If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The government publishes a 'torture dossier' on Iraq. And the point is?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Well wouldn't you know it? So far no incidents to report with the UN inspectors so the US and the UK continue their quest to find an excuse to flatten Iraq. Hot on the heels of the universally laughed off WMD dossier on Iraq the government has just published a new 'torture dossier' for no apparent reason. News here
Don't get me wrong, Saddam is a monster and I'm most of the allegations on the dossier are true. But you just want to slap the entire government on the face for its sheer hypocrisy and pathetic cheerleading of the hawks at Washington. Where were Britain's protestations when Saddam was happily torturing, killing and gassing people in the late 80s? What is the point of releasing the dossier now? Is this news to anyone?
No doubt the people of Saudi Arabia, Burma, Indonesia and a few other countries look forward to the publication of human right abuses in their countries by the British government- followed perhaps by military action to remove their evil rulers.
Don't get me wrong, Saddam is a monster and I'm most of the allegations on the dossier are true. But you just want to slap the entire government on the face for its sheer hypocrisy and pathetic cheerleading of the hawks at Washington. Where were Britain's protestations when Saddam was happily torturing, killing and gassing people in the late 80s? What is the point of releasing the dossier now? Is this news to anyone?
No doubt the people of Saudi Arabia, Burma, Indonesia and a few other countries look forward to the publication of human right abuses in their countries by the British government- followed perhaps by military action to remove their evil rulers.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Nevermind that noone (especially not the media) is rubbing our own governments' noses in it for the hypocrisy and (worse) complicity in these decades old acts of atrocity. Noooo we couldnt have the public asking THOSE sorts of questions now could we? lol.
BTW Nothing to report from the inspectors yet, because they aren't due to report yet. December 8th is the first deadline. What has come out though - via a BBC reporter who followed them - is that equipment has been moved, from some of the sites visited, within the last six weeks... potential breach?
Hmmm, I'll be interested to hear what the inspectors say though.
I think we all know that Bush is gunning for Saddam, but I'd like to see if the UN will back them.
The example given should worry anyone anti-war as it indicates that there may have been some activity which Saddam wants to hide. If he wants to hide it, then I think we can all draw conclusions from that...
Such is the game played by power hungry giants.... all those in the way get crushed without remorse.
So it has always been, and so it will continue...
Even then it makes no difference. Unless the people within undemocratic countries can also do the same...
But then there's businesses etc
And individuals...
Problem is that preying on the weak is part of human nature, its genetic. We may think that we have evolved beyond that but we shouldn't kid ourselves - we are just animals on this planet and we need to recognise the limitations which come with that.
Yep.
It means making sure that you are the strong one
All the more reason why I argue that we should be treating the causes not the symptoms of the problem. The wrong attitude, wrong approach and wrong means are only making the WoT impossible to contain let alone win.
Damn stupid Bush and Blair. They continually say they don't want a war, but they are just blatently lying. Bush wants some sort of victory, seeing as he has no idea where Bin-Laden is, so he's willing to do anything.
Hopefully our next government will be anything but Labour, as far as i can see they're making a total hash of everything.
Indeed, but as I've said before, the chance to show who was tough had already passed. Perhaps if that had been done after USS Cole then WTC wouldn't have happened.
By showing weakness, we invite attack.
And yes, democratic free countries are full of weaknesses. I am aware of that.
and if the cause if that you aren't a muslim, should you change?
The answer to that, of course, is no.
There are times when you can meet someone half way, unfortunately this isn't always the case.
Getting away from Bin Laden etc, human nature means that the strong will dominate the weak. We cannot change that anymore than we can stop the sunrise. What we have to do is reduce our weaknesses, if we don't then someone else will become the strong one. If you think that Bush is bad, just think how much worse it could be...better him with some freedoms than a totalitarian state with none.
I think its fairly clear throughout the psychology of conflict resolution that its in fact the weaker party who lashes out violently to solve their problems. So in this case, we are merely playing by the very rules terrorist cells have always sought to establish, since it then only fuels further their own propaganda that we are demonstrably the "evil imperialists" or "greedy economic demons" which they claim us to be. If we are in the right then we should be capable of undermining the growth of fanatacism and terrorism without resorting to guns and bombs.
As for root causes you are obviously dont get the big picture here. Being Arab, Muslim, or of any other ethnic or religious persuasion is not a cause of terrorism any more than it is the exclusive domain of those of such persuasions. You of all people should know this being British... the IRA are hardly of either of the aforementioned persuasions.
The root cause or "fertile soil" (if you will) out of which springs the growth of the terrorist conviction is deprivation, systemic repression, lack of opportunity, and ultimately lack of hope for a better future for oneself or one's children.
Why is there such an increase in terrorism at this time (or why has it come out of the woodwork, so to speak)? I suspect largely given the increasing rejection even by western nationals of the global hegemonic economic system (under the guidance of the G8, World Bank, IMF, etc...), the long running abuses of our multinational corporations, and the political duplicity of our governments which has propped up our plundering through the manipulation of regimes or outright military intervention and conquest.
We may beat our chests about how powerful we are and how we must oppose any who do not do as we say, but in the end we must share this planet with others who do not share our views. If we choose to continue betraying the value of decency and freedom, equality, and opportunity (and other such virtues that our leaders spout concerning the superiority of our way of life) by helping to deny others in the world of these benefits, then we are as bad if not worse than those we call terrorists.
"What goes around comes around", "by the measure with which we judge others, so shall we be judged", and other such truisms apply here fully.
So while our leaders are doing as they wish in our name (making the situation worse for all in the long run) just remember that every empire falls at some point (something the UK should also know all too well) and the US will be no different. The main question that remains is what will America's time in the sun be remembered for? Significant and just contribution to the betterment of the world, or selfish runaway ambition, greed, double standards, and violence?
I fear the latter if my own countrymen, and indeed more of Western society as a whole, don't/doesnt wake up and force our governments to act more responsibly in the world and to account for their complicity in creating the mess(es) we now find ourself deeply mired in.
You don't really believe that do you?
Frankly the reality is that by acting beligerantly and violently in response is the real weakness that invites attacks. Just look at Israel, have they achieved peace by always rushing to avenge with apache helicopters, tanks, and other nasty toys? Nope.
Violence breeds violence, and revenge breeds revenge. If we allow ourselves to believe that might makes right then we will condemn our own societies to a never ending circle of violence on a global scale. Someone has to be big enough and rational enough to stop the fighting and start acting responsibly and constructively with a view to true social justice if we want to win the WoT.
Funny, I read it as bringing to justice those who attacked and killed our sailors. Little more than choosing not to do as America dictates. :rolleyes:
And failure to defend yourself breeds extinction.
Of course I do, and no disrespect but anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive or a fool.
To explain, you only need to ask yourself one question. Why do we have a defense force?
But weakness isn't just about armed forces or warfare, as such. OBL percieved a weakness in US Airport security, and WTC happened. The IRA saw a weakness in our liberty, and thus were able to bomb at will. Both of these areas were tightened as a result.
If you leave your door open, don't you think that a thief will take advantage?
And don't confuse me with someone who promotes a police state, because I don't. I accept that democracy and freedom means that you have weak spots.
As does starting world war 3. The inspectors have announced there may not be any weapons, so Bush and Blair instantly find some other excuse to attack him.
As Clandestine says they are the most powerful, the least weak nation yet they are also the most hated and attacked......
US action in the wake of September the 11th, the invasion of Afghanistan, the war talk over Iraq, the hunting down andassassination of Al-Qaidsa members has simply led to more attacks.........
They attack us because they hate us not because of any supposed weakness, and it is the reason behind this hate that we must seek to deal with
Militarily powerful maybe. But politically?
Don't they need the US to prop them up?
Their hate may be the motivation, but the fact that they can is why they do.
So long as they did our dirty work they werent terrorists, but as soon as they decided we were no better than those we had previously funded, armed, and trained such groups to attack, well then suddenly they are terrorists and evil and must be exterminated. Of course no mention by either our leaders nor the media about the broader context of our previous support for these groups or individuals... oh no, that would make the public really sit up and ask too many difficult questions! :rolleyes:
Then another group decides that they don't like you...except its for a different reason...
And so the loop goes on.
At what point do you draw the line?
~~~~~~~
Jeez, world politics can be so black and white can't it?
Do you have an example of where this would happen?
The point i have repeatedly made about causation with regard to the growth of fanaticism is that it finds its most fertile soil for increasing converts to the cause from amongst those who have precious little left to lose. If, on the other hand, the trend in the poorer countries was toward economic parity on a global scale then people would be too busy there (as we are by and large here in the comparatively properous West) working and making a decent future for themselves and their families.
Fanaticism gives those who are otherwise left destitute and without dignity the opportunity to "belong" to something bigger than themselves and from which to derive meaning (however misguided and reprehensible that particular "meaning" might be). So instead of guns and bombs (which just leave more victims to inspire more hatred and its resulting violent reprisals), we should be giving back sufficiently more than we do at present in a way that will ensure the greatest number of potential future converts are too busy pursuing their own dreams of a comfortable life to bother listening to, let alone following, the more fanatical members of their society.
How many people in the US (for example) ever really adhered to Jerry Falwell's moral majority? or joined right wing Christian anti abortionist groups? precious few per capita. But, if we had far more people with no future prospects or means, and/or lived under a repressive regime put in place by this or that world superpower, you can bet people would be far more inclined to listen and follow groups that gave them a way to fight back and that way would undoubtedly involve violence.
Most "cults" in general are isolationistic and control oriented. Usually they adopt a communal atmosphere and prefer secrecy to any media exposure (such as terrorists want to further the "cause").
Don't really have any demographics on this but im sure there are some generally to be found by searching for cult assessments done by the US census bureau or perhaps by the FBI which keeps tabs on groups like we had in Waco a while back or other more mystical cults.
Id suspect, for sake of argument though that these types of cults attract more upwardly mobile sorts who are disillusioned with the status quo, or who have emotional or psychological issues, or who are simply looking for universal answers.