RE:BelgiQue ??!!
Hi,
LOL.
As a matter of fact some Arabs residing in Belgium were said to be involved in fundraising for Al Queda and other suspect religious organisations.
I recall there were quite a number of other countries as well.
Cheers, 😉
Hi,
LOL.
As a matter of fact some Arabs residing in Belgium were said to be involved in fundraising for Al Queda and other suspect religious organisations.
I recall there were quite a number of other countries as well.
Cheers, 😉
in rumsfelds logic its now Quba, LybiQa and germaniQue
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,233970,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,233970,00.html
UK comment on rumsfeld logic
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12611811&method=full&siteid=50143
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12611811&method=full&siteid=50143
Re: RE:BelgiQue ??!!
This is a difficult problem indeed. After 9/11 the US forced all
member states of the European Union to pass a law where
any citizen will have his/her economical assets "frozen" if
the US suspects him/her of terrorist connections. Three swedish
citizens were subject to this law by US demand, and no proof
or other jurudical indications of terrorism connections were
provided, except that they were claimed to have connections
to al-Baakarat (spelling?). After a long time they got a chance
to get their terrorist status tried by answering a very huge
battery of questions from the US, and I think they were even
inteviewed by US officials. Two of these three men were freed
of suspicions after a while, but one of them is obviously still a
suspect. He claims himself not to even have anything to do
with al-Baakarat. He has commited no crime according to
swedish law or any other EU countries law, be we must treat
him as a criminal because the US thinks he might be.
Furthermore, the US passed a law that, according to US law,
allows US special op. forces in civilian clothes to carry out
military operations against people or other targets the US
labels as terrorists in any country and without informing the
country in question about it. Think about that. Now, I don't
expect to see a bunch of US soldiers in trenchcoats suddenly
shoot somebody in the front of my eyes on a street here in
Sweden, but the law itself is, in my opinion, a clear sign of
arrogance and disrespect for other countries.
fdegrove said:
This is a difficult problem indeed. After 9/11 the US forced all
member states of the European Union to pass a law where
any citizen will have his/her economical assets "frozen" if
the US suspects him/her of terrorist connections. Three swedish
citizens were subject to this law by US demand, and no proof
or other jurudical indications of terrorism connections were
provided, except that they were claimed to have connections
to al-Baakarat (spelling?). After a long time they got a chance
to get their terrorist status tried by answering a very huge
battery of questions from the US, and I think they were even
inteviewed by US officials. Two of these three men were freed
of suspicions after a while, but one of them is obviously still a
suspect. He claims himself not to even have anything to do
with al-Baakarat. He has commited no crime according to
swedish law or any other EU countries law, be we must treat
him as a criminal because the US thinks he might be.
Furthermore, the US passed a law that, according to US law,
allows US special op. forces in civilian clothes to carry out
military operations against people or other targets the US
labels as terrorists in any country and without informing the
country in question about it. Think about that. Now, I don't
expect to see a bunch of US soldiers in trenchcoats suddenly
shoot somebody in the front of my eyes on a street here in
Sweden, but the law itself is, in my opinion, a clear sign of
arrogance and disrespect for other countries.
this sounds like US dictatorship of the western world. A vision between Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.
Couldn´t anybody name me a land far away from all this mess, more direction william morris´vision?
Couldn´t anybody name me a land far away from all this mess, more direction william morris´vision?
And now, a musical interlude.....
<i>Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead</i>
<b>Bob Dylan, Masters of War, 1963</b>
<i>Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead</i>
<b>Bob Dylan, Masters of War, 1963</b>
Christer
France, the UK and Israel have all carried out covert ops in very recent years that, to their regret, wind up in the newspapers to their embarrasment.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear that the Armed Forces are not used in this type of action in the U.S., but there have been recent changes in the definition of a "combatant".
Unfortunately on the other side of the pond you won't hear of the terrorist cells which are being rounded up on an almost continual basis -- New Jersey, Michigan, Upstate New York, California, Oregon -- they've found people with bomb-manufacturing apparatus, amonium nitrate, fuses, etc. Some of the reality has set in -- finding explosives in a Royal Air Maroc plane at CDG -- but I understand and empathize with Europeans who have large immigrant Arab populations -- and the kind of tinderbox situation which this represents. (and I am over there anywhere from 1 to 4 times per year.)
France, the UK and Israel have all carried out covert ops in very recent years that, to their regret, wind up in the newspapers to their embarrasment.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear that the Armed Forces are not used in this type of action in the U.S., but there have been recent changes in the definition of a "combatant".
Unfortunately on the other side of the pond you won't hear of the terrorist cells which are being rounded up on an almost continual basis -- New Jersey, Michigan, Upstate New York, California, Oregon -- they've found people with bomb-manufacturing apparatus, amonium nitrate, fuses, etc. Some of the reality has set in -- finding explosives in a Royal Air Maroc plane at CDG -- but I understand and empathize with Europeans who have large immigrant Arab populations -- and the kind of tinderbox situation which this represents. (and I am over there anywhere from 1 to 4 times per year.)
AudioFreak said:
About 24 hours? It seems like moderators are making a big efforts and have a large amount of job… I agree with the Till, it was the only one overheated post.
But, if thread will be back in a significantly changed form… I saved first 200 posts in 5 pages, 40 posts per page. I need the rest to complete the collection. Someone interested to change the posts? Of course, it is not a problem to send what I have to anyone interested anyway. (Dear moderators, should I sent this to the Trading Posts?)
Pedja
p.s.: It was a great pleasure and important experience to meet the political opinions of the fellow diyAudio members.
Re: Christer
And many others too, at least if we go back a few years in time.
Although it was most reasonable to pass the law that stopped
CIA from killing other countries presidents, prime ministers etc.
I would think it had caused less protests if they had done
away with Saddam in this way, and I understand such plans
existed although it was not allowed to carry them out, than
the current war scenario does. Now when that law is gone,
these plans seem not to be an option anymore.
I would be happy to hear that the media reports over here on
that particular law I mentioned are false, but I am not sure that
is quite what you are saying, though.
Oh, we do hear quite a bit about it and understand your
worries about terrorism. Although al Queda hasn't struck
within Europe yet, new terrorist cells and planned attacks
are disocvered almost weekly in Europe. I do also understand
that this is a new, more dangerous and more difficult problem
than the national terrorism some countries have had problems
with in the past. However, problems do arise when the US
claims a european citizen is a suspected terrorist/combatant
but cannot/won't prove it, ór the person has done nothing
illegal according to local law. I am quite sure the US would not
be too happy if Sweden claimed an american citizen to be a
suspected terrorist and ask for action without providing any
proof. What is required is a true cooperation between police
forces and some more trust between countries. It seems that
european police forces cooperate quite well in these matters,
which shows in the number of terrorist cells discovered. I think
it would be better if US and European police could cooperate
as smoothly in these matters.
jackinnj said:
And many others too, at least if we go back a few years in time.
Although it was most reasonable to pass the law that stopped
CIA from killing other countries presidents, prime ministers etc.
I would think it had caused less protests if they had done
away with Saddam in this way, and I understand such plans
existed although it was not allowed to carry them out, than
the current war scenario does. Now when that law is gone,
these plans seem not to be an option anymore.
I would be happy to hear that the media reports over here on
that particular law I mentioned are false, but I am not sure that
is quite what you are saying, though.
Oh, we do hear quite a bit about it and understand your
worries about terrorism. Although al Queda hasn't struck
within Europe yet, new terrorist cells and planned attacks
are disocvered almost weekly in Europe. I do also understand
that this is a new, more dangerous and more difficult problem
than the national terrorism some countries have had problems
with in the past. However, problems do arise when the US
claims a european citizen is a suspected terrorist/combatant
but cannot/won't prove it, ór the person has done nothing
illegal according to local law. I am quite sure the US would not
be too happy if Sweden claimed an american citizen to be a
suspected terrorist and ask for action without providing any
proof. What is required is a true cooperation between police
forces and some more trust between countries. It seems that
european police forces cooperate quite well in these matters,
which shows in the number of terrorist cells discovered. I think
it would be better if US and European police could cooperate
as smoothly in these matters.
PLANS...
Hi,
Agreed.This is one occasion where a few snipers could have done the job.
They could have had any nationallity and nobody needed to know who these men were etc.
I said it before,IMO it is Saddam Hussein who's guilty of misleading the world and his own people,so why should any other lifes be put at risk?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Agreed.This is one occasion where a few snipers could have done the job.
They could have had any nationallity and nobody needed to know who these men were etc.
I said it before,IMO it is Saddam Hussein who's guilty of misleading the world and his own people,so why should any other lifes be put at risk?
Cheers,😉
Will that solve the problem? What leader is next in Iraq? If there still are mass destruction weapons in Iraq, maybe some generals will use them without Saddam. Killing Saddam without any other action will not solve the problem. The best would be to convince the Iraqi people that they have to get rid of them themselves. I think that it would be very risky to upset the Iraqi population too much. Recipes for plastic bombs are easy to find these days...
Another topic:
What concerns me is that the United States is raising their defense budget dramatically. I have heard it now 400 billion dollar and the budget is planned to increase to 450 billion dollar!!!
IMHO that's ridiculous. The united states is by far the most powerful country and even then increase defense funds so much. Imagine what you could do with only half of the money:
- Buy rice to feed well... quite a lot of people
- Buy condemns&medicins to fight the AIDS problem in Africa
- Improve education in many third world countries.
etc. etc.
(And I did not even mention the problems that exist in the USA that could be solved with the money. Of course, the USA should be able to defend it self. But spending so much on bombs and rockets is something of the last century...)
These measures would very much increase the popularity of americans in the rest of the world. You *cannot* fight terrorism! The only thing you can do is to give people in the poorer countries of the world better chances. If you fight countries like Iraq, terrorism is more like to increase than decrease.
Also, the foreign policy should be fair and sincere. As long as the USA will not take an independant position in the middle east affairs, America will be very inpopular over there.
Just my 2c
Fedde
Another topic:
What concerns me is that the United States is raising their defense budget dramatically. I have heard it now 400 billion dollar and the budget is planned to increase to 450 billion dollar!!!
IMHO that's ridiculous. The united states is by far the most powerful country and even then increase defense funds so much. Imagine what you could do with only half of the money:
- Buy rice to feed well... quite a lot of people
- Buy condemns&medicins to fight the AIDS problem in Africa
- Improve education in many third world countries.
etc. etc.
(And I did not even mention the problems that exist in the USA that could be solved with the money. Of course, the USA should be able to defend it self. But spending so much on bombs and rockets is something of the last century...)
These measures would very much increase the popularity of americans in the rest of the world. You *cannot* fight terrorism! The only thing you can do is to give people in the poorer countries of the world better chances. If you fight countries like Iraq, terrorism is more like to increase than decrease.
Also, the foreign policy should be fair and sincere. As long as the USA will not take an independant position in the middle east affairs, America will be very inpopular over there.
Just my 2c
Fedde
The fascinating thing about the thread is that you can see
there are some that take a diplomatic approach, some want
no conflict, some launch attacks.
I'm not talking about nations.
I'm talking about posters to the thread.
Does anyone think these parallels are interesting?
We think that we are all separate and that the world is separate.
If I don't become different and you don't become different and
they (whoever) don't become different and yet we expect that
the world and it's events will be different, then this is insane.
It may be that I'm detracting from the nature of this thread.
If so, I will butt out.
there are some that take a diplomatic approach, some want
no conflict, some launch attacks.
I'm not talking about nations.
I'm talking about posters to the thread.
Does anyone think these parallels are interesting?
We think that we are all separate and that the world is separate.
If I don't become different and you don't become different and
they (whoever) don't become different and yet we expect that
the world and it's events will be different, then this is insane.
It may be that I'm detracting from the nature of this thread.
If so, I will butt out.
No no, this is interesting. It's a strange phenomenon how people can think completely different about matters. For me that is a reason to try to find compromises, try to keep an open mind for other opinions and try to find solutions that are as much reversable as possible. The last point is one of the reasons I am against striking Iraq at this moment. The middle east is a tinderbox. It's so hard to predict what a war will shake up over there. In short term but also in longer term...
Fedde
Fedde
I must say I am disappointed by Powell's testimony; after all the bravado and lead-up I was expecting some pretty solid evidence to be given. I didn't find what he said compelling. Interesting, suspicious, melodramatic, but not what I would generally class as compelling. Certainly not worthy of a court of law. Jack Straw, who nearly wet himself with enthusiasm for Powell's arguments didn't do it for me either, other than to lower my already low estimations of him.
Having said that this is international law we're talking about so I'm not sure whether it has to be as scrutinizing as individual law. I mean, the ramifications to the accuser of a false conviction are not as clear here. What happens if US/UK invade and find a benign country with a few remnants of past biological warfare research? Does anything happen?
I really haven't a clue whether Saddam has WMD and the intention of using them against the West. It is interesting that he appears to be in a position of being guilty until proven innocent. Which seems to go against the normal way we look at individuals. I mean, when we suspect someone we normally send some top detective out and detect until evidence is found. Only then do we arrest. It seems this is what Blix is meant to be doing. So in the absence of solid evidence, Germany, Russia, China et al are saying: do more detective work.
Ok, so you could argue that this isn't the same as a legal case. But why shouldn't the same principles apply? Besides which, while inspections go on, if Saddam is hiding stuff then he's going to have a lot of trouble deploying it whilst under the magnifying glass. And isn't that goal: to stop Saddam deploying WMD against the West (or whoever Bush considers threatened at any particular time).
So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the opposers of immediate action to argue for more detection. It is relatively cheap to finance, it stops Saddam making progress and deploying and it soothes the international conscience which, really needs to base its actions on impeccable principles and facts rather than conjecture and fear of the unknown.
Manipulating people and influencing peoples' decision through creating fear of the unknown is a very effective strategy, especially in some countries where laws have not been enacted to protect people from this sort of thing. It is used for military propaganda, sure, but far more often in product marketing to sell things that allegedly protect us from something.
Unfortunately, the stock market is floundering due to the uncertainty of the situation. Being a stock holder this is ******* me off no end. I was sort of hoping Powell would say something more compelling: that would at least have reduced uncertainty and helped the stock prices out a little. However, this is of no concern to me when weighed against the possibility inappropriate carnage in Iraq. In any case, I shall no doubt lose more money through tax expenditure on an invasion and the long aftermath than the short-term stock market depression.
By the way, given that the UN will most likely, either through conviction or coercion, pass another resolution to sanction a US/UK invasion, what do you think the odds are that earlier resolutions, to do with other Middle-Eastern states, will then find their way onto the Bush/Blair agendas?
BAM
Having said that this is international law we're talking about so I'm not sure whether it has to be as scrutinizing as individual law. I mean, the ramifications to the accuser of a false conviction are not as clear here. What happens if US/UK invade and find a benign country with a few remnants of past biological warfare research? Does anything happen?
I really haven't a clue whether Saddam has WMD and the intention of using them against the West. It is interesting that he appears to be in a position of being guilty until proven innocent. Which seems to go against the normal way we look at individuals. I mean, when we suspect someone we normally send some top detective out and detect until evidence is found. Only then do we arrest. It seems this is what Blix is meant to be doing. So in the absence of solid evidence, Germany, Russia, China et al are saying: do more detective work.
Ok, so you could argue that this isn't the same as a legal case. But why shouldn't the same principles apply? Besides which, while inspections go on, if Saddam is hiding stuff then he's going to have a lot of trouble deploying it whilst under the magnifying glass. And isn't that goal: to stop Saddam deploying WMD against the West (or whoever Bush considers threatened at any particular time).
So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the opposers of immediate action to argue for more detection. It is relatively cheap to finance, it stops Saddam making progress and deploying and it soothes the international conscience which, really needs to base its actions on impeccable principles and facts rather than conjecture and fear of the unknown.
Manipulating people and influencing peoples' decision through creating fear of the unknown is a very effective strategy, especially in some countries where laws have not been enacted to protect people from this sort of thing. It is used for military propaganda, sure, but far more often in product marketing to sell things that allegedly protect us from something.
Unfortunately, the stock market is floundering due to the uncertainty of the situation. Being a stock holder this is ******* me off no end. I was sort of hoping Powell would say something more compelling: that would at least have reduced uncertainty and helped the stock prices out a little. However, this is of no concern to me when weighed against the possibility inappropriate carnage in Iraq. In any case, I shall no doubt lose more money through tax expenditure on an invasion and the long aftermath than the short-term stock market depression.
By the way, given that the UN will most likely, either through conviction or coercion, pass another resolution to sanction a US/UK invasion, what do you think the odds are that earlier resolutions, to do with other Middle-Eastern states, will then find their way onto the Bush/Blair agendas?
BAM
"Does anyone think these parallels are interesting?"
Well I think it is quite predictable. All any of us can do is fashion hypotheses out of conjecture and then apply our own principles to it. I personally find the differences in principles more interesting than whether Iraq has WMD or not.
There seem to be some marked distinctions in the area of principles. In general, I seem to be most able to concur with the principles from the Euro, Canadian, Agentinian and Australian posters.
Well I think it is quite predictable. All any of us can do is fashion hypotheses out of conjecture and then apply our own principles to it. I personally find the differences in principles more interesting than whether Iraq has WMD or not.
There seem to be some marked distinctions in the area of principles. In general, I seem to be most able to concur with the principles from the Euro, Canadian, Agentinian and Australian posters.
traderbam said:
It is very, very cheap indeed, since it is financed by Iraqi oil
through the "oil-for-food" programme. See www.unmovic.org
We once had a group of people working together in a department.
It was like one family.
But one day they moved some of them to some rooms down
the hall. It was fascinating to see how fast an "us and them"
situation developed between the same people.
This is human nature I guess.
It is all held in place by the unbelievably deep and tenacious
illusion that we are all separate.
It's almost as if we are all part of a massive experiment in
group dynamics and the first rule is that you can't know of it.
"Give 'em money and guns to play with, that'll keep 'em busy"
It was like one family.
But one day they moved some of them to some rooms down
the hall. It was fascinating to see how fast an "us and them"
situation developed between the same people.
This is human nature I guess.
It is all held in place by the unbelievably deep and tenacious
illusion that we are all separate.
It's almost as if we are all part of a massive experiment in
group dynamics and the first rule is that you can't know of it.
"Give 'em money and guns to play with, that'll keep 'em busy"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.