Krokus said:
First of all, I must make this clear again. I did NOT mean "all" Middle Eastern People were that way. I was simply making a statement about the people in the middle east that are that way. The terrorists.
Do you mean then that the vast majority of Arabs are that way? To quote you again...
Well, to make it more clear, what I meant was this. The majority of people over there think that we are "infidels" .....they hate us, and they hate our freedoms. They would kill us all given the chance. If these were a peace loving people, I wouldn't call them barbarians...But the middle east is the most hopeless realm on earth.
That is simply not true. The majority over there accept Christians as worshippers of the same god, not infidels. That phrase is usually used in the propaganda of the ruling regime. They don't hate you, they barely even know you. Your freedoms mean nothing to them, the price of grain and how many pints of milk the goat will render is far more important. They wouldn't kill us all either; Arabs are traditionally far more merciful to innocent bystanders than Christian troops; Richard the Lionheart and Saladin for one example. And believe it or not, they love and yearn for peace more strongly than any other set of people in the world. As for being a hopeless region, looked in your own back yard recently? The Patriot Act is dismembering your own civil liberties and human rights day by day, and your national leader is the one who lost the last election by virtue of collecting six hundred thousand fewer votes than his opponent. The powers that be were so determined that he should be in office though, that they rigged the elction, disenfranchised thousands of Democrat voters illegally, and when he STILL managed to lose, they disguised the result as a result of "the vagaries of the electoral college system". The whole world is hopeless K-Man, not just the region that local TV says are.
Krokus said:
Now I know that not everyone in that prison on the bay is guilty. But the fact is is that there are, whether you wan't to believe it or not, hostile terrorists there that have been detained and put there. It's like our prison system. There are people who have been sentenced to death in this country that are innocent. Does that mean we should release everyone? Start over in that department? Give everyone 2 or 3 trials? No. You have to take the bad with the good...or at least thats the way I see it. Sacrifices must be made to ensure safety. As for the media comment, I can't argue there, your right.
So the abuse of the human rights of innocent people is fine, so long as some of them are guilty? Sorry Krokus, but that's incredibly immoral AND illegal. When citizens wanted the constitution, I presume they wanted it to protect innocents. They didn't want something that was there to placate them and sound find to waffle about on July the 4th, only to be completely discarded whenever it suited the government. The one thing that can NEVER be sacrificed if you want to be able to look yourself in the face, is the morality of your campaign. The whole point of the constitution was to defend innocent people against from the possibility of the government acting too strongly and without restraint. If you're going to waive it whenever one of your leaders (the people it's there to restrain) wails "national security!!!" then you might just as well take a good dump and wipe your arse with it.
No, it does not mean that you should release everyone. It means you have to obey some basic principles of human decency. Like access to legal advice, access to the red Cross, access to proper medical care, protection under human rights law. Or you could just be really crazy and mind-bendingly lenient and actually charge them with an offence, instead of holding them for two years without charge and no rights. To say that that Guantanomo is okay because a few of them are guilty, but it's okay to completely abuse the rights of the innocent in exchange, is right out of Hitler's diary and Mao's Little Red Book.
It's also a wonderful distraction because people will believe some incredible things. The link to al-Qaeda was never proven. The link between Saddam and al-Qaeda is easilly DIS-provable. Americans are completely ignoring the real problem bastards in their midst. Why does no-one ever ask George W. Bush about his business links with the bin-Ladens? Why do they not care that the bin-Ladens have been key investors in George Bush Senior's
Carlyle Group, one of the major military contractors in the US? How could Osama have coordinated the 9/11 attacks when his kidneys were so fucked up, that he was on dialysis for the entire duration of the 9/11 crisis? Did one old man permenantly hooked up to a machine that was strainig his blood like cabbage-water, really mastermind the 9/11 attacks on which all these human rights abuses have been justified? Why did the Taliban leaders fly to Houston for discussions about building an oil pipeline across Afghanistan in 1997? Is it a coincidence that Enron, a big Bush financial backer was the consultant for the feasibility study? Is it a coincidence that Haliburton was the company who was supposed to build it; a company chaired by Dick Cheney, the current vice-president? Why in the days after 9/11 did a privately chartered jet, hired by the Bush family, chunter around the USA picking up members of the bin-Laden family and safely getting them out of the country with no interrogation, if they were such high suspects for the 9/11 atrocities? When the rest of America was grounded, why did this happen with no FBI investigation and no grand jury? What did the bin-Ladens do to deserve such VIP treatment? Why when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi-Arabian, did Dubya bomb Afghanistan? I mean, I know the Air Force is pretty innacurate, but missing by several thousand miles? Or was it just too difficult for him to lay the blame at the feet of a country that supplies a quarter of America's oil and houses so many of his pop's business partners? Why is it that when the Taliban were toppled, the man Dubya appointed as the interim leader was the former president of an oil company? Why did Dubya then appoint a former Unocal consultant as the new American ambassador to Afghanistan? Is it then a massive coincidence that the much treasured oil pipeline went ahead like greased lightening?
Don't you think these are questions that need some honest answers, before you start laying the blame for uncivillised barbarity and terrorism at the door of anyone other than your own President? The man who was sooooooooooo born to be King that the real people who run your country fiddled the election and then ignored the result anyway to make sure he got into the White House?
The things I've just talked about are things I'm sure that most Americans have no knowledge of. Why? Because just like Truman Burbank, they accept the version of reality that they're presented with. (Actually that isn't a sydrome exclusive to Americans. The entire world is subject to it.) The information is there that can take apart at the seams, the things that America's spin-machine justifies it's immorality with. 9/11 is a classic example of an event where a 5 year old child could take apart the official version of events. 9/11's the biggie right now. It's the next thing I'm going to post about. I will take the official version apart so badly that it'll look like a gaff sail torn to shreds in a gale. More than any people in the world, Americans have the damn right to know this information. What they do with it, is up to them. No good ever came out of forcing something onto someone, even if the intention was to do good. The noblest cause can turn to badness unless it's accepted with a free heart.