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
Amnesty International condems W.O.T.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/28/amnesty.report/index.html
I don't agree with them but I thought this would make for a good discussion.
I don't agree with them but I thought this would make for a good discussion.
0
Comments
In the meantime, these are the most telling statements from that report...
"and denying basic rights to those who have been arrested"
"There was no immediate reaction to the report from U.S. officials, but in the past they have denied allegations of human rights abuses. "
"Far from making the world a safer place, [the war] has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of international law and shielding governments from scrutiny. It has deepened divisions among people of different faiths and origins, sowing the seeds for more conflict," the statement said.
But I also think the main obligation, for now, of the US government is to protect its people. And no one can make the case that Bush isn't doing that well...until we are attacked again on US soil.
And if you think Bush is doing a good job then you have a very warped notion of what constitutes "a good job". You might want to ask yourself whether the Saudi and Morocco suicide bombings would have occurred had the war on Iraq never taken place. Chances are that they wouldn't. So Bush can already be held accountable for 1 or 2 dozen US civilian deaths, as well as the 100 or so US soldiers killed in Iraq, as well as many future attacks carried out by any of the thousands of Muslims prepared to kill themselves and others after being outraged and enraged by the war and consequent occupation of Iraq.
And of course the injection of new life in Al Qaida is all thanks to Bush and his war on Iraq. How many future atrocities could have been prevented had the US government not illegally invaded and occupied another sovereign nation...
First I want to make sure I say I think you are basically a good person too Aladdin based on what you post.
In answer to the quote from you. No. I believe they would have taken place in the US. The Whabbism Saudi Arabia was sponsoring ensured anger was misdirected at the West. As is being said in much of the Arab press, Arab News and the main paper in Lebanon, Arabs are also to blame for their countries regiemes and anger because most Arabs we're that political....prefering to concentrate on their religion, families and trying to find a job. The US cannot ignore this anger or let our rules of civilized behavior be used against us.
This is an awful, but true feeling I often have. Any country that has a royal family in this day and age is lucky they don't have terrorism. And I like Queen Elizabeth and felt she expressed Britian perfectly after 911. Her words were true and meant a lot to us. But all these sultans or whatever they are called...I don't know but they seem to sap the populace of money that could be better spent.
Read somehting the other day that makes sense. Apparently the Iranians have basically looked at their fellow axis of evil countries, Iraq and N.Korea. One regime has been toppled, another has not. The difference? One has massive military potential the other doesn't. What are the Iranians going to do, they will think they need WMD, genius...........
It also goes to show than rather than being "brave", the US government will only engage piss-poor countries that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. When confronted with countries that could inflict its forces extensive damage and casualties, the US will not seek confrontation.
If by "home of the brave" you refer to your government's braveness for going to war, you might want to consider changing your signature pnj.
Al Qaeda etc. grew when we had pulled back from being involved with the Middle East and Arab nations.
No Arab nation will be allowed to develop any W.M.D. Aladdin. That's the way it's going to be.
What a number of analysts pointed out is that evidence is increasingly emerging that repressive governments around the globe have adopted the precedent set by Bush and co, of labelling any opponents (political or otherwise, individuals, political parties, or organisations) as terrorists in order to justifiably round them up, imprison, torture, or execute them under the guise of the WoT.
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and a number of African and South American governments were cited as increasing such heinous attacks on legitimate opponents to their governments/regimes.
Of course, most of these governments/regimes continue to receive the adulation and support (military/financial) from the Bush admin, which has the gall to turn around and defraud the American people into believing that every report they here of WoT victories are, by definition, legitimate victories over actual terrorists.
The reality of what is going on around the globe in your name, and with the full backing of those authoritarian fascists in Washington whom you continue to applaud pnj, is far from what you are being led to believe it is. I'm sure your father could educate you on that score if you had an ounce of teachability and a genuine interest to learn the truth behind the current propaganda.
The US didn't give a toss about the wishes of China, Russia or anyone else during the Iraq crisis. The reasons they are not tackling this "axis of evil" country are rather different.
Like I said before, "brave" is not a word that comes to mind when examining US' foreign policy.
No, but they will be allowed to buy them from the US if it suits Washington.