How the hell did Bush get back in??

Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"

No doubt Piggy, but when you reduce it to a debate about how much guts gets shown on TV it begins to get ridiculous.

Again you misunderstand the point I'm making. I'm not saying our news should be full of bloodied Iraqi bodies - but the great swathe of innocents killed have gone largely unreported in mainstream western media.

btw, do Al Jazeera show the clips with the be-headings? I wasn't aware that they were but I stand to be corrected.

Talk to me about the Big Picture.
Talk to me about Darfur.


The entire international community has let down Darfur. Including the UN.

But we can talk about many wars and injustices in this thread - but I think it's better to at least try to keep these threads to one general topic.
 
We in Ireland, and western Europe in general, live in a fairytale world of peace, justice and universal rights. We think anyone who threatens or attempts to restricts these rights for others is the "bad guy".
The reality is that we only live in this fairytale world because there are ruthless and brutal people out there killing and oppressing in our names. Anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot. Everything from the cheap labour that gives us cheap clothes/coffee/tea/food/metals/glass/ships/cars/etc,etc to the tariff's and restrictions on trade that keep poor countries poor, contribute to oppression, and allow dictators and despots to flourish.
We in Europe are the ultimate hypocrites; we condemn the actions that keep us rich but do more than anyone (including the US) to maintain the status quo.
What is happening in Darfur is no worse than what has happened in dozens of countries in the last 20 years.
Remember how we campaigned to have the embargo's on Libya lifted so that we could sell them beef?
Remember how we fed Saddam's army for the last 20 years?
Remember how we campaign(ed) to keep 3rd world farmers in poverty by keeping EU tariff's in place?

We are/were protecting our interests. The US is protesting her interests, which happen to be ours as well; we need cheap oil, we need US investment.

What is happening in Iraq is terrible.
It is only because America behaves in this way and keeps the real world away from our fairytale one that we can have the luxury of taking abstract moralistic stances.

And before anyone says that they would live in poverty to save the planet ask yourselves this; Would you see your children die from the same diseases that 2/3rds of the world see their children die from in order to saith your moral pains?

We are rich because they are poor, we are free because they are not (real democracy can only function in a rich country).

That's the way the world is. We all have blood on our hands.
Live with it and stop pretending we really give a s**t.
 
btw, do Al Jazeera show the clips with the be-headings? I wasn't aware that they were but I stand to be corrected.

Oh yes they most CERTAINLY do Piggy, in all their gory glory.

In fact (bizzarly) the only terrorist video they refused to show was one of Margaret Hassan fainting while being filmed begging for her life...they deemed that 'too graphic'!
The mind really, truly, BOGGLES!!

The entire international community has let down Darfur. Including the UN.
They certainly have! Do you think its possible Piggy that the reason for that was perhaps the desire to avoid being labelled as CRUSADERS by the international Islamic community, as they were labelled by the Sudanese government? And to avoid being dragged into yet another confrontation with Islamic terror?

The people of Darfur have also been 'let down' by Al Jazeera, which seems to have sided with their Arabic persecutors. Wouldn't you think they'd be keen to show more childrens guts on their news broadcasts? There's plenty to be seen in Darfur.

But we can talk about many wars and injustices in this thread - but I think it's better to at least try to keep these threads to one general topic.
Oh yes Piggy, at all costs we must avoid doing anything which might bring the Arab media into disrepute, or add any balance to the debate.

Purple, what you say is harsh, but also (unfortunately) true.

I often wonder to myself, when I hear people condemning the US for seeking to secure Oil supplies - how would they react when the lights and heat start going off at home in the middle of a northern european winter? When they can't boil a kettle or cook their food, or drive their car, or all the other little things people seem to think happens by magic.
If they want those things, it has a price, and I'm damned sure that when the time comes, even Piggy won't sit in the cold and dark for the sake of his high principles.

(Cue Piggy - with a long lecture on alternative energy sources).
 
I understand what you are saying Asinov, but reading his book, I was very impressed by him and how he explains the BBC way - impartiality (yes, he does give out about Gilligan and that episode).
I think it is maybe more of the latter. The sorry fact is that most news organisations are very biased because they rely on advertisers money. Thats probably the main reason why we can't believe most news organisations motives (BBC and maybe RTE aside). I think if Fox News start showing stories which were anti-American (i.e. showed the true horrors of war), the advertisers would move their money elsewhere. As this is a Murdoch enterprise, it wouldn't happen! Money rules with that guy.

I think another reason why we don't see it is because here in the West, we see ourselves as more civilised, and we don't normally see that type of thing. In the Arab world, they would be more used to it with the amount of dicatators, freedom fighters, coups, wars on their own backyard.
Every country has their own values, and their own ideas of what is right to show on TV. As an example, recently, on a trip to France, I saw one of the most sexually explicit movies on normal TV that I have ever seen.
That type of stuff would never be shown in either the US, Ireland or the Arab world.
My point is, while we might think seeing dead children on TV as over the line, in other countries, it is seeing as normal because it is fact.
And because the West gets upset that the people are seeing this, they demonise the messengers.

I would guess that most people on this site haven't seen one of those beheading videos either. Perhaps the Western media should show those too...as well as images of mutilated children.
I did see one of the earlier clips and am sorry I did. I don't think anyone should see that.
There is a difference here though which is not being mentioned. The people who are doing this are terrorists - evil men who aren't even human.
This does not make all men who are fighting the Americans as evil monsters. I am sure almost all the "freedom fighters" in Iraq, and particularly now in Fallujah, are just as disgusted at these goings on as the rest of us are.

Also, I don't know if Al Jazeera showed the actual beheadings on TV. I know they do show a lot, but I am not aware if they showed these monsters holding up a persons severed head on TV.
We showed the videos over here, but we stop when the knives go near any of the necks.

I am not going to start talking about Sudan now, because I know little of the reporting which is being done on it, but I do think that if countries from the West wanted to make the world safe, they could do a lot worse than move in now.
 
I am not going to start talking about Sudan now, because I know little of the reporting which is being done on it, but I do think that if countries from the West wanted to make the world safe, they could do a lot worse than move in now.

Why SHOULD the west have to do it? In the face of criticism from the Islamic world and at risk of opening up yet another front in the war on terror?

Why don't the OAU do it? Or The Arab League?

Why not?
Because they are damn hypocrites.
 
You really are a scream Asimov I must say. I reckon if I actually agreed with everything you said that spiteful tone would still be there and you'd find some way of thinking you were having a go at me.

Oh yes they most CERTAINLY do Piggy, in all their gory glory.

Fair enough so. I did say I stood to be corrected. Can you provide links as proof?

They certainly have! Do you think its possible Piggy that the reason for that was perhaps the desire to avoid being labelled as CRUSADERS by the international Islamic community, as they were labelled by the Sudanese government? And to avoid being dragged into yet another confrontation with Islamic terror?

I don't know but I'd doubt it. That's one way of looking at it alright but not one that I'd personally agree with. Then again, if you were very anti-Muslim and thought all Muslims were evil or something you might think like that, I guess.

The people of Darfur have also been 'let down' by Al Jazeera, which seems to have sided with their Arabic persecutors. Wouldn't you think they'd be keen to show more childrens guts on their news broadcasts? There's plenty to be seen in Darfur.

I don't speak for or have any affiliation with Al Jazeera so I can't really comment. I merely used them as an example in various discussions to highlight the Arab media's position on a number of topics.

Oh yes Piggy, at all costs we must avoid doing anything which might bring the Arab media into disrepute, or add any balance to the debate.

:rolleyes I couldn't give a rats ass if you want to bring the Arab media into disrepute Asimov. Go for it.
I merely made the point that we might as well try to keep this discussion to Iraq. Do what you want though.


Cue Piggy - with a long lecture on alternative energy sources

If I had a teenager I'd imagine this is what trying to converse with him would be like.
 
If I had a teenager I'd imagine this is what trying to converse with him would be like.
He can be infuriating Piggy, but you have to admit he's witty!
 
He can be infuriating Piggy, but you have to admit he's witty!


I thought he was a teenager

gw
 
That's one way of looking at it alright but not one that I'd personally agree with. Then again, if you were very anti-Muslim and thought all Muslims were evil or something you might think like that, I guess.

Sudan's army says the UN resolution on the conflict in Darfur is "a declaration of war" and threatens to fight any foreign intervention. (BBC Monday, 2 August, 2004)

The [UN] resolution gives the [Sudan] government 30 days to disarm the Janjaweed militias, which are accused of widespread atrocities against non-Arab groups.

Sudan's cabinet has also criticised the resolution. It has promised to disarm the Arab militias - but within 90 days.

More than one million people have fled their homes in 18 months of conflict.

The United Nations World Food Programme has stepped up its relief effort in Darfur with its first airdrops of food intended to help families cut off from deliveries by road because of heavy rain.

The growing international concern about the situation in western Sudan has led to calls for a limited form of military intervention.

'Jihad'

"The Security Council resolution about the Darfur issue is a declaration of war on the Sudan and its people," armed forces spokesman General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman told the official Al Anbaa daily newspaper.

"The Sudanese army is now prepared to confront the enemies of the Sudan [The UN] on land, sea and air," he said.

"The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south [The Muslim Genocide of the Christian south of the country] it will be opened in Darfur," he said, referring to a peace deal to end 20 years of war in southern Sudan.

Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo visited the Sudan capital, Khartoum and Libya over the weekend seeking an "African solution" to the crisis.

As chairman of the African Union, he is pressing for African troops to be sent to Darfur to disarm the Janjaweed, and the two rebels groups, accused by Sudan of starting the conflict by taking up arms last year.

Nigeria, South Africa and Rwanda had promised to send 300 soldiers to Darfur by the end of July but these have not yet arrived.

French troops

France is deploying 200 soldiers to secure Chad's eastern border with the Darfur region and deliver humanitarian aid to the 200,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad.

France has about 1,000 troops in Chad, who until now have been helping to promote stability and train Chadian forces for peacekeeping duties.

Darfur has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis
Up to 50,000 people have died since the conflict began in early 2003.


Refugees say the Janjaweed follow up government air-raids by riding into their villages, slaughtering the men, raping the women and looting.

The US-drafted resolution demands that Sudan make good on promises it made on 3 July to rein in the fighters.

It calls for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a report in 30 days on the progress made.

But Sudan said that this promise it made to Mr Annan gave it 90 days to stop the violence.

A cabinet statement also criticised the resolution for not blaming the rebels, who "took up arms and therefore... bear the responsibility for all the human and security tragedy in Darfur".

The resolution was only adopted after the US dropped the word "sanctions" and added economic and diplomatic "measures".

BBC Article>>


I don't speak for or have any affiliation with Al Jazeera so I can't really comment. I merely used them as an example in various discussions to highlight the Arab media's position on a number of topics.
You just aren't interested, are you Piggy. It doesn't suit your purpose.
You just see what you want to see Piggy.
 
asimov

you are worse to take piggy seriously.
'pigginess' won't allow him to respond rationally
to others point of view

keep the faith, gw
 
You just aren't interested, are you Piggy. It doesn't suit your purpose.
You just see what you want to see Piggy.


Make your real feelings on Muslims known to the board Asimov. I have a pretty good idea what they are.

When you've done that please whinge in someone elses ear.

I've already stated that I think the entire international community has let down the people of Darfur who are being raped and killed on a daily basis. Perhaps if the US had not fought a pointless and unjust war in Iraq they would have more moral voice to go into Darfur - then again, I doubt many people would have objected to UN peacekeeping troops being sent to that region to stop this genocide. Perhaps they simply don't care.
 
Re: asimov

The reality is that we only live in this fairytale world because there are ruthless and brutal people out there killing and oppressing in our names.

Well said Purple. But Orwell beat you to it:

We Sleep Safe In Our Beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those that would do us harm.


------------------------------

This is quite possibly the lowest comment I've read here. Nothing is actually said but the target's thoughts are somehow known and used to condemn them. Nasty.

I would encourage a hasty retraction.

Make your real feelings on Muslims known to the board Asimov. I have a pretty good idea what they are.
 
Re: Darfur

You accuse me of being anti muslim? That just shows your utter lack of knowledge about the Darfur situation.

For you info: The people of Darfur are MUSLIMS.

The cynical government of Sudan chose the same underhand tactic as you however, when they labelled anyone who cares what happens to the muslims of Darfur as 'anti Islam'.
 
Perhaps if the US had not fought a pointless and unjust war

says who?
you priggy?

People like you and tne UN sat back and tried to appease Hitler, let Idi Amin get away with atroccities, let the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia happen, let Tibet be conquered, sucked up to Ghaddafi & Saddam and all the rest of the despots.

What did any country ever do to free people and stop genocide? Only one country - the USA.

WE stopped the genocide in Bosnia, tried in the Sudan and lost American lives, we stopped Ghadaffi's terroism, tried in the Lebanon and lost American lives.

The downfall of Saddam who gassed his own people, created an environmental disaster draining the marshes so he could kill more of his people, would have had WMD within 2 years of the dropping of sanctions.

Was planning to drop poison gas on Riyadh and Jeddah to kill the Saudi Royal family (how many would have died)
Was planning to sort out Iran and then Israel.
Was setting up a dictatorship dynasty.

The USA has done good and bad but at least we do some good - more thant any other country in terms of donations and assistance, gave more lives to stop injustice and repression than any other country

What other country has done as much good as the USA?

gw
 
Re: Darfur

PS. You labelled your post 'RE: asimov'. This debate is not about ME

No I didn't.

You accuse me of being anti muslim?

No...I didn't. I asked you to make your real feelings about Muslims known to the board. Simply because I get the sense from most of your postings (not necessarily to do with Darfur) that you like to tar with the one brush. That's the impression you give.

I am of course referring to comments you made at the start of this post such as this...
"So this TV program, which set out to defuse the fear of radical Islam...replaces it with a much deeper and more divisive scenario...that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the Teror...ALL muslims are!!"

and this...

"No, but the vast majority of terorists are muslims!
Where are the peaceniks Piggy? Why aren't they out marching against militant Islam?"


So, is this merely what you interpreted that the programme was saying or is this also what you believe? I'm not flinging insults - I'm merely trying to ascertain your stance on the subject. It's better all round if people make their opinions clear.
I've heard similar views from people on this board before and they tend to be very Islamophobic people. Nothing to do with Darfur before you jump in with that. I'm well aware of the situation that exists there.

The cynical government of Sudan chose the same underhand tactic as you however, when they labelled anyone who cares what happens to the muslims of Darfur as 'anti Islam'.

Given what I've already said about the genocide going on in Darfur and that I believe UN troops should be there where do you get this from?
 
You accuse me of being anti muslim?

typical Peggy tactic, reverse insult.
if you have an opinion then you must be
a bigot.
 
Re: Darfur

PS. You labelled your post 'RE: asimov'. This debate is not about ME
No I didn't.
Yes, and I edited that comment out. But your continued assertions that I'm on a personal crusade (oops!) against you is still nonsense. I don't know you.

No...I didn't. I asked you to make your real feelings about Muslims known to the board.
There's a clear inference in that question. Even another contributor (Chapman) saw it and called on you to retract.

So this TV program....[concludes] that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the Teror...ALL muslims are!!"
Yes. That was the conclusion of the TV program! I didn't make it, so don't blame me!

"No, but the vast majority of terorists are muslims!
Know where that statement came from Piggy?
It was a quote from an article written by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel.
It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. HIS WORDS, NOT MINE!
Here's the full text: Telegraph.co.uk


Simply because I get the sense from most of your postings (not necessarily to do with Darfur) that you like to tar with the one brush.
Three words Piggy.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Given what I've already said about the genocide going on in Darfur and that I believe UN troops should be there where do you get this from?
Because you've clearly stated that you think I'm simply anti Muslim, and that by suggesting there was Genocide in Darfur I was looking for an excuse to attack the muslim government of Sudan and make them (and all muslims) look bad. WRONG!!

Now Piggy, since you've asked me to 'tell the board my views on muslims' why don't you do the same, and tell us your views on America while you're at it.

Actually, forget America...we already know your views.
 
Re: Darfur

Yes, and I edited that comment out. But your continued assertions that I'm on a personal crusade (oops!) against you is still nonsense. I don't know you.

Is that your idea of an apology?
Given that you direct everything at me (in that spiteful tone) what else am I to believe?

There's a clear inference in that question

Correct, there is. I made the inference quite clear I thought.

Three words Piggy. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Who and where? When have I tarred one whole swathe of people?

Yes. That was the conclusion of the TV program! I didn't make it, so don't blame me!

Hmm...you seem to be doing your best not to answer my question.

Because you've clearly stated that you think I'm simply anti Muslim, and that by suggesting there was Genocide in Darfur I was looking for an excuse to attack the muslim government of Sudan and make them (and all muslims) look bad. WRONG!!

So then you're not anti-muslim and you don't think they're all terrorists...yet you believe they should all be out on the streets demonstarting against Islamic terrorism?
You'll have to forgive me for believing that you might be anti-Muslim or believe them all to be terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. It's just that I've only ever heard one other contributor on this board use that particular argument and he was quite openly anti-Muslim. A clarification on your part would of course sort this out immediately.

Now Piggy, since you've asked me to 'tell the board my views on muslims' why don't you do the same, and tell us your views on America while you're at it.

Actually, forget America...we already know.


Actually, I've made my position on America very clear ever since I started posting here. I am not anti-American but I am very, very anti-George Bush and in particular his foreign policy.

Anything else I can clarify don't hesitate to ask.
 
Re: You accuse me of being anti muslim?

Asimov, piggy, can you two cool it!
You both make good contributions to this topic when the other is off doing their real job or whatever but when you are both posting at the same time you start arguing the person, not the point.
In general I would be closer to Piggy's views on the rights and wrongs of things (without the moral indignation) but I think he starts more of the "you said/I said" posts.

Please stop doing it, both of you, you will get another thread closed!

(Back in my day... hrumph!!)
 
Re: You accuse me of being anti muslim?

You're right of course purple. Perhaps if people could learn to be civil towards one another then there would be no need for tit-for-tat postings.

I need to get some work done so I'm outta here for the time being anyway. Perhaps when I come back the air will be slightly more civil and we can get back to discussing topics instead of attacking each other.