians in Iraq would feel more inclined to give themselves up.

The US command had a serious problem: people needed to see and believe that it was Saddam. Remember the questions raised at the death of his sons? This is a man who had people surgically altered to act as doubles for him, etc.

So long as he was free, there were people who would continue to live in fear of his return. The pictures shown were not extensive. They did prove that he was captured. As was noted above, those who want to feel humiliated here, will find pretext in anything. IF they didn't show pictures, people would accuse the US of lying. The US was/is going to get it either way. The bottom line is that it is a small thing.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy


A quote from an Egyptian writer??? Does he count as "the left". Whats next, some quotes from Bath Party members? How about some suicide bombers? Maybe Castro wants to weigh in. Arent they all card carrying Democrats!!

My reply was a response to your question. If you wanted examples from the Left, you should have been more clear.

[Luke T.]

An excellent post, headscratcher, and one that opens the door for me to make an observation I have long held.


Originally posted by headscratcher4

Indeed, the trial of Saddam should make Saudis and Syrian Baathist think a little harder about the world they are building. The masses turn to fundumentalist Islam, because leaders like Saddam are theives and murderers and put themselves and families above the law and justice. Some in the Arab masses have grabbed on to this sort of fundumentalist Islam in an effort to find Justice.



I think Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat (what the heck, might as well throw Arafat in, because I think the same thing applies) believe in God and Islam about as much as James Randi does. I have said the same thing about John Edward and Sylvia Browne re God and Randi.

These are people who know how to exploit the beliefs of others. In Hussein's and Arafat's cases, the beliefs of extremists.

But whether it is JE or SB or SH or YA, it all boils down to personal gain and not religious conviction.

Just as there were Iraqis who wanted to see Hussein go, you won't have too much trouble finding Palistinians who wish Arafat never existed. But they don't make the media because they don't blow things up.

I will say for the third time: the only people who felt humiliated by Hussein's lame surrender are those who should. The rest are as amused as you and I.

Imagine for a minute if John Edward was exposed as an undeniable fraud. Who would be humiliated? Not you and me. Only those who should be.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


The US command had a serious problem: people needed to see and believe that it was Saddam. Remember the questions raised at the death of his sons? This is a man who had people surgically altered to act as doubles for him, etc.

So long as he was free, there were people who would continue to live in fear of his return. The pictures shown were not extensive. They did prove that he was captured. As was noted above, those who want to feel humiliated here, will find pretext in anything. IF they didn't show pictures, people would accuse the US of lying. The US was/is going to get it either way. The bottom line is that it is a small thing. I agree he had to be shown. Why could they not have just shown a picture of him. Why did they show pictures of him having a swab taken? While I don’t agree such a picture humiliates the Arab race, it humiliates Saddam and does nothing to convince any of the terrorists that they will be fairly treated by the US forces

[headscratcher4]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20031215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_arabs__future

From the AP wire:

Saddam's capture might be Lesson to other Arab Leaders....

[zakur]

Saddam's hero-like image shattered in Arab eyes (http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=3994680)"No Arab and no Muslim will ever forget these images. They touched something very, very deep," veteran Moroccan journalist, Khalid Jamai, a leading independent commentator, told Reuters.In Cairo, ambivalence about Saddam capture (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3717592/)Still, some felt that Saddam Hussein's arrest brought dishonor to the Arab World because he surrendered without a fight.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Lothian
I agree he had to be shown. Why could they not have just shown a picture of him. Why did they show pictures of him having a swab taken? While I don’t agree such a picture humiliates the Arab race, it humiliates Saddam and does nothing to convince any of the terrorists that they will be fairly treated by the US forces

A still photo would have left room open that it wasn't Saddam. You can only get a feeling about what someone really looks like by motion pictures.

And he was receiving a medical exam. The guy looked like crap, he needed one. Did you notice they were also checking his hair for lice/fleas?

edited to add: I did not see any footage of Saddam having his mouth swabbed. I did see footage of a tongue depressor and asking him to go, "Ahhhhhh.")

This beats a picture of someone getting kicked in the face with their hands tied behind their back, doesn't it?

I think it is already well known in the Arab world from the Gulf War in 1991 how we treat our enemies, which is very well.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Luke T.


A still photo would have left room open that it wasn't Saddam. You can only get a feeling about what someone really looks like by motion pictures.

And he was receiving a medical exam. The guy looked like crap, he needed one. Did you notice they were also checking his hair for lice/fleas?

(edited to add: I did not see any footage of Saddam having his mouth swabbed. I did see footage of a tongue depressor and asking him to go, "Ahhhhhh.")

This beats a picture of someone getting kicked in the face with their hands tied behind their back, doesn't it?

I think it is already well known in the Arab world from the Gulf War in 1991 how we treat our enemies, which is very well.

[Tony]

"I wish it was a Hollywood movie, the wishful thinking of an American director," said Palestinian Salah Ahmed. "The scene of him being examined by American doctors was the most painful since his statues were destroyed."


:dl:


You poor thing. I’m sure some of your brethren will blow-up a bus full of Jews in a few days, that should make you feel better.

[American]

It's just another talking point they came up with. Democrats want Arabs to feel humiliated, so the only way to solve that problem will be to replace our military with the united nations.

[Luke T.]

I wonder if there was talk around France in 1781 about how much the North Americans must have resented French intervention in the United States...

"Those poor Anglo-Americans. They must have felt humiliated seeing reports of Lord Cornwallis' surrender. I suppose we will see Tory acts of terror rise in revenge on us, and we deserve it coming to us, too. We are just asking for it."

[DanishDynamite]

If Saddam's cowardly surrender brought shame to the Arab world, then this shame has one source and one source only: Saddam. I don't see how his hypocracy and lack of spine could it any way reflect badly on the US or the West.

[headscratcher4]

DD:

Bravo.

[SRW]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
If Saddam's cowardly surrender brought shame to the Arab world, then this shame has one source and one source only: Saddam. I don't see how his hypocracy and lack of spine could it any way reflect badly on the US or the West.

And don't forget he was captured with a pistol, he could easily have made sure no one ever saw him alive. If not by killing himself by shooting at the solders, a hand grenade in that little hole would made quite a mess.

Also he had something like 750,000 million, on him, if he really was so worried about his appearance he could easily have afforded a little Queer Eye for the Tyrant Guy.

[zakur]

Saddam's Arrest Brings Humiliation Debate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3525555,00.html)

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Was he an Arab hero or a dictator? This is the question being debated in newspapers in the Middle East and by Arab intellectuals faced with the image of a bearded, bedraggled Saddam Hussein in the hands of American captors.

Many are asking, too, if Saddam's downfall was a humiliation to the entire Arab world, not just to the ousted Iraqi leader. Others say that with Saddam's capture, it's time to drop any expectation that a great hero will unite the Arab world.

``A new humiliation to Arabs'' was the headline on a column this week by Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi.

``It was a shock for us, and a humiliation to millions of Arabs who saw the TV shots of the Iraqi president being subjected to the humiliating medical checkup. We hoped that he would have fought until the end, and fallen as a martyr like his two sons and grandson or chose Hitler's end,'' Atwan wrote, referring to the Nazi leader's suicide.

But Atwan was quick to find excuses for Saddam's succumbing to U.S. forces without a shot being fired after he was found in a spider-hole near his hometown of Tikrit.

``We only heard the American version of the story. Maybe they drugged him because if Saddam wanted to surrender this way, he would have ... accepted the many offers to leave power,'' Atwan wrote.

Instead, he added, Saddam had chosen ``to stand up to American arrogance.''

Apparently, many Arabs shared Atwan's view of Saddam's arrest on Saturday as a collective humiliation - and an intentional one.

In a telephone poll, the popular Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera asked viewers if showing Saddam being probed by U.S. military doctors was meant to humiliate Arabs. Al-Jazeera said that of the 1,500 people who called in, 97 percent said it was.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lothian

I think the point being made was to win hearts and minds of the rebels you don’t sink to the level of the Saddam Regime rather you show yourselves to be above it.


I resent any suggestion that we sunk to the level of the Saddam regime. The comparison is odious.

[specious_reasons]

I think people who are claiming Arab humiliation areb't interpreting the videos correctly.

Saddam wasn't subjected to humiliation. He was humiliated. It was the state he was in when he was captured.

It was uncomfortable for me to watch, and I'm sure it was uncomfortable for others. People are transferring that discomfort and blaming the US for releasing those videos.

Not very rational, in my opinion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by specious_reasons



It was uncomfortable for me to watch...


Why? Out of curiosity.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tony

Why? Out of curiosity.

I just get a squeamish reaction from seeing anyone in a humiliated state. Like I'm looking at an episode of someone's embarassing personal life.

It's just an empathetic emotional response.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Lothian
I agree he had to be shown. Why could they not have just shown a picture of him. Why did they show pictures of him having a swab taken? While I don’t agree such a picture humiliates the Arab race, it humiliates Saddam and does nothing to convince any of the terrorists that they will be fairly treated by the US forces

I think showing a picture of him with a swab in his mouth is a pretty minor humiliation, if it is at all. If this "humiliation" inspires more resistance and causes more problems, then I'd suggest that the degree of cultural sensitivity needed to avoid that is unatainable.

But if for the sake of argument we agree that the picture of him with a swab in his mouth was a humiliation, then you still have to answer the question: which is better for peace in Iraq? Wouldn't showing Saddam with the full dignity he had before the invasion be even more inspiring to Iraqi resistance?

[shuize]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I just get a squeamish reaction from seeing anyone in a humiliated state. Like I'm looking at an episode of someone's embarassing personal life.

It's just an empathetic emotional response.

Here's a possible remedy the next time you feel that way about Saddam: Take a deap breath and slowly start counting to 60,000... the number of people he's reported to have ordered murdered in Bagdad alone.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shuize

Here's a possible remedy the next time you feel that way about Saddam: Take a deap breath and slowly start counting to 60,000... the number of people he's reported to have ordered murdered in Bagdad alone.

In no way am I sympathetic to Saddam. I hope you didn't infer that from my post.

[crocodile deathroll]

The only Arabs that were really humiliated outside of Iraq for Saddam's capture were the silly Palestinians. Syrians did not like him. Not even Gadaffi liked him Iranians despised him. So did followers of al-Qaeda Saddam was just a phony muslim in their eyes. So IMHO al-Qaeda operatives would be rubbing their hands with glee with his capture. It is exactly what they wanted to Americans to do.
However Gihadi operatives like al-Qauda and JI would not willingly send their militia into Iraq while Saddam was in power because it would alienate the Palestinians, which is their principle front for their war against Israel. Now the Americans are in Iraq instead there are now millions of willing Gihadi volunteers to take them on as long as the Americans are an occupation force there just like the Mujahiddeen did to when they took on the mighty USSR in Afghanistan.


CDR

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Lothian
The BBC suggested that the Americans were treating him as a POW. As such the pictures showing him having his saliva swabbed was an example of the behaviour they objected to when the Iraqis displayed their POWs.

I think the point being made was to win hearts and minds of the rebels you don’t sink to the level of the Saddam Regime rather you show yourselves to be above it.

I dare say that the American higher command felt that by humiliating Saddam the people currently ambushing them and the civilians in Iraq would feel more inclined to give themselves up.

Ditto, Lotian. The humiliation of the Germans after WWI was one of the main reasons for WWII. Hitler gave them back their pride, (for as long as it lasted, at least). The Marshall Plan was put into place when it becam apparent that the shattered pride of Germany had to be restored after WWII, (and also to ensure that East Germany didn't do any better than West, which may well have been the case without the aid that was provided).

Humiliation is one of the rituals that the Palestinians are subject to. Look at the resentment that has been built and sustained from that treatment. In the short term, it may appear to be a good tactic, it makes people cringe and shy away. In the long term, it builds resentment and a desire for revenge.

Don't underestimate the power of feelings. We are animals first, and higher thinkers second.

Saddam was a tyrant of the worst kind, but by indulging in petty acts of humiliation, the Americans are just showing how petty they are.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


In no way am I sympathetic to Saddam. I hope you didn't infer that from my post.

Once again, people have to defend themselves against the false dilemma. One can be in favour of proper behaviour, and not in favour of the person who is receiving it. Similar to the way many see capital punishment as barbaric. All you are doing is saying that you are not going to descend to their level of behaviour.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by American
It's just another talking point they came up with. Democrats want Arabs to feel humiliated, so the only way to solve that problem will be to replace our military with the united nations.



thats right; to facilitate the rise of the anti-Christ


by the way this is my favourite math sentence

600 + 60 + 6 = 666

[KelvinG]

Now, I don't have a problem with the images of Saddam after being captured.

But, think about this for a second. Many people in the middle east admire Saddam Hussein. Yes, as appalling as that may be, there are folks in that part of the world who think he is a matyr and a hero.
So, obviously they are going to be disturbed by the images. Would any of you be disturbed if you saw similar images of George Bush being examined and prodded by the enemy? Of course you would.
So, don't be so shocked and appalled that some people in the middle east are expressing their disgust. Can you really expect anything less?
Yes, we all know that Hussein is a ruthless, murderous dictator, but not everyone agress with us.

Again, this is not me advocating their point of view. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the images being shown.
But if you idealists out there really think that the whole world is going to share your opinion on the Saddam video then you're being pretty damn naive.

[a_unique_person]

Surely a fair and reasoned trial is the best way to expose Saddam for what he is.

[Zero]

Basically, this is yet another case of Skeptic lying. At first I thought he was honest and wrong, but now I just think he's being intentionally dishonest. What he's posted is not what he says it is, as usual. People are saying that the videotapes of Saddam that are being shown are intentionally humiliating(not to mention being in violation of POW laws), not that bringing down the regime is humiliating. As usual, Skeptic reads into things what he wants to, and then attacks a strawman.

Maybe he's trying to get a job at Fox News?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Ed

I resent any suggestion that we sunk to the level of the Saddam regime. The comparison is odious. Ed,

I am not equating the Saddam Regime with that of Bush nor am I supporting Saddam or his actions.

I believe that for the current killings to stop the Americans need to win the hearts and minds (to quote Bush) of the terrorists. Whether you understand it or not a lot of people in the world dislike the actions of the American nation. You have a simple choice either change their opinion or put up with the consequences i.e. fight a war on terror.

I think that showing Saddam having a medical exam was a deliberate choice. Yes they needed to show him, yes it needed to be a video, no it did not need to be him having a medical. If an American POW was shown having a medical I think we would have some Americans (and certainly the Government) criticising the Iraqis. I feel that it sends the wrong message out displaying arrogance. It says that the standards Americans expect to be treated with themselves do not apply when they treat others.

[a_unique_person]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed

I resent any suggestion that we sunk to the level of the Saddam regime. The comparison is odious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, lets go through the checklist.

1. Using WMD to kill your enemies, check.
2. Killing millions in an invasion, check.
3. Subverting the democratic process, check.
4. Having no sense of shame about it all, check.

I can only go on the facts.

[Ziggurat]

Wow, AUP, every time I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep on talking.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed

I resent any suggestion that we sunk to the level of the Saddam regime. The comparison is odious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, lets go through the checklist.

1. Using WMD to kill your enemies, check.


Ah yes, that old cannard. We used the first anly only nuclear weapons to ever be used in war. Almost 60 years ago. This statement is meaningless: the situations aren't comparable, nobody had ever used (or even possesed) them before, and our present viewpoint on nuclear weapons has changed significantly.


2. Killing millions in an invasion, check.


Which millions, exactly, are you refering to? World war 1 or 2? Or are you claiming we killed millions of Iraqis? And is the fact that people were killed the only relevant factor, or does, perhaps, do the reasons matter (ie, Japan attacked us, Kuwait never attacked Iraq, etc.)? Seems to me like the reasons never matter to you. Maybe we should go lose some wars, I guess that might balance things out for you.


3. Subverting the democratic process, check.


Saddam never subverted the democratic process. He never HAD a democractic process. Duh.


4. Having no sense of shame about it all, check.


Ha! What a meaningless statement. Is this one of your "facts"?


I can only go on the facts.

If you ever do that, it would be a first.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Wow, AUP, every time I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep on talking.



Ah yes, that old cannard. We used the first anly only nuclear weapons to ever be used in war. Almost 60 years ago. This statement is meaningless: the situations aren't comparable, nobody had ever used (or even possesed) them before, and our present viewpoint on nuclear weapons has changed significantly.



Are you saying the US didn't use WMD on it's enemies?



Which millions, exactly, are you refering to? World war 1 or 2? Or are you claiming we killed millions of Iraqis? And is the fact that people were killed the only relevant factor, or does, perhaps, do the reasons matter (ie, Japan attacked us, Kuwait never attacked Iraq, etc.)? Seems to me like the reasons never matter to you. Maybe we should go lose some wars, I guess that might balance things out for you.



Vietnam might be a good start.



Saddam never subverted the democratic process. He never HAD a democractic process. Duh.



No, there was a democratic process, and it was subverted.



Ha! What a meaningless statement. Is this one of your "facts"?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Are you saying the US didn't use WMD on it's enemies?


Which enemies, exactly? (and yes, I mean besides Japan). Since you're on a Vietnam kick, maybe you mean agent orange. I don't think that counts, though it is nasty stuff.


Vietnam might be a good start.


Are you talking total casualties, or kills for US forces alone? Got a good source for casualty breakdown?

Oh, and as to the other implication you make that's not exactly a "fact": we're not the same today as we were during the Vietnam war. But then, maybe you think that Saddam changed his ways, saw the error in being a homicidal tyrant, and decided to pursue a path of peace.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No, there was a democratic process, and it was subverted.



Pure curiosity. What was the democratic process? Not that silly vote before the war surely.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zero
Basically, this is yet another case of Skeptic lying...

For someone who's just registered this month...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mycroft


For someone who's just registered this month... What can I say, Skeptic lies alot...or has he just been lying alot this month?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zero
What can I say, Skeptic lies alot...or has he just been lying alot this month?

He doesn't lie at all. If he did, this wouldn't be an example of it. Pointing out that humiliating an enemy is a side-effect of defeating him is expressing an opinion, and even if you disagree with that opinion does not make it a lie.

Just as I'm not lying when I suggest that your history here is probably longer than your registration suggests. Even if my opinion is wrong, it is not a lie.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Luke T.
A still photo would have left room open that it wasn't Saddam. You can only get a feeling about what someone really looks like by motion pictures.
Did you see moving dinosaurs in Jurassic Park? I'm not saying that it wasn't Saddam, but even motion pictures CAN be contrived, no?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mycroft


He doesn't lie at all. If he did, this wouldn't be an example of it. Pointing out that humiliating an enemy is a side-effect of defeating him is expressing an opinion, and even if you disagree with that opinion does not make it a lie.

Just as I'm not lying when I suggest that your history here is probably longer than your registration suggests. Even if my opinion is wrong, it is not a lie. Actually, your opinion is wrong...but that's cool. Having an opinion 6that is wrong is one thing; basing your opinion on intentionally misreading things to suit your near-religious political beliefs is lying.

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Vietnam might be a good start.

A bit more than 50K Americans died in the Vietnam War. Although at the time we all had a good puke over the "kill ratios," I doubt they were 40 or more, which is what you'd need for "millions."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by epepke


A bit more than 50K Americans died in the Vietnam War. Although at the time we all had a good puke over the "kill ratios," I doubt they were 40 or more, which is what you'd need for "millions."

Civilian losses were huge, and cannot be pinned down due to the nature of Vietnamese society. I have read estimates from 5 million to 1 million total. The "million" part is what Americans find hard to grasp. Also, fact that they didn't work in suits in a big tower in a city with video cameras everywhere. Compare "thousands" to "Millions".

Don't forget that the US used B52s, another WMD, to carry out carpet bombing of Hanoi and rural areas. The Viet Cong had no helicopters, bombers, fighter planes, navy, endless supplies of ammunition, heavy artillery, endless supplies of arms, heavy machine guns, etc.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


He doesn't lie at all. If he did, this wouldn't be an example of it. Pointing out that humiliating an enemy is a side-effect of defeating him is expressing an opinion, and even if you disagree with that opinion does not make it a lie.

Just as I'm not lying when I suggest that your history here is probably longer than your registration suggests. Even if my opinion is wrong, it is not a lie.

Not so much lies, as blatant logical fallacies, his favourite being the strawman.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Surely a fair and reasoned trial is the best way to expose Saddam for what he is.

Which will no doubt have a major impact on all those "fair and reasoned" people who worship him.

The trial will be for the civilized people of the world; showing Saddam for the beaten, pliant coward he is was for the minority who choose not to vest their judgment in the justice system.

Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Civilian losses were huge, and cannot be pinned down due to the nature of Vietnamese society. I have read estimates from 5 million to 1 million total. The "million" part is what Americans find hard to grasp. Also, fact that they didn't work in suits in a big tower in a city with video cameras everywhere. Compare "thousands" to "Millions".

Don't forget that the US used B52s, another WMD, to carry out carpet bombing of Hanoi and rural areas. The Viet Cong had no helicopters, bombers, fighter planes, navy, endless supplies of ammunition, heavy artillery, endless supplies of arms, heavy machine guns, etc.

And that's what you call facts, huh? Theories sprinkled with invective references to 9/11? May you never serve on my jury.

The B-52 is a bomber, not a bomb. I've never heard it called a WMD and your naming it as such sounds suspiciously like another "fact" that won't bear scrutiny. And I have no idea what your comparison to the NVC arsenal has to do with anything; is this another utopian application of fairness, where everyone should use rocks and spears? Explain, please.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Not so much lies, as blatant logical fallacies, his favourite being the strawman.

Do be sure to remove the beam from your own eye before you point to the splinter in someone else's. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Do be sure to remove the beam from your own eye before you point to the splinter in someone else's. ;)

Would you like to point out some strawmen for men, or facts I have not backed up or qualified where appropriate. Skeptic is the King of Strawmen, just look at his latest topics for some excellent examples.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Which will no doubt have a major impact on all those "fair and reasoned" people who worship him.

The trial will be for the civilized people of the world; showing Saddam for the beaten, pliant coward he is was for the minority who choose not to vest their judgment in the justice system.

Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?

You can't. Either you follow the rule of law, or you don't.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


And that's what you call facts, huh? Theories sprinkled with invective references to 9/11? May you never serve on my jury.

The B-52 is a bomber, not a bomb. I've never heard it called a WMD and your naming it as such sounds suspiciously like another "fact" that won't bear scrutiny. And I have no idea what your comparison to the NVC arsenal has to do with anything; is this another utopian application of fairness, where everyone should use rocks and spears? Explain, please.

I think we can quite easily say that B52s were used to kill as many people as Saddam and his WMD. If the cap fits.

[Zero]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Not so much lies, as blatant logical fallacies, his favourite being the strawman. How many logical fallacies equal a lie?

Let's be very specific to this thread, shall we? Here's how America feels about videotape of our captured troops:


U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that under the Geneva Conventions, it's illegal for prisoners to be videotaped and subjected to "public curiosity." He called on the world's media outlets not to broadcast the video. Link (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/23/prisoners_video030323)

Talk about your double standard, huh?

Or this one (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/24/sprj.int.australia.media/) The first convention cited by the Defense Department is Article 13 of Geneva Convention III which states that POWs must at all times be "protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." POWs should be protected from 'insult', which surely would include humiliation, right?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You can't. Either you follow the rule of law, or you don't.

Hypocrite. I'll worry about the moral absolutism of "following the rule of law" (though you significantly failed to mention a law, so far as I saw) when the rest of the world does.

The law takes many forms. Speaking in the native's tongue helps to make yourself understood, even if people back home don't understand a word.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think we can quite easily say that B52s were used to kill as many people as Saddam and his WMD. If the cap fits.

"We" can say no such thing, since "we" haven't provided any backup, even when pressed on "our" ridiculous claims.

Furthermore, even if it were true, that doesn't make a B-52 a WMD any more than polio, drunk driving or domestic violence is, if "we" are simply going by body count.

If this is how "we" choose to define "our" terms (i.e., however we feel like it without regard to what they actually mean), then "we" have nothing else to discuss.

As you say, the cap certainly fits.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


Hypocrite. I'll worry about the moral absolutism of "following the rule of law" (though you significantly failed to mention a law, so far as I saw) when the rest of the world does.

The law takes many forms. Speaking in the native's tongue helps to make yourself understood, even if people back home don't understand a word. Wait...you just said that, so long as their are contries that break the law, it is alright for America to act in a criminal manner? Did you REALLY just say that?!?

OK, I'm gonna start robbing banks, and I'll worry about the law when every single person in the world stops breaking the law. That makes as much sense as what you posted. PLEASE explain it to me how that works.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
How many logical fallacies equal a lie?

POWs should be protected from 'insult', which surely would include humiliation, right?

Uh, well here's one. Saddam is not a POW and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Everyone knows that. Any similarity between the rules of the conventions and the treatment he's getting reflects well on US treatment of the murderous bastard, not ill.

It doesn't take much to see the difference between the POW tapes and Saddam's treatment. Was he shown with marks from fresh beatings? Was he forced to read a statement at gunpoint? Is he being denied medical care?

Did they videotape his slow decapitation with a knife, ala Daniel Pearl, and release it to friendly media outlets as a warning to the infidels? Your allegations are quite whacked, Zero. Again, this is all moot because the SOB ain't a POW. Period.

Jeez, they showed him getting checked for lice. If that's so bloody sensitive, then boo-freakin-hoo for them.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


Uh, well here's one. Saddam is not a POW and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Everyone knows that. Any similarity between the rules of the conventions and the treatment he's getting reflects well on US treatment of the murderous bastard, not ill.

It doesn't take much to see the difference between the POW tapes and Saddam's treatment. Was he shown with marks from fresh beatings? Was he forced to read a statement at gunpoint? Is he being denied medical care?

Did they videotape his slow decapitation with a knife, ala Daniel Pearl, and release it to friendly media outlets as a warning to the infidels? Your allegations are quite whacked, Zero. Again, this is all moot because the SOB ain't a POW. Period.

Jeez, they showed him getting checked for lice. If that's so bloody sensitive, then boo-freakin-hoo for them. Is it a war? Is he a prisoner?

Or is the real issue your lack of objectivity?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
Wait...you just said that, so long as their are contries that break the law, it is alright for America to act in a criminal manner? Did you REALLY just say that?!?

OK, I'm gonna start robbing banks, and I'll worry about the law when every single person in the world stops breaking the law. That makes as much sense as what you posted. PLEASE explain it to me how that works.

No, you silly little man. The point was that AUP was going on about how a fair, open trial will sway militant islam's opinion. I was merely pointing out how naive that is.

Again, the trial is for us. The "humiliation" is for them. Everybody gets the message.

Well, apparently ALMOST everyone.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
Is it a war? Is he a prisoner?

Or is the real issue your lack of objectivity?

Enemy leaders are not POWs. Haven't you been listening to any news over the last week or so?

I imagine you must be pretty busted up over how Mussolini got treated as well. Get over yourself, Zero, he's not a POW. But thank heaven Saddam has caring, compassionate people like you and AUP in his corner.

[Jocko]

And just to make you very, very happy, Zero, I did the research you couldn't be bothered to do. Took all of 30 seconds.

United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the issue of Saddam's future will be determined in consultations with US coalition partners.

But he stopped short of saying the ousted leader, who has been eluding US troops for nine months, will be granted formal prisoner of war status.

"We have said thus far is that we are according him the privileges and rights of a prisoner of war," he said. "But we're not yet defining him as such."



Source: ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1010481.htm)

Objective enough for you? Kee-rist.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


Enemy leaders are not POWs. Haven't you been listening to any news over the last week or so?

I imagine you must be pretty busted up over how Mussolini got treated as well. Get over yourself, Zero, he's not a POW. But thank heaven Saddam has caring, compassionate people like you and AUP in his corner.

You are a hypocrit. Plain and simple, because you expect one standard for out captured troops, and another for the prisoners of the U.S. Plus, you fall into that same logical fallacy as so many others, in that you see any disagreement as being support for the enemy. Saddam Hussein should be treated with the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention, given a fair trial, and then pretty obviously convicted and put to death (or sentenced to life in prison, depending on the site of his trial)

Your attack on me is pathetic. Try again, and this time try engaging your brain.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko
And just to make you very, very happy, Zero, I did the research you couldn't be bothered to do. Took all of 30 seconds.



Source: ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1010481.htm)

Objective enough for you? Kee-rist. Jeez, citing Rummy isn't objective at all!! Of course, this is an administration which has arbitrarily ignored the rule of law since seizing power.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
Jeez, citing Rummy isn't objective at all!! Of course, this is an administration which has arbitrarily ignored the rule of law since seizing power.

You're amazing. The one man qualified to speak for the US military on the matter, and you whine about objectivity. You ought to put aside the propagnada pamphlets and pick up a friggin' newspaper once in a while.

Since I'm amused by your temper-tantrum tailspin, let me drop this ugly baby in your lap and see if it coos:

Article 4 of the Geneva Convnetions, regarding the classification and treatment of POWs (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)



Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.


See, you'd think you had a case under number 2 until you get to the four qualifiers beneath. Other than that, Saddam don't qualify, and if he's privileged enough to enjoy POW treatment, even de facto POW status, it's out of the pure generosity of good ol' Uncle Sam.

Now, next time you question someone's objectivity, consider your own.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero



Your attack on me is pathetic. Try again, and this time try engaging your brain.

I like you. You're funny. If you were a kitten I'd adopt you.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


You're amazing. The one man qualified to speak for the US military on the matter, and you whine about objectivity. You ought to put aside the propagnada pamphlets and pick up a friggin' newspaper once in a while.

Since I'm amused by your temper-tantrum tailspin, let me drop this ugly baby in your lap and see if it coos:

Article 4 of the Geneva Convnetions, regarding the classification and treatment of POWs (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)




See, you'd think you had a case under number 2 until you get to the four qualifiers beneath. Other than that, Saddam don't qualify, and if he's privileged enough to enjoy POW treatment, even de facto POW status, it's out of the pure generosity of good ol' Uncle Sam.

Now, next time you question someone's objectivity, consider your own. On the other hand, Saddam's constant military garb, and the conventions of our own laws, would place the leader of a foreign nation as being 'commander in chief' of the military, which is certainly more appropriate under Iraq's dictatorship than in U.S. law.

Just as importantly, would you wish Bush to be treated with respect if he were captured by a foreign government? The 'golden rule' thing should apply, don't you think? As I posted on another thread earlier tonight, a good test of objectivity is to reverse roles, and see how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


I like you. You're funny. If you were a kitten I'd adopt you. If you were a kitten, I'd trade you for a puppy...and then I would drown the puppy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Enemy leaders are not POWs. Haven't you been listening to any news over the last week or so?

I imagine you must be pretty busted up over how Mussolini got treated as well. Get over yourself, Zero, he's not a POW. But thank heaven Saddam has caring, compassionate people like you and AUP in his corner.

Once again, the false dichotomy. How many times do I have to say I don't care for Saddam, but for the process that should be followed. 1,000,000 more times?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, Saddam's constant military garb, and the conventions of our own laws, would place the leader of a foreign nation as being 'commander in chief' of the military, which is certainly more appropriate under Iraq's dictatorship than in U.S. law.

Oh, so you have seen him in a uniform. That makes him a soldier. Gotcha. I saw C. Everett Koop in a uniform once. And Madonna wore one in that video.

Moral of the story: clothes don't always make the man. Read article 4 and you'll see how silly you're being.

Just as importantly, would you wish Bush to be treated with respect if he were captured by a foreign government? The 'golden rule' thing should apply, don't you think? As I posted on another thread earlier tonight, a good test of objectivity is to reverse roles, and see how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

The golden rule has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, and I think I've done enough research for you for one night. You can try to substantiate your own strawmen if you wish, but if I were you, I'd get a hobby or something.

Go tell Kofi Annan about the golden rule. I'm sure he'll quote line and verse in the UN charter dealing with it. Sorry, Zero, this goes beyond your schoolyard concept of "fairness."

[Zero]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Once again, the false dichotomy. How many times do I have to say I don't care for Saddam, but for the process that should be followed. 1,000,000 more times? We'll have to keep defending that view against anti-Americans...no one said that freedom was cheap, did they?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
If you were a kitten, I'd trade you for a puppy...and then I would drown the puppy.

But if the "shoe was on the other foot"? Wouldn't the puppy be protected by the Geneva Convnetions and entitled to trial? Whatever happened to the golden rule, Zero?

I see the appeal of your arguments... strawmen can be fun!

Your idea of "objectivity" is laughably clear. By all means keep digging.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
We'll have to keep defending that view against anti-Americans...no one said that freedom was cheap, did they?


All this proves is that both you and AUP can't be bothered to actually read the article you both keep referencing. Freedom isn't cheap, but willful ignorance is priceless.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


But if the "shoe was on the other foot"? Wouldn't the puppy be protected by the Geneva Convnetions and entitled to trial? Whatever happened to the golden rule, Zero?

I see the appeal of your arguments... strawmen can be fun!

Your idea of "objectivity" is laughably clear. By all means keep digging. You missed the whole'if you were a kitten'...I hold a different standard for non-human animals...if you were a human I would try to teach you why you were so horribly wrong in your viewpoints.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko



All this proves is that both you and AUP can't be bothered to actually read the article you both keep referencing. Freedom isn't cheap, but willful ignorance is priceless. Again, a pathetic attempt, can't you do better? You have a hard time with the rule of law and human rights...

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
Again, a pathetic attempt, can't you do better? You have a hard time with the rule of law and human rights...

Yes, my pathetic attempts to enlighten you with the very sources you casually throw around.

I corrected your error about whether or not Saddam was a POW, citing the man who speaks for the US military. Then I supplied you with the full wording of article 4 of the Geneva Conventions.

And each time, I get the same rote response: Is that all ya got?

Yes, Zero, that's all I got. It's also all the UN has got, the US has got, and the "rule of law" (outside planet Zero, that is) has got. Since you choose to ignore where your position errs on pretty much every conceivable point, I guess there's nothing more I can do.

There's certainly something pathetic about the whole thing. You're right about that much, at least.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jocko
Uh, well here's one. Saddam is not a POW and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Everyone knows that. Do we?

Rumsfeld, Monday:

He continued: “He (Saddam) is being accorded the protections of a prisoner of war and his treatment will be governed by the Geneva Convention.” http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/12/15/story125698.html

Rumsfeld, Wednesday:

Rumsfeld said Saddam is "being accorded the protection of a POW but he's not being legally described as one at this stage." http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/politics/7516569.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Jocko, you seem to be more sure then even Rumsfeld (not that he is an ubiased expert on the field). Are you really sure 'everyone knows' that he's not a POW - or that he is not protected by the Geneva Convention?

Further, since Rumsfeld repeatedly says Saddam is being protected as if he was a prisoner of war, the following should apply to the situation:

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that under the Geneva Conventions, it's illegal for prisoners to be videotaped and subjected to "public curiosity.":confused:

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


Yes, my pathetic attempts to enlighten you with the very sources you casually throw around.

I corrected your error about whether or not Saddam was a POW, citing the man who speaks for the US military. Then I supplied you with the full wording of article 4 of the Geneva Conventions.

And each time, I get the same rote response: Is that all ya got?

Yes, Zero, that's all I got. It's also all the UN has got, the US has got, and the "rule of law" (outside planet Zero, that is) has got. Since you choose to ignore where your position errs on pretty much every conceivable point, I guess there's nothing more I can do.

There's certainly something pathetic about the whole thing. You're right about that much, at least. All you have is nothing. Well, no, you have a hatred for the rule of law when it conflicts with your biases.

Thanks, Bjorn, good post...I wonder how Jocko deals with it.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Do we?

Rumsfeld, Monday:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/12/15/story125698.html

Rumsfeld, Wednesday:

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/politics/7516569.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Jocko, you seem to be more sure then even Rumsfeld (not that he is an ubiased expert on the field). Are you really sure 'everyone knows' that he's not a POW - or that he is not protected by the Geneva Convention?

Further, since Rumsfeld repeatedly says Saddam is being protected as if he was a prisoner of war, the following should apply to the situation:

:confused:

Understood. But the distinction... the RULE OF LAW, as Zero would pout, is that he does not qualify as a POW. If we are treating him as such, it is voluntarily and not due to Geneva requirements.

Rumsfeld may not fit your profile of "objective," but the fact remains that he is the voice of the administration in these matters. Objectively, the Geneva Conventions do not protect enemy leaders. That only supports my position.

It also bears mentioning that the tapes were made and aired before the statement, and before this unofficial POW status was conferred. Just because we are treating him as a POW doesn't make him a POW acccording to the "RULE OF LAW (TM)."

For instance, one can't help treating Zero like a petulant child; that doesn't make him a toddler.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


Understood. But the distinction... the RULE OF LAW, as Zero would pout, is that he does not qualify as a POW. If we are treating him as such, it is voluntarily and not due to Geneva requirements.

Rumsfeld may not fit your profile of "objective," but the fact remains that he is the voice of the administration in these matters. Objectively, the Geneva Conventions do not protect enemy leaders. That only supports my position.

It also bears mentioning that the tapes were made and aired before the statement, and before this unofficial POW status was conferred. Just because we are treating him as a POW doesn't make him a POW acccording to the "RULE OF LAW (TM)."

For instance, one can't help treating Zero like a petulant child; that doesn't make him a toddler. Funny, treating you as an ignorant punk seems to fit perfectly...:p

You don't find anything odd about the slip-sliding standards, and the double standards?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Uh, well here's one. Saddam is not a POW and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Everyone knows that. Any similarity between the rules of the conventions and the treatment he's getting reflects well on US treatment of the murderous bastard, not ill.

It doesn't take much to see the difference between the POW tapes and Saddam's treatment. Was he shown with marks from fresh beatings? Was he forced to read a statement at gunpoint? Is he being denied medical care?

Did they videotape his slow decapitation with a knife, ala Daniel Pearl, and release it to friendly media outlets as a warning to the infidels? Your allegations are quite whacked, Zero. Again, this is all moot because the SOB ain't a POW. Period.

Jeez, they showed him getting checked for lice. If that's so bloody sensitive, then boo-freakin-hoo for them.

There would hardly be one person here who wouldn't have been horrified at what happened to Daniel Pearl. Then again, many Muslims/Arabs would be too. For what purpose are you comparing the treatment of Saddam by a supposedely civilised country with that inflicted on Pearl by terrorists picking on a reporter?

[Zero]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There would hardly be one person here who wouldn't have been horrified at what happened to Daniel Pearl. Then again, many Muslims/Arabs would be too. For what purpose are you comparing the treatment of Saddam by a supposedely civilised country with that inflicted on Pearl by terrorists picking on a reporter? This is that same moral relativism that seems to afflict the right-wingers these days, that attitude of "so long as we are not as bad as the worst case scenario, our behavior is acceptable."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zero
This is that same moral relativism that seems to afflict the right-wingers these days, that attitude of "so long as we are not as bad as the worst case scenario, our behavior is acceptable."

Haven't you heard, the conservatives don't believe in moral relativism.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Haven't you heard, the conservatives don't believe in moral relativism.

Which conservatives? I'm guessing by your comment you meant each and everyon single one of them. But damn if that don't leave you even more open to a legit counter to your claim. so I challange you to name all the conservatives that do not believe in mora realativism, and then admit your moronic error when one tells you that they do and that you are wrong.

I'm really getting as sick of seeing this sort of weak assed s**t pass for a legitimate post as I am of those from the other side of the political spectrum making morons like you think they speak for all.

Frankly, your inability to see things as they are and comment on them, as opposed to seeing things how you wish they would be and commenting against others that disagree with your fantasy, isa starting to bore the hell out of me.

[a_unique_person]

The media has been full of conservative articles since 9/11 from opionionmeisters about how "moral relativism" is the scourge of our times. Now when it suits, it is time to roll it out. Not following proper procedures is OK in the case of Saddam. It is the US that constantly claims the moral high ground.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
Now when it suits, it is time to roll it out. Not following proper procedures is OK in the case of Saddam. It is the US that constantly claims the moral high ground.

What proper procedures haven't or aren't been followed?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Understood. But the distinction... the RULE OF LAW, as Zero would pout, is that he does not qualify as a POW. If we are treating him as such, it is voluntarily and not due to Geneva requirements.

Rumsfeld may not fit your profile of "objective," but the fact remains that he is the voice of the administration in these matters. Objectively, the Geneva Conventions do not protect enemy leaders. That only supports my position.

It also bears mentioning that the tapes were made and aired before the statement, and before this unofficial POW status was conferred. Just because we are treating him as a POW doesn't make him a POW acccording to the "RULE OF LAW (TM)."

For instance, one can't help treating Zero like a petulant child; that doesn't make him a toddler.

Dubya has never declared the war to be over. He has only declared the major part of the conflict to be over. The war is still on.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Dubya has never declared the war to be over. He has only declared the major part of the conflict to be over. The war is still on.

Irrelevant. The point is that Saddam is, ipso facto, not a POW. The fact that the authorities have conferred POW-like treatment, and are calling him such for lack of a better term, does not change the fact that he is not a POW, whether the W in question continues or not.

He ought to be thanking his lucky stars that we're being nicer than we have to be, which is why criticisms ring so hollow. As an enemy head of state, we could string him up wherever and whenever we pleased... and before you jump on the superiority horse, rest assured we won't and wouldn't. Anyone with a working mind would know that.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


Irrelevant. The point is that Saddam is, ipso facto, not a POW. The fact that the authorities have conferred POW-like treatment, and are calling him such for lack of a better term, does not change the fact that he is not a POW, whether the W in question continues or not.

He ought to be thanking his lucky stars that we're being nicer than we have to be, which is why criticisms ring so hollow. As an enemy head of state, we could string him up wherever and whenever we pleased... and before you jump on the superiority horse, rest assured we won't and wouldn't. Anyone with a working mind would know that. What drives you to post this sort of thing? This isn't the Old West, where you gather up a posse, catch the bad guy and 'string him up'.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zero
What drives you to post this sort of thing? This isn't the Old West, where you gather up a posse, catch the bad guy and 'string him up'.

No, you ignoramus. it's Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions, which I posted and you obviously ignored. Or is the Geneva Conventions now considered jungle law by you?

Get a grip. I should be asking you what drives you to post such errant nonsense.

[Skeptic]

Dubya has never declared the war to be over. He has only declared the major part of the conflict to be over. The war is still on.

As far as the Geneva convention is concerned, the war has been over since the Iraqi generals signed the instrument of general surrender in Mosul on April 28. Anybody captured after that is not a POW. It has nothing to do with "W" declaring anything.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Dubya has never declared the war to be over. He has only declared the major part of the conflict to be over. The war is still on.

As far as the Geneva accord is concerned, the war has been over since the Iraqi generals signed the instrument of general surrender in Mosul on April 28. It has nothing to do with "W" declaring anything.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2989459.stm



Bush declares victory in Iraq

Cheers greeted Mr Bush's announcement of victory
US President George W Bush has said the US has prevailed in the Battle of Iraq in a speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

He explicitly linked the conflict in the Gulf to the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

.....

Earlier, Mr Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer warned that the president's speech would not mark the end of hostilities "from a legal point of view".

[Skeptic]

My point precisely, AUP: W's declerations are not the legal basis for POW status. The instrument of surrender is.

[a_unique_person]

AFAIK, although the US has accepted the surrender of those particular forces, it still regards itself as being at war, for legal reasons. Dubya is the leader of the armed forces. He has only ever declared that the major part of the hostilities are over.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031105/140/ed34w.html



Wednesday November 5, 06:32 PM

Bush: 'We're Still At War With Iraq'
President Bush has admitted Saddam Hussein is alive and the Coalition is still effectively at war with Iraqi rebels.Saddam was "trying to stir up trouble" he said, as the number of American soldiers killed continues to rise.But he vowed the United States would track down the ousted Iraqi president.

"We'll get him, we'll find him," said Mr Bush.

Analysts said Mr Bush's remarks were his clearest acknowledgement to date that Saddam is alive and playing a role in the armed opposition to US forces.

Six months after declaring an end to major combat in Iraq, Mr Bush said: "We are at war."

[NullPointerException]

In Japan we went to great lengths to prevent infringing on cultural taboos when they surrendered. Including having them sign the surrender on an American ship so they wouldn't be dishonored.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
AFAIK, although the US has accepted the surrender of those particular forces, it still regards itself as being at war, for legal reasons. Dubya is the leader of the armed forces. He has only ever declared that the major part of the hostilities are over.


Is this your basis for saying that the U.S. should not have shown video of a disheveled Saddam getting a swab taken of his mouth?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Is this your basis for saying that the U.S. should not have shown video of a disheveled Saddam getting a swab taken of his mouth?

The US has a big deal of the publication of dead soldiers, as it contravenes the 'rules' of war. Fair enough, this is not supposed to happen. Similary, you are not allowed to publish demeaning pictures of POWs. Saddam is a POW.

The US is indulging in the fallacy of "Special Pleading".

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The US has a big deal of the publication of dead soldiers, as it contravenes the 'rules' of war. Fair enough, this is not supposed to happen. Similary, you are not allowed to publish demeaning pictures of POWs. Saddam is a POW.

The US is indulging in the fallacy of "Special Pleading".

The appeal to authority is not a fallicy if the the authority is, indeed, an authority.

Special pleading is not a fallicy if the appeal really is special. Saddam, as leader of that country and the putative cause of remaining unrest is, in fact, "special". That, combined with the experience that the US had with disbelief at the deaths of his sons, certainly makes this a special case. This is so self evident as to begger the imagination. Do you think that he will be tried in a non-special way? Do you think that he is being held in non-special circumstances?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I usually call myself a leftie if I choose to label myself politically at all. For what it's worth. But here's my opinion on this issue:

The rules about POWs are there, as far as I'm concerned, to protect the poor bastards who do the fighting. They're just doing what they were told to do, and it's both inhumane and pointless to mistreat them once they've been captured and rendered harmless.

How you treat captured national leaders is a different issue. I'm not saying that "anything goes", but they aren't captured soldiers and so the same rules don't necessarily apply.

[Luke T.]

It is very strange that people are objecting to the videotaping of Saddam Hussein. Why do I have the feeling that if no video of Hussein had been released, these same people would be complaining about that? Conspiracy theories would be flying.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is very strange that people are objecting to the videotaping of Saddam Hussein. Why do I have the feeling that if no video of Hussein had been released, these same people would be complaining about that? Conspiracy theories would be flying.

Close. Here's what would really happen:

If the U.S. captures Saddam but is slow in releasing video footage, those people would complain and conspiracy theories would fly.

If the U.S. captures Saddam and shows him looking well, people would complain that he's being pampered because he was an American puppet all along. Conspiracy theories would fly.

If the U.S. captures Saddam and shows him looking bad, people would complain that he's being bullied and humiliated ... and conspiracy theories would fly.

If the U.S. captures Saddam and does not release video footage, conspiracy theories would fly and people would complain.

Oh, I forgot one ... If the U.S. doesn't capture Saddam, conspiracy theories would fly and people would still complain.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ed
The appeal to authority is not a fallicy if the the authority is, indeed, an authority.

Special pleading is not a fallicy if the appeal really is special. Saddam, as leader of that country and the putative cause of remaining unrest is, in fact, "special". That, combined with the experience that the US had with disbelief at the deaths of his sons, certainly makes this a special case. This is so self evident as to begger the imagination. Do you think that he will be tried in a non-special way? Do you think that he is being held in non-special circumstances?

And let's not forget, even if you were to agree it was a violation, it would be a minor violation at best.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is very strange that people are objecting to the videotaping of Saddam Hussein. Why do I have the feeling that if no video of Hussein had been released, these same people would be complaining about that? Conspiracy theories would be flying.

A cleaned and processed Saddam. As you say, proof was needed that he is captured and being treated according to law.

All I am saying is that the process is important. It is the processes and institutions of law and democracy that give us our best promise of democratic freedom. Our habits of life. You toss these out for expedient purposes, then that too becomes a pattern of behaviour.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by shuize


Close. Here's what would really happen:

If the U.S. captures Saddam but is slow in releasing video footage, those people would complain and conspiracy theories would fly.

If the U.S. captures Saddam and shows him looking well, people would complain that he's being pampered because he was an American puppet all along. Conspiracy theories would fly.

If the U.S. captures Saddam and shows him looking bad, people would complain that he's being bullied and humiliated ... and conspiracy theories would fly.

If the U.S. captures Saddam and does not release video footage, conspiracy theories would fly and people would complain.

Oh, I forgot one ... If the U.S. doesn't capture Saddam, conspiracy theories would fly and people would still complain.

You forgot the most important part: the real evil behind the US's behavior would be blamed, of course, on "zionist control" of the USA and "jewish control" of the media.

Wait, that's already happening in the Arab world. Never mind.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


You forgot the most important part: the real evil behind the US's behavior would be blamed, of course, on "zionist control" of the USA and "jewish control" of the media.

Wait, that's already happening in the Arab world. Never mind.

There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists. This does no in way constitute a global Jewish conspiracy, but they are an important part of a world power that is running off the rails. Read the thread Cain started with the comments by Chomsky. (He's a Jew, isn't he?) Wolfowitz is not a very moral guy, as his support of the Suharto regime shows.

Your logic means that any actions by Jews that are not moral cannot ever be criticised, because that then constitutes an attack on all Jews, with the next step being sending all Jews off to the death camps. Get real. You are just like the cops who will never criticse another cop, no matter how corrupt they are.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.

Who? Can you name names?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.

Oh, here we go. At least you're being open and direct about your antisemitism for once; I suppose that must be called an improvement of sorts. Please take your seat between Huzington in the "Stalin never killed anybody" section and that guy who thinks Oswald wasinnocent.

This does no in way constitute a global Jewish conspiracy, but they are an important part of a world power that is running off the rails.

Can't have it both ways. Which is it?

Read the thread Cain started with the comments by Chomsky. (He's a Jew, isn't he?) Wolfowitz is not a very moral guy, as his support of the Suharto regime shows.

Your logic means that any actions by Jews that are not moral cannot ever be criticised, because that then constitutes an attack on all Jews, with the next step being sending all Jews off to the death camps. Get real. You are just like the cops who will never criticse another cop, no matter how corrupt they are.

I'm Catholic and I happen to think "the jooz" (© Mycroft Productions) are very much the wronged party in the mideast conflict. So explain how I, a non-Zionist, could possibly feel this way? I mean, once your "they're all in on it together" theory is shot to hell, not much remains of your argument, does it?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jocko
I'm Catholic and I happen to think "the jooz" (© Mycroft Productions) are very much the wronged party in the mideast conflict. So explain how I, a non-Zionist, could possibly feel this way? I mean, once your "they're all in on it together" theory is shot to hell, not much remains of your argument, does it?

Lol!

You see having the opinion that Israel got the shaft in the Mideast makes you a Zionist, Jew or not. Now if you happen to work in the media or the government, that makes you a member of the International Zionist Conspiracy, and your very existance becomes proof that the IZC© has undue influence somewhere.

IZC membership is cool. You get an ID card that gets you great discounts at many fine shops and if you maintain your membership in good standing for a few years, you can apply for membership in the Illuminati. Once in that club, your Catholic/Zionist credentials will lead to rapid advancement, and if you can add 32nd degree Mason to your resume, your career is made.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Lol!

You see having the opinion that Israel got the shaft in the Mideast makes you a Zionist, Jew or not. Now if you happen to work in the media or the government, that makes you a member of the International Zionist Conspiracy, and your very existance becomes proof that the IZC© has undue influence somewhere.

IZC membership is cool. You get an ID card that gets you great discounts at many fine shops and if you maintain your membership in good standing for a few years, you can apply for membership in the Illuminati. Once in that club, your Catholic/Zionist credentials will lead to rapid advancement, and if you can add 32nd degree Mason to your resume, your career is made.

I am not a JOOOOO either but I have a nice corresponding membership. I never pay retail.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Lol!

You see having the opinion that Israel got the shaft in the Mideast makes you a Zionist, Jew or not. Now if you happen to work in the media or the government, that makes you a member of the International Zionist Conspiracy, and your very existance becomes proof that the IZC© has undue influence somewhere.

IZC membership is cool. You get an ID card that gets you great discounts at many fine shops and if you maintain your membership in good standing for a few years, you can apply for membership in the Illuminati. Once in that club, your Catholic/Zionist credentials will lead to rapid advancement, and if you can add 32nd degree Mason to your resume, your career is made.

I am afraid that feeding off like minded opinion holders is the lowest form of fact validation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Oh, here we go. At least you're being open and direct about your antisemitism for once; I suppose that must be called an improvement of sorts. Please take your seat between Huzington in the "Stalin never killed anybody" section and that guy who thinks Oswald wasinnocent.

[B]



Please state my anti-semitism in this post.



Can't have it both ways. Which is it?



False dichotomy





I'm Catholic and I happen to think "the jooz" (© Mycroft Productions) are very much the wronged party in the mideast conflict. So explain how I, a non-Zionist, could possibly feel this way? I mean, once your "they're all in on it together" theory is shot to hell, not much remains of your argument, does it?

I was brought up a Catholic and have since moved to a higher plane. Perhaps you could aspire to do so some time in the future. If not now, perhaps one of your future lives.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


And let's not forget, even if you were to agree it was a violation, it would be a minor violation at best.

Ok, so that makes it alright then. Face it, the whole handling of the issue has not been what is the correct way to deal with it, it has been "how will this gel with the voters back home". From the WMD to the Turkey, the pattern hasn't changed.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.

I would like to see this evidence that prominent Zionists have influence over the US. Can you name names? What is your evidence?

[GroundStrength]

AUP has to be one of the most dense people I have ever had the displeasure of reading on this forum. A crybaby who went to a few web sites and learned words like: Strawman, Appeal to [Insert Appeal Here] and False Dichotomy.

I am so very happy to place you, AUP on my ignore list.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I am afraid that feeding off like minded opinion holders is the lowest form of fact validation.

Did anyone ever mention that fact to your professors?

:D

Seriously, my point is that I'm not Jewish, never been Jewish, have no plans to become Jewish. So why would I be of the opinion that the Israelis are the ones who are getting stung in the ass everytime a new peace deal is brokered?

Platitudes I get aplenty. What I asked for was an explanation.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Please state my anti-semitism in this post.

Uh, the part where you said the Jews run the world for their own benefit?



False dichotomy

Hardly. First you disclaim that it's no conspiracy theory, then in the following sentence re-state your original conspiracy theory; i.e., that Jews run the world. I would like to know where you stand.



I was brought up a Catholic and have since moved to a higher plane. Perhaps you could aspire to do so some time in the future. If not now, perhaps one of your future lives.

Thanks, but I get enough life advice from Huzington already, and besides... I prefer to get things right in this life.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I would like to see this evidence that prominent Zionists have influence over the US. Can you name names? What is your evidence?

Oh, it's clear. I mean, look who's running for president: Ultra-neo-conservative Joe Lieberman! Are you blind, man!?

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Ok, so that makes it alright then. Face it, the whole handling of the issue has not been what is the correct way to deal with it, it has been "how will this gel with the voters back home". From the WMD to the Turkey, the pattern hasn't changed.

You're still yammering about the huge turkey scandal that is sweeping the nation? Get a clue, the only people who care in the least about that issue are Bush-hating nitwits like yourself.

[GroundStrength]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here].

Hey I'm liking this ignore feature.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Uh, the part where you said the Jews run the world for their own benefit?



I have never claimed it, nor believe it.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists. This does no in way constitute a global Jewish conspiracy, but they are an important part of a world power that is running off the rails. Read the thread Cain started with the comments by Chomsky. (He's a Jew, isn't he?) Wolfowitz is not a very moral guy, as his support of the Suharto regime shows.


Pardon me, AUP, for interpreting "a clique of Jewish extremists do have a[sic] enormous influence over the US" to mean "a clique of Jewish extremists do have a[sic] enormous influence over the US."

What's next? Denying you wrote that? It would follow form considering your history of blasting Jews and then innocently feigning being misunderstood. You are an antisemite, plain and simple. Worse than that, you are a liar.

[Mycroft]

.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mycroft

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.


Who? Can you name names?


*sound of chickets chirping*

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A cleaned and processed Saddam. As you say, proof was needed that he is captured and being treated according to law.

.

And certainly, predictably, and tediously you would complain that "forced" cleaning violated his human rights.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


And certainly, predictably, and tediously you would complain that "forced" cleaning violated his human rights.

Strawman. Although if he liked his beard, he could keep it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Pardon me, AUP, for interpreting "a clique of Jewish extremists do have a[sic] enormous influence over the US" to mean "a clique of Jewish extremists do have a[sic] enormous influence over the US."

What's next? Denying you wrote that? It would follow form considering your history of blasting Jews and then innocently feigning being misunderstood. You are an antisemite, plain and simple. Worse than that, you are a liar.

Calling an extremist an extremist? I would also consider an anti-semite worse than a liar.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Strawman. Although if he liked his beard, he could keep it.

Straw schmaw, it's true. You are kneejerk anti anything the US does.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ed


Straw schmaw, it's true. You are kneejerk anti anything the US does. And you are(as far as I have seen, wich is not too far) kneejerk pro-anything Bush does. I would say pro-Republican, or pro-conservative, but Bush doesn't represent either group's traditional values.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Pardon me, AUP, for interpreting "a clique of Jewish extremists do have a[sic] enormous influence over the US" to mean "a clique of Jewish extremists do have a[sic] enormous influence over the US."

What's next? Denying you wrote that? It would follow form considering your history of blasting Jews and then innocently feigning being misunderstood. You are an antisemite, plain and simple. Worse than that, you are a liar.

Read all about it. http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24663&highlight=pnac

Saying that some of the neo-conservatives are extremist Zionists is like saying that Oasama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Each is out to get his way, and doesn't mind using force to do so.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Straw schmaw, it's true. You are kneejerk anti anything the US does.

When have I ever knocked american music, except rap? I differentiate between what the "US" does with what Americans do. Many Americans were against the Vietnam war, for example, and didn't vote in Presidents like Ronald Reagan, and the majority didn't even vote in Dubya.

I don't recall protesting the invasion of Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, who I think are very scary people, although I think it is hardly being improved with the current policies that are in place.

The real problem is that many citizens of the US cannot face up to what is being done in their name, the enormity of it is incomprehensible.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Calling an extremist an extremist? I would also consider an anti-semite worse than a liar.

Actually, you phenomenally disingenuous boob, the problem I had was with the "enormous influence over the US part."

That makes it a conspiracy theory, in spite of your lame disclaimers, which is the icing on top of the cake of the fact that's it's not true, and a common theme among anti-semites who try to justify themselves.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jocko


Actually, you phenomenally disingenuous boob, the problem I had was with the "enormous influence over the US part."

That makes it a conspiracy theory, in spite of your lame disclaimers, which is the icing on top of the cake of the fact that's it's not true, and a common theme among anti-semites who try to justify themselves.

I now know where AUP gets his news.

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=264755&lang=e&dir=news

Yep, totally unbiased there.:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Actually, you phenomenally disingenuous boob, the problem I had was with the "enormous influence over the US part."

That makes it a conspiracy theory, in spite of your lame disclaimers, which is the icing on top of the cake of the fact that's it's not true, and a common theme among anti-semites who try to justify themselves.

In case you hadn't noticed, one of the problems of modern democracy in many countries is the out of proportion influence of pressure groups. Given that the running of a country is way out of the realms of possibiliity of the democratic process, those who run special interest groups get to influence governments far more than the ordinary citizen who may or may not vote every four years.

This influence ranges from the sugar farmers to the oil industry to the arms industry to the Jewish lobby. Each is after it's own piece of the pie, and gets it due to the special pressure it places on the political infrastructure. Or perphaps you may not have wondered why it is so hard to cancel an artillery program that does not work, why subsidies are paid to millionaires for sugar, or why Israel gets billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies.

It is hardly surprising that the Jewish lobby is able to wield influence out of proportion to it's numbers. The neo-conservatives were, until relatively recently, just another pressure group. After 9/11, they rose enourmously in power becase they seemed to have all the answers. Just as many in Muslim countries have become influenced by Islamic extremists in times of trouble, as the people of Iran did to remove the Shah, so a similar thing happened in the US government. Extraordinary times made the remarkable plausible.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


In case you hadn't noticed, one of the problems of modern democracy in many countries is the out of proportion influence of pressure groups. Given that the running of a country is way out of the realms of possibiliity of the democratic process, those who run special interest groups get to influence governments far more than the ordinary citizen who may or may not vote every four years.

This influence ranges from the sugar farmers to the oil industry to the arms industry to the Jewish lobby. Each is after it's own piece of the pie, and gets it due to the special pressure it places on the political infrastructure. Or perphaps you may not have wondered why it is so hard to cancel an artillery program that does not work, why subsidies are paid to millionaires for sugar, or why Israel gets billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies.

It is hardly surprising that the Jewish lobby is able to wield influence out of proportion to it's numbers. The neo-conservatives were, until relatively recently, just another pressure group. After 9/11, they rose enourmously in power becase they seemed to have all the answers. Just as many in Muslim countries have become influenced by Islamic extremists in times of trouble, as the people of Iran did to remove the Shah, so a similar thing happened in the US government. Extraordinary times made the remarkable plausible.

Oh, for Ed's sake, are you that unfamiliar with the functioning of democracy? Everyone has a lobby. EVERYBODY.

Using that lame premise, I could go on about the Black Conspiracy (Jesse Jackson & Louis Farrakhan), the Old People Conspiracy (AARP), the Steel Industry Conspiracy (AFL-CIO), The Healthcare Industry Conspiracy (trial lawyers lobby) and of course the Ethanol Lobby Conspiracy (whoever the hell goes for ethanol).

As far as Jew and "Neoconservatives" (I can't tell who is whose puppet, the way you go on), a couple appetizers for thought:

Bush is a Methodist.

Lieberman is a Democrat.

See where someone might question the gospel you're selling?

Edited to add: As far as US support of Israel goes, I don't suppose it has anything to do with supporting the only democracy in the region, does it? No, it must be because the Jews run the world, right?

We also support Turkey for the same reasons. So where is the big muslim conspiracy talk?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Saying that some of the neo-conservatives are extremist Zionists is like saying that Oasama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Each is out to get his way, and doesn't mind using force to do so.

Except you didn't say that. You said:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.

Are you going to back that up or not?

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


When have I ever knocked american music, except rap? I differentiate between what the "US" does with what Americans do. Many Americans were against the Vietnam war, for example, and didn't vote in Presidents like Ronald Reagan, and the majority didn't even vote in Dubya.

I don't recall protesting the invasion of Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, who I think are very scary people, although I think it is hardly being improved with the current policies that are in place.

The real problem is that many citizens of the US cannot face up to what is being done in their name, the enormity of it is incomprehensible.

To begin with, only 51% of the voting age population voted in the first place so both Bush and Gore got about 25%. Secondly, while you obviously don't like it Bush was legally elected, one does not need a majority here to win.

Finally, as I have pointed out, it is a thin lie perpetrated by US bashers that say as you said "I differentiate between what the "US" does with what Americans do." We elected Bush, we are not recalling him, we elected all of those congressmen and Senators, the US policy is our policy, if you bitch about what the "US" does, you are bitching about us all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Oh, for Ed's sake, are you that unfamiliar with the functioning of democracy? Everyone has a lobby. EVERYBODY.


This one starts wars. And everyone doesn't have a lobby.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


This one starts wars. And everyone doesn't have a lobby.

A lobby starts wars? So the Jews, who wield all that power in the US, start wars? Okay.

Everyone who can rub two nickels together does have a lobby.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/scr/reglob.rpt?user0=scr&password0=scr&promptex-Biennium=03-04

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


This one starts wars. And everyone doesn't have a lobby.

Egad. Fool should have a look at this one.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


This one starts wars. And everyone doesn't have a lobby.

And you so charmingly claim to not be anti-semitic. I'll admit, usually your epithets are vague enough to avoid being nailed to the wall, but this takes the cake.

So let's see what we've got from AUP so far. "The Jooz" are:

1. Sneaky, operating in the shadows ("But it's not a conspiracy per se," AUP insists).
2. Power-mad. After all, they exert "enormous influence in the US."
3. In the habit of starting wars for some reason. Reason not given, but hey, it's "The Jooz" we're talking about so they must be up to no good, right?

And pretty much any and ever special interest group (by which I mean 2 or more people with the same agenda) DOES have a lobby of some sort in America. That pesky ol' free speech thing, you know? I'll bet that if you looked far enough you could find one for anti-semites, even.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Do we?

Rumsfeld, Monday:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/12/15/story125698.html

Rumsfeld, Wednesday:

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/politics/7516569.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Jocko, you seem to be more sure then even Rumsfeld (not that he is an ubiased expert on the field). Are you really sure 'everyone knows' that he's not a POW - or that he is not protected by the Geneva Convention?

Further, since Rumsfeld repeatedly says Saddam is being protected as if he was a prisoner of war, the following should apply to the situation:

:confused:
When captured, was Saddam part of the country's military and it's government that was in place at the time? Did he fight (haha) for said country. The answer to both is no. As such he technically would not fall under the Convention's definition of POW status. sure, it's a word game, but then that's 90% of politics in the UN and everywhere else.