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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I guess that you might have disagreed about Allende's democracy if you were having your head kicked in by his thugs. And its not really a functioning democracy when you're beating those who oppose your will into bloody lumps.
The fact that Pinochet then went and did the same doesn't really defend Allende doing it.
And more to the point, are you actually suggesting that the US overthrew a democratic government because it was concerned about unrest?
Please...
Pretty often and no I'm not suggesting that the US overthrew a democracy to prevent unrest*, but that Allende was not this perfect democracy you seem to be suggesting, but instead a country sliding towards civil war where the political leadership (and its opponents) were both prepared to use violence to support their ends.
* as an aside the US involvment in the overthrow of Allende remains unproven either way.
The bottom line remains that the US does not care for democracy and freedom for other nations- and that is based on its actions not on its words- and that as such any suggestions that it supports Israel because it used to be the only democracy in the Middle East are widely off the mark.
yes dressing up as sucide bombers, making repeated death threats, racists chants and oh yeah charging at the police is really peaceful....
they had their one shot. Time to get serious.
If the government can arrest protestors at the Labour party conference, they can arrest these vile specimens.
I get why they didn arrest staright away. Though the flaws in videoing them, then arresting them after is they might not be able to tell who alot of them are due to their faces being covered.
I belive in the right to protest but allying yourself with terroists, making public detah threats and mimicing sucide bombers is out of line.
Would they be so bold if they knew they could die doing one one protest?
I don't think so.
Its nothing on par with adolf hitler either. Thats typical arrogant, ignorant, pointless, pathetic comment and one I sadly expect.
what if the fake suicide bomber had been a real one eh? then what? what if he got out and went to some hbuilding full of innocent people?
they have the clearance to kill suicdie bombers, they should use it. Although to better effect then last time, least get the right guy.
there needs to be some real deterrants to stop terrorism. Of course you can never use them as the cicil rights and equality brigade alway smake a fuss and then media turns it back on the governmnets etc that are rying to stop terrorism, then bitch and complain when they fail to!
And Bloody Sunday isn tanything ot do with this. IRA and extremism are 2 very different animals.
the lethal force I suggested would be an aid to stopping protest such as that one and creating this fear climate but you need more then that to stop the hardened terrorist and recruitment of new ones.
Yes a lethal policy would still be in place but you have to take away what they most desire and are fanatical about. Not life. They ar ewilling to die for the cause. Just killing them won;t do.
You have to take away what they hold most dear.....their afterlife.
but its too controversial an idea to ever be accepted.
So, you dont think killing a bunch of protestors might lead to terrorist sympathies among Muslims?
You know nothing about this subject. Whats the name of this "respected lecturer?" I'd like to know, as I'm currently studying an MA in International Relations at St Andrews, where the European Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Studies is situated. I spoke with John Horgan, the terrorism and forensic psychology expert in November about terrorism. And funnily enough, he didn't advocate any of this.
I didnt say to kill a bunch. Some letahl force could be used. You'd could only kill 1 or 2 or 5 or more. Depending on what they did. Psychology, relaity. It would probably work and be legitimate to.
You can't threaten to kill people, threaten rebellion, swear alligence to terrorists and not have anything done to you.
Thats not protest, thats treason! And I always thought treason was an executional offense so its nothing new.
and di your guy say? Big bad west made it all, pander them??
the way to deal with terrorists and is intelligence, force and psychology. Tkaing away what they desire and the resources for their aims.
what did your guy say to do?
2. Also, guess what turned Fallujah into jihadi centre of the world? The US forces shooting dead 14 protestors. Because of that, for months after they couldnt enter the city, and only took it back after some pretty bloody fighting.
3. Yes, thats why have courts of law. Then we can try them and send them to prison, if they have committed a crime. Besides, who says any hypothetical crowd shooters would hit only those who broke the law? Or is that "collateral damage", just like all those civilians terrorists kill?
4. Treason has not been an executionable offence since 1999. Your lack of history is showing again.
5. Hey, look, its the Strawman argument! I'll make up shit thats so unbelievable I can knock it down with a few words!
No, actually he said a strategy is needed whereby terrorist sympthies are stopped being created and cutting off the killers from the religion goers. By isolation, limited assassination (because actually, killing isnt an effective tactic http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/destabilizing_t.html) and cutting off their financial funding would work.
I say that first off Iraq needs to be dealt with. Send in the whole damn CIA, DIA, NSA, MI6. Everyone. Infiltrate, find evidence of crimes, try them and send them away for life. Terrorism is a crime, treating it as a military matter is the start of all our current problems.
Beef up intelligence at home. Start looking into where the money comes from, like the French did. Pin the head of Saudi intelligence to a wall until he spills his guts with all he knows, because they fund AQ more than anyone else. Get Musharraf to shut down the Maddrasses and arrest those who run them. Purge the ISI while he's at it.
Covert funding and recognition should be given to moderate groups, to seperate the fundamentalists from the ordinary people and prevent the fundamentalists preaching at all, if possible.
Just killing people doesnt work. Unless you're willing to commit genocide, it never does.
I meant turn it into an enemy on their doorstep rather than a communist haven.
Again, unsupported. You can't know what "the US" believed.
Yawn. Unfortunate that you can’t give any response to the link in question and content of that. I actually had the pleasure of seeing Pipes a little while back and speaking to him. Anyway I’m not here to defend the personality of Daniel Pipes, I’m sure you’re capable of emailing him your inane insults and conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile to consider what Pipes has actually said on the subject of ‘Jewish control’:
Allende was simply critical of the US government and refused to dance to its tune.
That is all it takes sometimes (or rather, most of the time) for the freedom and democracy-loving US government to take down or attempt to take down other democracies.
Yes I do. The whole world knows. That's absolutely beyond doubt.
what a crock of shit!!!!!!!!!!!!
have read and been taught about stopping terrorism actually.
so go and stop it you chump!
I wonder if his training involved target practice with military assault weaponry and 101 ways to use electricity to extract confessions. :nervous:
Extremist? :rolleyes: That’s interesting because I support a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish one and I believe the best way to achieve that is through the Roadmap to Peace. This view is supported by the bulk of the international community; by Britain, the US, the EU, Russia and some moderate Arab states. It's the mainstream attitude.
You meanwhile – along with white supremacists, fundamentalist Muslims and Iran oppose the very existence of the State of Israel. And you have the audacity to consistently label me as some kind of extremist.
Spot on.
Since, Walkindude didnt mention the specifics and you all decided to jump on in for that oversight, i thought i would fill in the blanks.
Another correction that needs to be made is, that what ever Israel has so far been doing to stop palestinian extremists, has not even remotely come close to the French tactic of zero tolerance. So to even make the comparison is ignorance of what the French actually did, which was far more brutal.
Just to clear things up.
Also Disillusioned last point was indeed spot on.
This is actually incorrect as most foreign policy analysts of note recognise that the Roadmap is essentially dead, killed in large part due to Sharon's unilateralist substitution of it with Gaza withdrawal without any further negotiations on other key issues required by the Bush admin plan. A PR coup perfectly in keeping with the historic disingenuity of the Israeli state towards any viable and lasting peace.
CFR analysis: Roadmap is a dead end
Too much money being extorted from US taxpayers for too many generations to allow peace to threaten the profitable militaristic status quo. Your man Pipes is a perfect example of the duplicitous and grasping mindset that will not rest till the Arabs are completely eliminated or deported elsewhere.
Now you are truly getting desperate and again revealing the depth of your adherence to ideological reactionism over any claim to scholarly "balance". I have never once advocated the eradication of Israel, nor would I. You also lie by associating me with white supremists as it is you who evinces racist bigotry in almost every post, not I. I would tread carefully in your repeated false assertions Dis, others have been banned for far less.
I would caution your little ideologue cheerleaders to be similarly careful in their dishonesty and false accusations.
Israel’s acting Prime Minister has quite clearly stated that Israel will give up large parts of the West Bank. (See here). Israel is committed to the creation of a Palestinian state, further withdrawals from large parts of the West Bank could allow a feasible Palestinian state to materialise. While I am uneasy with the idea of further concessions until terrorist groups are dismantled – or renounce violence and recognise Israel the current Israeli position may be a more practical way forward.
I wasn’t aware that you had performed such a colossal U-Turn. You now presumably recognise the State of Israel? I’m delighted.
I was merely suggesting that in regard to opposing the very existence of Israel you are in agreement with white supremacists and fundamentalist Muslims who feel the same about the Jewish state. However, since you’ve recanted that position and now appear to recognise the legitimacy of Israel I realise I was mistaken. I most sincerely apologise. Meanwhile I'm unsure on what possible grounds you think I should be banned - from previous posts of yours it seemed quite evident that in regard to the State of Israel you agree with white supremacists. Since you don't my mistake, no hard feelings I hope.
Again i caution you little liar to prove such claims or dispense with them altogether. I have made no U turn as no U turn was ever needed. As ever I advocate that the only true solution for lasting peace is the full acknowledgement by Israel of its own terrorist origins, intentioned ethnocide and perpetual adeherence to the 19th century apartheid ideology of Zionism (which has never wavered from its particularist group exceptionalistic dogma for Jews over all indigienous peoples of the region).
Secondly it must once and for all abandon this apartheid statist dogma and embrace true pluralistic democracy with equal rights for all, Palestinian and Israeli, before it can presume to use the rhetoric of liberal democracy with any validity.
Thirdly it must make restitution and atonement for its ethnocidal atrocities to those Palestinians still living by ensuring full reconstruction of viable centers of residence with equal access to water and freedom of movement and work.
Fourthly it must begin honest, transparent public debate on the right of return for some or all of the thousands of palestinians shamefully forced from their homes into exile. The US bears much responsibility in ensuring a fair and adequate settlement on this issue be it in terms of restored residence or monetary restitution and formal admission by the state of Israel for its former crime against humanity.
Lastly the state thenceforth must, like its South African counterpart, ensure that representation and governance is proportional to the composite ethnic/political character of all its citizens.
Such a one state solution is the only solution and one which rabid extremist Zionist ideologues dare not consider at all costs. Their ideological dogma is founded on too great a paranoia to ever be relinquished, even for lasting peace.
I suggest you stop taking the rhetoric of your ideological heros at face value, Sharon's own "facts on the ground" admissions and his actions (which have been anything but a willingness to meet far lesser conditions required for a two state solution) belie the true intentions of the Israeli state. One day when and if you ever do achieve some academic honesty and some experience in political double speak, you may just perhaps recognise what I have long been attempting to tell you. Then again, I wouldnt bet on it.
I know full well what you were suggesting and you've done it again with this statement. Repetition does not make it true nor was it ever. Neither, again, did I recant anything since you will find no post in all the time I have been here where i ever advocated any such position. Your assertion is a reactionist lie and merely further indication of the validity of my assessment of your inherent extremist perspective.
Meanwhile speak to some Israelis about your proposed one-state solution; unless they’re feeling suicidal they won’t be too keen. The pragmatic solution is two states and fundamentally a viable Palestinian state. I don’t see any other realistic solution that imo could practically produce long-term peace and stability for Israelis and Palestinians. I find it tragic that in the past the Palestinians in 1937 and 1947 twice rejected partition plans that would have created two states; a Jewish and a Palestinian one. (Even more tragic that this couldn’t have been solved in 1937, were a Jewish state in existence then the effects of events in Europe could have been far less catastrophic)
that speaks volumes to me.
also, as I said, though none of you bothered to read it. Death ISN'T the the ultimate solution to terrorism. My lethal force idea was for those who support the terrorists and while I think killing terrorists isnt far wrong, its the not the ultimate solution. But no one bothers to read what people put so whats the point in saying it?