Planetarion Forums - the most serious thing ive ever posted i think...

seventh · 18 Jul 2003, 09:19

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3072529.stm

^^ if this happens, america deserves things like september 11th

and before everyone starts to hate me, just cos its only two people its no worse than a thousand, its still wrongful death

and the fact is, they have no ****ing right.

im so ****ing pissed off with america and i know theres nothing i can do.

seventh · 18 Jul 2003, 09:34

by america, do not take it that i mean every american ever, (cos i know some of your would do that and then declare war on me) i mean those in congress who are controlling this.

Woof · 18 Jul 2003, 09:42

TUT, those pesky illigal combatants!

vampire_lestat · 18 Jul 2003, 09:58

how many times o i have to say it

AMERICA SUCKS

Monkehpimp · 18 Jul 2003, 09:59

They've been abusing human rights for decades, yet still can't figgure out why people fly planes into thier buildings. Its the same logic that clearly shows that its all Marilyn Mansons fault that kids shoot each other.

Deffeh · 18 Jul 2003, 10:05

Nearly as disgusting as listening to Uncle Tony use American rhetoric yesterday in congress.

Oh what a world we live in, etc.

Fifth_teletubbie · 18 Jul 2003, 10:11

Much as am critical of the US, I really dont see how a sentimental piece of 'journalism' centered around someones 4th child should mean he should be released when there is a good chance he is in fact a terrorist or terrorist supporter (someone voluntarily exchanging britain for taliban-ruled afghanistan obviously doesnt think too highly of western culture).

Also, I despise on principle this sort of 'lets play the emotional card' reporting, it is weak and cheap and worst of all actually seems to work on some people.

seventh · 18 Jul 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Much as am critical of the US, I really dont see how a sentimental piece of 'journalism' centered around someones 4th child should mean he should be released when there is a good chance he is in fact a terrorist or terrorist supporter (someone voluntarily exchanging britain for taliban-ruled afghanistan obviously doesnt think too highly of western culture).

Also, I despise on principle this sort of 'lets play the emotional card' reporting, it is weak and cheap and worst of all actually seems to work on some people.

you are old

and therefore should be deleted.

Obliterate · 18 Jul 2003, 10:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Much as am critical of the US, I really dont see how a sentimental piece of 'journalism' centered around someones 4th child should mean he should be released when there is a good chance he is in fact a terrorist or terrorist supporter (someone voluntarily exchanging britain for taliban-ruled afghanistan obviously doesnt think too highly of western culture).

The article wasn't suggesting he be released.

"His family hope against hope that Moazzam and fellow Briton, Feroz Abbasi, 23, of Luton, will be handed over to the UK to face justice here. "

Ste · 18 Jul 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by seventh

and before everyone starts to hate me, just cos its only two people its no worse than a thousand, its still wrongful death

Actually there are thousands of prisoners there.

How come Pakistan gets there citizens repatriated?

Quote:

Eleven men have returned home to Pakistan after spending nearly two years as prisoners of the US military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
An official of the Pakistani interior ministry said they had been expecting 13 citizens to be repatriated. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy.

seventh · 18 Jul 2003, 11:04

i know im just saying people would bring up "its just two people etc" i know there are lots of others, but im focusing on these two because theyre in the public eye

its not thati want them free'd etc. its just none of americas ****ing problem, they caught them, now they should hand them over.

seventh · 18 Jul 2003, 11:07

plus the fact that i know, if there is a justifiable reason for them to do so, countries in the world would and probably want to go to war with america due to it messing up a lot of stuff

and as much as id like to join them if there was a VALID reason, i know my country will just line up our troops in front of the guns.

if we do, im moving to the continent.

Structural Integrity · 18 Jul 2003, 11:24

Quote:

Originally posted by seventh

america deserves things like september 11th

I'm having anti-America feelings too, mainly because of their foreign policy, their ignorance towards other cultures, them feeling superior to other countries and general lack of respect for human beings. This article only adds to it.

Radical Edward · 18 Jul 2003, 11:31

he didn'T say McDonalds. he is clearly the most evil of the most evil, because Rumsfeld says so.

Tzencath · 18 Jul 2003, 12:52

BURN AMERICA!

and so on and so forth, just save the super models

queball · 18 Jul 2003, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Much as am critical of the US, I really dont see how a sentimental piece of 'journalism' centered around someones 4th child should mean he should be released when there is a good chance he is in fact a terrorist or terrorist supporter

Might as well nuke the whole ****ing country, they're all a bunch of raghead terrorists.

Quote:

(someone voluntarily exchanging britain for taliban-ruled afghanistan obviously doesnt think too highly of western culture).

Definitely. We're the best! In fact, anyone who isn't desperately trying to get into a Western country is a terrorist. Also, those who get in are terrorists.

Quote:

Also, I despise on principle this sort of 'lets play the emotional card' reporting, it is weak and cheap and worst of all actually seems to work on some people.

You must despise Western culture then.

queball · 18 Jul 2003, 13:23

and seventh wins for his "most serious thing" involving face-eating camel spiders.

Kumnaa · 18 Jul 2003, 13:23

America is in trouble

Fifth_teletubbie · 18 Jul 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Might as well nuke the whole ****ing country, they're all a bunch of raghead terrorists.

Definitely. We're the best! In fact, anyone who isn't desperately trying to get into a Western country is a terrorist. Also, those who get in are terrorists.

You must despise Western culture then.

Thank you for so utterly and completely missing my point.
It takes skill I do not doubt.

Kumnaa · 18 Jul 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Thank you for so utterly and completely missing my point.
It takes skill I do not doubt.

You have missed his point

Toop · 18 Jul 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by vampire_lestat

AMERICA SUCKS

madi · 18 Jul 2003, 13:50

how about if the young english man in prison over there set a bomb that killed a couple of young families, or one family, or a child, or infact anyone
would you be moaning if he was proven the one to have recruited others to do it
or if he was one of the people who had something to do with the planes flying into those towers

think they should all be shot and have it over with

Torz · 18 Jul 2003, 14:24

I think America should withdraw from Iraq and let Isreal clean house.

queball · 18 Jul 2003, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Thank you for so utterly and completely missing my point.
It takes skill I do not doubt.

Could you explain how instead of "doing a Yahwe"?

You seemed to be saying that people who go to non-Western countries, such as my friends who go to Africa to dig wells, or this Moazzam fellow, have a "good chance" of being terrorists. You seem to have a very prejudicial mindset.

You also accuse the BBC article of being "emotional" as if mentioning that he has been deprived of access to his child invalidates the entire article. Well, it's hard to explain human rights violations without describing the real effects. Other articles have listed the technical violations, but what is in the end important to real people is things like being deprived of family, of free speech, etc. Prisoners who aren't at Guantanamo Bay are allowed to see their family occasionally or at least read their letters. Are you just afraid that an "emotional" article might actually stir up some sense of emotion in you?

plasmas_arms · 18 Jul 2003, 14:31

I disagree Whole heartedly........Crunchy peanut butter is NOT as good as smooth peanut butter and thus should not be included as Americas greatest contribution to the world.

W · 18 Jul 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by queball

You seemed to be saying that people who go to non-Western countries, such as my friends who go to Africa to dig wells, or this Moazzam fellow, have a "good chance" of being terrorists. You seem to have a very prejudicial mindset.

If he is, he might have something. What I object to is considering everyone he would count as a "terrorist" (or "terrorist supporter" an even worse term) as somehow a bad person, to be hunted down and locked up even if he didn't break any law.

seventh · 18 Jul 2003, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by madi
how about if the young english man in prison over there set a bomb that killed a couple of young families, or one family, or a child, or infact anyone
would you be moaning if he was proven the one to have recruited others to do it
or if he was one of the people who had something to do with the planes flying into those towers

think they should all be shot and have it over with

i would also feel bad if you did the samething...similar proof how do we know if you're a terrorist??

Fifth_teletubbie · 18 Jul 2003, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Could you explain how instead of "doing a Yahwe"?

You seemed to be saying that people who go to non-Western countries, such as my friends who go to Africa to dig wells, or this Moazzam fellow, have a "good chance" of being terrorists. You seem to have a very prejudicial mindset.

This is actually quite insulting.
I would advise you to read again what I posted, and try and actually comprehend it this time. If you cannot, you arent worth the effort of arguing with.

If you cannot differentiate between me pointing out that he actually might be in there for a reason and 'nuke the ragheads' I feel sorry for you. You argue like a 15-year old. (Which you might be, in which case you should be out playing soccer or something this time of day).

Quote:

You also accuse the BBC article of being "emotional" as if mentioning that he has been deprived of access to his child invalidates the entire article. Well, it's hard to explain human rights violations without describing the real effects. Other articles have listed the technical violations, but what is in the end important to real people is things like being deprived of family, of free speech, etc. Prisoners who aren't at Guantanamo Bay are allowed to see their family occasionally or at least read their letters. Are you just afraid that an "emotional" article might actually stir up some sense of emotion in you?

I object to it because it is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. It is a typical journalistic ploy to engender reader emotion, which mars the ability to think rationally.
The sad fact is that most readers respond to this.

A good example is the Sun or some such rag posting an article about European laws being discussed. One of those laws was about a europe-wide ruling in what you can term 'chocolate'.
For example in Belgium the minimum amount of cocoa is set higher than it is in Germany or the Uk. The proposal was for one single % to be set across the EU. What was the 'newspaper' headline?
"BELGIANS SAY WE CANT CALL OUR CHOCOLATE CHOCOLATE !"

Back to the topic at hand, I really could care less if he has 0 or 100 kids and if he ever saw them and if he is kind to his mum or if he kicks his dog.
Neither should you.
The only thing that matters is if he is involved directly or indirectly in terrorism.

JonnyBGood · 18 Jul 2003, 15:06

Military tribunals should have the power to impose the death penalty on civilians, with no whom state of war has been declared, and in trials where they have no rights I agree. I can see once again we've all thought this through from a relatively sane standpoint.

queball · 18 Jul 2003, 15:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
This is actually quite insulting.
I would advise you to read again what I posted, and try and actually comprehend it this time. If you cannot, you arent worth the effort of arguing with.

In response to an article that concerns how people from Afghanistan are denied rights that Americans are entitled to:

Quote:

posted earlier by Fifth_teletubbie

there is a good chance he is in fact a terrorist or terrorist supporter (someone voluntarily exchanging britain for taliban-ruled afghanistan obviously doesnt think too highly of western culture).

"there is a good chance"
So what? The question is, why should he be treated worse than someone arrested in America (for ANY crime, even for paedophilic terrorist insider trading) would be treated.

Quote:

If you cannot differentiate between me pointing out that he actually might be in there for a reason and 'nuke the ragheads' I feel sorry for you. You argue like a 15-year old.

You argue like a racist.

Quetzovercoatl · 18 Jul 2003, 15:09

Quote:

Originally posted by seventh
^^ if this happens, america deserves things like september 11th

I hope with hindsight you feel ashamed of this.

Quote:

Originally posted by seventh
and before everyone starts to hate me, just cos its only two people its no worse than a thousand, its still wrongful death.

Two people isn't equal to a thousand at all, especially when the "thousand" are innocent civilians and the two are fanatics trying to cause more suffering.

Quote:

Originally posted by seventh
and the fact is, they have no ****ing right.

They got caught in a military situation so they're held as military prisoners by their captors.

The UK uproar about "bring these two home just because they're British" annoys me (and I'm British too). They fought against us and don't deserve our support.

queball · 18 Jul 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
they're held as military prisoners

no they aren't

JonnyBGood · 18 Jul 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
Two people isn't equal to a thousand at all, especially when the "thousand" are innocent civilians and the two are fanatics trying to cause more suffering.

**** me I must have missed the memo that reversed 2000 years of legal and moral precedent. Guilty until executed by an "impartial" military tribunal is it? It'd be more moral to just reopen the gulags, at least then there'd be less lying going on.

W · 18 Jul 2003, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
[b]This is actually quite insulting.
I would advise you to read again what I posted, and try and actually comprehend it this time. If you cannot, you arent worth the effort of arguing with.

If you cannot differentiate between me pointing out that he actually might be in there for a reason and 'nuke the ragheads' I feel sorry for you. You argue like a 15-year old. (Which you might be, in which case you should be out playing soccer or something this time of day).

I object to it because it is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. It is a typical journalistic ploy to engender reader emotion, which mars the ability to think rationally.
The sad fact is that most readers respond to this.

A good example is the Sun or some such rag posting an article about European laws being discussed. One of those laws was about a europe-wide ruling in what you can term 'chocolate'.
For example in Belgium the minimum amount of cocoa is set higher than it is in Germany or the Uk. The proposal was for one single % to be set across the EU. What was the 'newspaper' headline?
"BELGIANS SAY WE CANT CALL OUR CHOCOLATE CHOCOLATE !"

Back to the topic at hand, I really could care less if he has 0 or 100 kids and if he ever saw them and if he is kind to his mum or if he kicks his dog.
Neither should you.
The only thing that matters is if he is involved directly or indirectly in terrorism.

You an objectivist by any chance?

The idea of emotions somehow hindering (instead of being the basis of) rational thought is silly.

And the "nuke the ragheads" was an example of taking something to an extreme, to show it's negative sides. He did not equate your statement literally with "nuke the ragheads".

Vaio · 18 Jul 2003, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
**** me I must have missed the memo that reversed 2000 years of legal and moral precedent. Guilty until executed by an "impartial" military tribunal is it? It'd be more moral to just reopen the gulags, at least then there'd be less lying going on.

So long as there is room for Archer i'm in agreement

Vaio

Fifth_teletubbie · 18 Jul 2003, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by queball

You argue like a racist.

You have no idea how funny that comment is. Well done.

And congratulations, you are the 2nd person ever on my ignore list.

Edit: or intended to.

W · 18 Jul 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
They got caught in a military situation so they're held as military prisoners by their captors.

Well, that surely cleared away alot of text from the treaties concerning POWs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl

The UK uproar about "bring these two home just because they're British" annoys me (and I'm British too). They fought against us and don't deserve our support.

"Us agains Them" is it? Being wrong, or on the wrong side, of one thing, automatically makes you wrong in everything else, does it? Being a criminal, or a soldier on the "wrong side" automatically robs you of all and any rights? I have to disapoint you, but most of the western world disagree.

JonnyBGood · 18 Jul 2003, 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
You have no idea how funny that comment is. Well done.

And congratulations, you are the 2nd person ever on my ignore list.

Edit: or intended to.

We hire great mods :)

Quetzovercoatl · 18 Jul 2003, 15:36

with regard to my mistaken comment "they are held as military prisoners"

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
no they aren't

I didn't phrase that as clearly as I'd intended, I meant "prisoners of the military"

When I challenged the statement "just cos its only two people its no worse than a thousand, its still wrongful death" I was only doing so from simple logic. 2<1000.

Quetzovercoatl · 18 Jul 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by W
"Us agains Them" is it? Being wrong, or on the wrong side, of one thing, automatically makes you wrong in everything else, does it? Being a criminal, or a soldier on the "wrong side" automatically robs you of all and any rights? I have to disapoint you, but most of the western world disagree.

If a British citizen with extremist sympathies is captured among the taliban, then it's not likely he took a wrong turn on the way to the shops.

Here's a statement for you to wave your handbags at :

I think "innocent until proven guilty" is unbalanced. I'm not saying "guilty till proven innocent" is better, but they're equally wrong extremes. I'd be happy to see a verdict introduced of "probably guilty"

Now get those quoting trousers on

JonnyBGood · 18 Jul 2003, 15:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
I think "innocent until proven guilty" is unbalanced. I'm not saying "guilty till proven innocent" is better, but they're equally wrong extremes. I'd be happy to see a verdict introduced of "probably guilty"

Are you ****ing mad? Why don't we just let history's top 50 greatest tyrants run the law courts? How can someone be "probably guilty" before they've been tried? Law courts exist for us all, not just those of us who are "probably innocent".

queball · 18 Jul 2003, 17:46

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3078143.stm

heh

wu_trax · 18 Jul 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by madi
how about if the young english man in prison over there set a bomb that killed a couple of young families, or one family, or a child, or infact anyone
would you be moaning if he was proven the one to have recruited others to do it
or if he was one of the people who had something to do with the planes flying into those towers

think they should all be shot and have it over with

look, you can put them into prison and still respect human rights etc. and not hide them in some random military base and deny them any official status, just to please the mob.
its not that difficult, most western countries do that with their normal criminals.

Quetzovercoatl · 18 Jul 2003, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Are you ****ing mad? Why don't we just let history's top 50 greatest tyrants run the law courts?

Because most of them are dead, and if they were alive, they'd be too busy dictating to worry about a few fanatics who found themselves on the losing side

(in other words, ask a silly question.....)

If the prisoners weren't guilty, they wouldn't be in prison. This is because what they're guilty of is being taliban/al qaida supporters and the evidence is their actual bodies being there to be captured.

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
How can someone be "probably guilty" before they've been tried?

Someone is guilty if they've committed an offence, the decision of a court doesn't make them so.

Tactitus · 18 Jul 2003, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Obliterate
The article wasn't suggesting he be released.

"His family hope against hope that Moazzam and fellow Briton, Feroz Abbasi, 23, of Luton, will be handed over to the UK to face justice here. "

Apparently, the US has said they are willing to repatriate these men but that there appears to be no UK law under which they could be tried; so repatriating them would essentially mean they'd just be released--which we are not willing to do.

Sandsnake · 18 Jul 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
look, you can put them into prison and still respect human rights etc. and not hide them in some random military base and deny them any official status, just to please the mob.
its not that difficult, most western countries do that with their normal criminals.

No one said they aren't. Theres some media hype but nothing worth a damn..hell, if anything, those letters home support the idea that said individuals are being well taken care of.

The US has no place to put them other than where they are and, as Tacitus stated, the lack of laws elsewhere means that if we want being a terrorist to be illegal, we have to try them as criminals our damn selves.

Phang · 18 Jul 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
If the prisoners weren't guilty, they wouldn't be in prison.

Dear lord. Never type, or say, anything again. Ever.

W · 18 Jul 2003, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
If a British citizen with extremist sympathies is captured among the taliban, then it's not likely he took a wrong turn on the way to the shops.

Here's a statement for you to wave your handbags at :

I think "innocent until proven guilty" is unbalanced. I'm not saying "guilty till proven innocent" is better, but they're equally wrong extremes. I'd be happy to see a verdict introduced of "probably guilty"

Now get those quoting trousers on

I never ever mentioned anything about innocence.

In fact, why did you even quote me, and quote that part?

CrashTester · 18 Jul 2003, 20:58

I think camp x-ray is a fking brilliant idea and Im glad it is the 'ragheads' that are getting the first taste of real prison life.

I only hope that the UK takes this super idea onboard and downgrades all of our prisons to the same standard so that all of her majesties prisoners can have similar treatment.

Then maybe people would think twice before comitting any crime.

THREE CHEERS FOR CAMP X RAY - HIP HIP HOORAY! \o/ \o/ \o/

JonnyBGood · 18 Jul 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
If the prisoners weren't guilty, they wouldn't be in prison. This is because what they're guilty of is being taliban/al qaida supporters and the evidence is their actual bodies being there to be captured.

Someone is guilty if they've committed an offence, the decision of a court doesn't make them so.

Dear god.