Newsweek Story: Who's Wrong?

Politics International Politics
81

[quote]These folks have no hesitation or concern when it comes to burning or otherwhise desecrating the US or Israeli flag, or to burning Bibles by the truckload, or to destroying Buddhist statues and other antiquities.

Fuck 'em. They need to get over this.[/quote]
And of course all the detainees are terrorists or otherwise criminals that behave as you describe, no chance that many of those held are innocent and thus (you are going to like that) illegally held?

But yeah, **** them all, and keep on preaching your high morals, how much better the US and their values is/are - and then continue to let yourself down to their level, just as you (pl.) have been doing for quite a while now, sure helps. :unamused:

Edit to avoid any further misunderstandings: you/your in the last paragraph is to be seen in it’s plural form, referring to the US, not any particular poster. See also the ‘(pl.)’ that was included from the beginning.

82

Well considering that most of them were caught fighting US troops in Afghanistan out of uniform, um, yeah, I think that I will risk having them be detained for a while longer. I notice that you have no such problem with France and its 20-year plus policy of detaining terrorists for up to three years on the suspicion of terrorism.

If anyone thinks that allegations of abuse against the Koran justify violence, after these terrorists have committed so many far greater atrocities then yes, I say f*** them.

We do have higher morals. This is born out in study after study by whatever group you want to look at. Ironically, even Germany is rated as high as America TODAY. How do you think that Germany got the kind of political, justice and economic system that it has today? From Bavarian beermeisters? Prussian generals? Hessian bankers? Hansa traders?

[quote]how much better the US and their values is/are [/quote]-

well, Germany, for example, has had the imperialists, then the Nazis, then the communists and then the American imposed democracy with respect for human rights. Which system do you prefer? Are they all equal? morally equivalent? What’s the difference? Which do you like better?

Again, I always find it very amusing to hear moral complaints from a German. Remember Rascal that your nation was the one that sold Saddam the majority of his chemical, missile and nuclear equipment. Your nation is the one that continues to stand on the sidelines and do nothing while innocent people around the world are slaughtered or die (though I did notice that incredibly fast logistical effort when your government sent a helicopter to rescue Kohl from his hotel in Sri Lanka after the tsunami. Too bad you cannot actually be bothered to help those in need), and did nothing but stir the pot when it came to the civil war in Yugoslavia. Everyone ackknowledges that it was German pressure that pushed the EU to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia against the caution of every other nation. It was 14 EU members against and only Germany for and then when the lid blows, your nation walks away. Yes, please do tell me all about morality.

In this case, you have the US invading Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. Want to say that Afghanistan is worse off today? What about the 4 million refugees that have returned, the removal of the Taliban?

We have invaded Iraq. Are you saying Iraq was better off with Saddam?

We have detained people in Guantanamo and in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The numbers are maybe in the low thousands total. There are only 500 left at Guantanamo. These people were caught fighing the US out of uniform for the most part. Not all but the vast majority.

Our soldiers have committed abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. They are being punished.

What pray tell is Germany doing to deal with your immigration police? Lots of abuse? Any one being investigated? Anyone gone to jail? What about the two refugees that mysteriously died in police custody? Anyone go to jail? Anyone investigated? Anyone lose their job? AND what about your five-year national debate in which many of your nation’s leaders called for a torture policy? Do you deny that this took place?

Turning on America will not somehow lighten the extent of Germany’s own far greater abuses. You can yell and scream but WWII and the decimation of Europe will always be on Germany’s head as will the fact that your nation armed Saddam as will the fact that you are responsible to a far greater degree than any other outside nation for the Yugoslav civil war and yet today what have you learned? To do nothing unless an ex-chancellor needs to be airlifted from his luxury hotel. How many other helicopters did Germany send to actually help the victims of the tsunami? Maybe not even 1. How f***ing pathetic is that.

Yes, Rascal, America IS and always has been a more moral nation than Germany but trying to drag us down to your level is not going to help raise Germany. Try to improve your own country and mitigate its many failings. If I were you, I would hang my head in shame. SHAME.

83

I’m appointing myself moderator-for-life here at Forumosa because the system is flawed.

My first official act is to pardon Rascal for any and all past infractions and welcome him back as a member in good standing at Forumosa.

My second official act is to decree that residents of Tainan will henceforth be limited to one post per day until I say otherwise.

I have spoken.

84

[quote=“spook”]I’m appointing myself moderator-for-life here at Forumosa because the system is flawed.

My first official act is to pardon Rascal for any and all past infractions and welcome him back as a member in good standing at Forumosa.

My second official act is to decree that residents of Tainan will henceforth be limited to one post per day until I say otherwise.

I have spoken.[/quote]Is this post stemming from self-delusions of grandeur or as a gentleman defending the honour of his lady?

Either way its kind of creepy.

85

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]I’m appointing myself moderator-for-life here at Forumosa because the system is flawed.

My first official act is to pardon Rascal for any and all past infractions and welcome him back as a member in good standing at Forumosa.

My second official act is to decree that residents of Tainan will henceforth be limited to one post per day until I say otherwise.

I have spoken.[/quote]Is this post stemming from self-delusions of grandeur or as a gentleman defending the honour of his lady?

Either way its kind of creepy.[/quote]

Don’t worry, no creepiness intended I am quite sure. The idea is that spook is “playing the role of the US” (appointing himself the policeman) in order to make a point. Some cross-communication from the other thread I think – although both threads are touching on this topic now.

In any event, spook’s point about vigilanteism would be far more effective if there were actually a legitimate body charged with collective security for the world. As it is, all we have is a collection of corrupt dictators and violent warlords.

The idea that a body composed largely of criminals and thugs can have legitimacy simply because they all come together in New York and vote is about as absurd as thinking that decisions made by the heads of the 5 mafia families are legitimate just because they come together to New York and vote.

In a state of nature with no legitimate authority, the idea of a vigilante essentially loses its meaning (my opinion).

86

It is indeed creepy to think you can appoint yourself in charge of Forumosa, the UN Security Council – or the world – anytime you choose to. I was mocking the notion. Anyone who says it and means it though is decidedly creepy.

87

Well, we are certainly agreed on that point.

This is not to say, of course, that the UN doesn’t perform certain useful functions in terms of being a forum for nations meet, communicate, share ideas. As for the notion that the UN should somehow be able to proclaim itself the arbiter of what happens in the world, as if it were some kind of government… that is most assuredly creepy. Creepy and dangerous. :uhhuh:

88

Well, we are certainly agreed on that point. . . .As for the notion that the UN should somehow be able to proclaim itself the arbiter of what happens in the world, as if it were some kind of government… that is most assuredly creepy. Creepy and dangerous. :uhhuh:[/quote]

The UN – United Nations – was originally the U.S.'s idea as a means for resolving disputes between nations. It has a charter which lays out its role and the scope of its powers. This charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, was largely authored by the U.S.

This notion that it’s some sort of usurper imposed on the U.S. by a sinister external force sounds like some dusty Confederate argument from the War Between The States era.

89

Yes. However, that doesn’t make what Hobbes posted incorrect, IMO. The UN hasn’t been a very effective means for resolving disputes because the UN is home to a bunch of thugs and autocrats.

90

Yes, sadly that’s about the size of it. As I said, I still think that it’s a useful place for representatives of different countries to get together and talk. But the idea that it has any sort of moral authority is just bizarre (take, as an absurd example, the “UN Commission on Human Rights” – it would be genuinely funny if it were not for the fact that there are people who actually take it seriously).

Spook: Your point that the US helped set it up is fine – but as I believe you yourself have remarked on these boards more than once – the US is not infalible, and US involvement or authorship does not instill an institution with any kind of special claim to moral righteousness. At least not in my book. (I’m surprised to find you on the other side of this one, actually…)

91

The UN is indeed a corrupt, ineffective organization. Because there’s no effective “federal” control, it’s little more than the lowest common denominator of all the world’s governments. It’s what the U.S. would have been if the Articles of the Confederation had endured as its form of government.

George Washington’s critique of the Articles of the Confederation government could just as well be directed at the United Nations: it is “little more than the shadow without the substance.”

Whatever scope of moral authority the United Nations has though is derived from its charter and the U.S. had far more to do with determining that scope than any other nation, so implying that its (poorly asserted) moral authority is the conspiratorial afterthought of others rather than just the product of a bad idea belies the historical facts.

92

spook:

I like being able to agree with you. We should try this more often. Now, where’s that Koran of yours? haha

93

Well it sounds like we may not disagree as much as it seemed then. I do, however, think you give a great many people a great deal too much credit by suggesting that the UN’s moral authority –in their minds– has anything to do with it’s charter. I submit that many/most of those who mistakenly view the UN as some kind of [fictional] “world government” that enforces [fictional] “world laws” have probably never read the UN charter. I suspect that many people simply extent an analogy of a nation-state, and naively believe that the UN is some kind of body that sits “above” any national government, and moreover has power over those national governments.

Who knows. Perhaps I’m being too cynical, but I really think that the “UN as benevolent world government” myth has more to do with simple ignorance than it does with any “conspiratorial” or malicious interpretation of the charter.

94

[quote=“fred smith”]spook:

I like being able to agree with you. We should try this more often. Now, where’s that Koran of yours? haha[/quote]

That does it. I’m changing my position on the UN to a “buy”.

As far as where my Quran is goes, it’s in the “tabernacle” where it belongs and where I intend to keep it until it’s time for a little church “service” with the church lady later this evening. ‘:howyoudoin:’

95

Tigerman and FS,

You two really ought to join up. Your sentiments regarding this matter are EXACTLY in line with the US military! Congratulations! You get a star! And an M-16! And a toilet in Guantanamo! :bravo:

See this forum on military.com for examples of what the brave, “intelligent” American marines are saying:

forums.military.com/eve/ubb.x/a/ … 7800377713

It appears your statements regarding this issue reflect your TRUE views about US ‘intervention’ rather than your overspouted Luntzian rhetoric about 'freedom, liberty, peace in the middle east, protecting the world, protecting the US, spreading democracy, ‘helping’ women, etc.

Ha (cough) ha!

You’re amongst friends here, so why can’t you be honest and express yourselves like real Christian soldiers:

"F U C K these camel humping goat herders and their stupid f’ing book. "

Semper fi!
Alien

96

[quote=“Alien”]Tigerman and FS,

You two really ought to join up. Your sentiments regarding this matter are EXACTLY in line with the US military! Congratulations! You get a star! And an M-16! And a toilet in Guantanamo! :bravo: [/quote]

Whatever, Alien.

How about this: I’ll join up when you become a human shield… :unamused:

Seriously, I’m amazed that you would think differently than I do on this matter. Do you get equally offended at the “Piss Christ” artwork? Does the sight of someone burning the US flag set you off into a murderous rage where your bloodlust can only be sated by killing some flag-burning idiot?

If not, why would you think that the “desecration” of a Koran is horribly offensive? Are you equally offended when the Saudis, as a matter of policy, burn Bibles?

97

It’s not a question of whether you (plural), comfy, middle-class, Internet roaming westerners, who know virtually nothing about the koran or what it’s like to be a muslim, find it offensive that soldiers would hold a prisoner captive and defile the koran in order to taunt and torment such prisoner.

It’s a question of what kind of reaction one would expect in the muslim world, after years of oppression and falling behind the west in various respects, in these tense times where ordinary muslims struggle to resolve the conflict between traditional religious and cultural beliefs and the encroaching western world, with some extremists resorting to violence to ward off that encroachment, with western infidels invading their holy lands, killing, imprisoning and torturing them in their own countries (or whisking them across the world to “neutral” grounds where abuses may be committed with impunity), with western soldiers storming in to their countries with vastly superior power, seizing control of their lands, completely dominating, mocking and emasculating them.

It’s a question of what kind of reaction one would expect from these people who have been ground down for so long. And the answer is obvious – they would be infuriated. That is why the White House’s press secretary issued his ridiculous statement/s about how US soldiers always use extreme measures to treat the koran with the ultimate respect (if it was really no big deal, he might have said it’s just a silly book). And that is why the acts occurred in the first place (if they really did as repeatedly alleged): because a bunch of stupid, sadistic idiot soldiers (of the same variety as those who committed the abuses in Abu Ghraib) thought it would be funny to taunt the prisoners by defiling the only thing they have left, their holy book that is central to all of their lives and is the one thing that most differentiates them from their western opposition.

It was obviously an extreme offense calculated to cause an extreme reaction. And it did.

98

I still do not see how pandering to Muslims and being overly sentistive to them is going to be helpfulfor anyone. Most seem to see the Western sensitivity as a weakness which inspires more courage in the more radical elements.

I disagree, it’s a question of how ANYONE should react, not just muslims. I don’t see Vietnam or Cambodia, also left behind in the last wave of progress going out of their ways to creat a scapegoat for their problems…or Indonesia for that matter (so maybe this pandering is only for the benefit of the “oil rich” Middle Eastern Muslims).

As for the UN…the idea that all nations are equal and deserving of equal respect is just fantasy:

Sudan
Human Rights Council
pot
kettle
black

No wonder it doesn’t work. When such importance rests in their hands, you don’t give thugs a chance to “do the right thing.”

Ironically, what would best help the muslims countries boot out their autocratic rulers and establish a truer system of governance, which in turn would protect them from ANY invaders (not the Western infidels…and I really hate that term as much as I hate "Foreign Devils…complete horseshit and hate fodder for ignorant hicks) would be an open and transparent market system and democratic rule.

Anyone with a brain in their head knows this, and if the countries who try to provide this are called “superior and morally arrogant” so be it. Ask the “oppressed” Iraqis in 50 years what they think about it. Because I’m sure the goal is to have them maintain their democracy for longer than that.

99

The issue for me is sensitivity versus hypersensitivity. This seems to be the age of hypersensitivity as the norm and the whole political and philosophical spectrum seems to have developed a case of it: Posters that depicted President Bush with a Groucho Marx-style mustache and cigar were ordered torn down at a high school after a student complained.

Is it really healthy for anyone to encourage the belief that someone’s sensitivities about a public display of images of President Bush with a Groucho Marx-style mustache and cigar are so elevated that they should be treated as inviolable?

I just think it’s time for a planet-wide ratcheting down of the hypersensitivity thing until we all come back to our senses. In that vein then, instead of being an overwrought “desecration”, the mishandling of the Koran should be seen for what it really is: disrespectful and crude . . . but something gotten over without too much effort, a simple apology but certainly no loss of life or symbolic public flagellations.

100

If you’ve ever visited a temple in a land where people remove their shoes first, did you remove your shoes?

Isn’t it in everyone’s best interests to try to reduce animosities between muslim and non-muslim nations?

Is it too much to ask that soldiers please refrain from flushing the koran down the toilet or similar acts?