GameBanshee Forums

Just a little reminder to keep things well behaved everyone. Sleep...maybe a different example of generalizations would have been more tactful.

Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Der-draigen
The American Civil War was not fought to free slaves. Lots of people won't like reading that, but it's the truth. That war was mostly fought for economic reasons and because slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy, it was an issue. But the war was not fought because the "tolerant", "humanitarian" North said "Let's go free the slaves."

A bit OT, but the Civil War was fought because of both economic reasons and the north beleiving slavery to be immoral. To say which one the war was "mostly" fought for would be impossible, since the two causes are so closely tied together.

Originally posted by Der-draigen
We have to back up for a second and think: This is not the good old days of conventional warfare, when an army went in with guns and that was it. The METHODS of warfare in our era absolutely demand that we commit ourselves to seeking and finding every possible alternative to warfare; and only when all those alternatives are completely exhausted can we justify starting a war. The weapons we now have -- think about it, they're called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason -- should actually lead the world to avert warfare and pursue peace; they should not inspire us to use them -- or to create and/or foster a situation where others might claim a reason to use them.

An attitude similar to this one was taken after WWI, leading European nations to go through all the options they had to try to appease Hitler, even after he had broken treaties and invaded his neighbors. To not stop a country as soon as it exhibits hostility to its neighbors will inevitably lead to war, and a war that will be more costly in lives than if it had been started earlier. To delay war gives the country even more time to strengthen its arsenals.

Originally posted by Der-draigen
I'm not denying that Saddam Hussien is a bad guy. I'm not denying that something needs to be done; I'm not saying that the world should just sit back and let him stockpile. As a matter of fact, no one who's protesting war is saying that either. But I am saying there has got to be a better solution than global warfare. For all our sakes, there has to be.

You aknowledge that Saddam is a threat that needs to be dealt with. You forbid war, but don't suggest another option? That is pointless. You say there has to be another option, which may or may not be true, but unless we have faith in some deity, (which I don't), we can't maintain this position, because we know the world isn't a place that always has an easy way out.

Re: Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Zelgadis
A bit OT, but the Civil War was fought because of both economic reasons and the north beleiving slavery to be immoral.

This is simply not true. If the North was indeed fighting to end slavery, it was solely for the purpose of crippling the South's slave-labor-driven economy. History proves that the Civil War was fought for no other reason than to stop Southern Confederate states from seceding from the Union. Conversely, the South did not fight solely for the sake of keeping their slaves and because they were a bunch of prejudiced SOB's. They fought to gain and keep political and economic autonomy. Politics and economics were the cause of that war, not morality. In that era, no one -- the North included -- believed in the total equality of the black man to the white. Even a great number of Northern abolitionists were all in favor of a completely segregated society after the war ended -- including Abraham Lincoln himself. In fact, he suggested sending all freed slaves out of the country to a designated "African colony." Hardly what we today would consider a moral stance. The fact is that back then, it was simply assumed -- by everyone, North or South, including abolitionists -- that the black man was naturally inferior to the white. Like I said, people don't like hearing this; everyone wants to think the Civil War was the first great civil rights movement in America; and sentimentalist "historians" like Ken Burns do not help to dispel this gross error.

No doubt people are going to be offended by this and call me a racist. But these are the facts of history. Attitudes and beliefs were radically different back then. It's the same thing with women's rights. We've come a long way, thank God; but our current hard-won and IMO more accurate views of racial equality do not change the facts of history or the beliefs of more than a century ago.

You aknowledge that Saddam is a threat that needs to be dealt with. You forbid war, but don't suggest another option? That is pointless. You say there has to be another option, which may or may not be true, but unless we have faith in some deity, (which I don't), we can't maintain this position, because we know the world isn't a place that always has an easy way out.

I don't recall suggesting that the world ever offered an easy way out of anything, even if a person does believe in a deity. (You think believing in a deity offers easy solutions? At times it can be the hardest thing a person can do.) But if you want to talk about easy solutions, IMO warfare is an easy solution. Diplomacy and pursuing a peaceful solution to conflict -- that is the hard way; that is what requires long, hard, creative thought. The path of peace is the truly difficult road. Just ask people like MLK and Gandhi.

I never remotely suggested that I had all the answers. What I said was, there is an answer "out there" and it should be sought. I didn't say it was automatically available. Few things ever are.

@At99&Others: To make sense of the argument "You have no better option so lets try war" you must first have good reasons to belive that a war will actually help at all. If you dont have thoses reasons the argument becomes absurd, And I think that many of those against a war belive that it wouldnt solve anything.

Im not saying other options doesnt exist though, Im just saying that they arent neccessary for an anti-war opinion.

Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Der-draigen

A war against Iraq will further increase terrorist activity against the US -- and its allies -- by provoking retaliation. We are on the verge of a major global meltdown; we are on the verge of destroying this planet if we pursue this war. That's no exaggeration. I empathize -- oh, believe me, I do empathize -- with those who say they want to keep their lives. I want the same thing. Everyone who's human wants that. Like Nippy said above -- terrorism is a massive risk to human life. There is no denying that. I would add that it is a risk that includes all life on this planet. A war on the scale this war promises to be is a much bigger risk. And that is precisely the reason why this war must not be fought, unless it is proven beyond the slightest doubt that there is absolutely no other option.

I'm not denying that Saddam Hussien is a bad guy. I'm not denying that something needs to be done; I'm not saying that the world should just sit back and let him stockpile. As a matter of fact, no one who's protesting war is saying that either. But I am saying there has got to be a better solution than global warfare. For all our sakes, there has to be.

The ultimate goal of terrorism is a twisted form of blackmail, wherein the victims feel paralyzed and unable to take any sort of action for fear of retaliation. In fact, the only way presented to victims to cease the terrorist activity is to capitulate and give in to their demands.

Historically, terrorists are nearly impossible to negotiate with unless a strong hand is displayed. This negotiation always involves meeting some of their demands.

Let me ask you...are a group of people, who have pronounced themselves the sworn enemy of your people, and are willing to commit such a horrific act such as that done on 9/11/01, people you wish to bargain with? Are their goals worthy of your consideration? They have promised further attacks...and in fact, several have been thwarted since 9/11, such as attempts to spread Anthrax amongst the populace.

Meeting the demands of terrorists only encourages others of like disposition and malice. Terrorists must face unified opposition throughout the world, and giving into any of their demands would be a tragic mistake.

I'm not sure that war with Iraq is the answer...but I sincerely doubt, as history shows, that there is any peaceful means to counter terrorism.

Originally posted by Dottie
@At99&Others: To make sense of the argument "You have no better option so lets try war" you must first have good reasons to belive that a war will actually help at all. If you dont have thoses reasons the argument becomes absurd, And I think that many of those against a war belive that it wouldnt solve anything.

Im not saying other options doesnt exist though, Im just saying that they arent neccessary for an anti-war opinion.

wait I am not saying you must try war!

Your not reading this right, if all else fails then war and I gave reasons why you should act.

People just dont like the 'preserve the status-quo'
or 'do nothing ' and it will all get better attitude.
This is not the 60's anymore.

No reasonable alternative has been put forward.

There were huge peace demonstrations before Aghan war , (was it worth it!)

I said it before but Tony Blairs speech was magnificant and I encourage people to see that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Der-draigen



I never remotely suggested that I had all the answers. What I said was, there is an answer "out there" and it should be sought. I didn't say it was automatically available. Few things ever are. [/b]

Thats the whole problem, anti-war people may claim this but you never seem to come up with anything other than peace rallies.

Just got back

Hey everyone--

I just got back from the protest march. A half a million of us attempted to march to 1st Avenue where the rally was being held. It was totally chaotic. Since the city refused to grant a permit for a march, different groups of people just showed up nearby (mostly at the public library) and started trying to make their way over to the UN.

As we started to walk over, the crowd got bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. The police barricaded almost every street, and frequently would bring mounted police through the crowd, which only incited everyone. Sometimes one of the police would try to grab someone, and the crowd would shout "Let him go." and actually grab him back from the cops.

We finally found ourselves at 53rd St. and Third Ave., where the police had barricaded us all in and would not allow anyone to go anywhere. It was about 20 degrees Fahrenheit outside with a really brutal icy East River wind, and the crowd put up with this for about 45 minutes or so before getting really sick of not being able to move. I followed a human chain led by an old man who was shouting, "Let us through!" up to the barricade. I was just standing there, when I felt the crowd draw back behind me. I sensed something, looked back and saw that they had linked arms and drawn back in order to charge the barricades. Then I was crushed against the barricade which was moving up and down and in an out. I had no one to fall against and I wanted to grab the barricade but realized that doing so would result in a broken hand. As I'm trying to keep from being trampled and my ankles are being smashed against the metal barricades, the cop in front of me decides to spray my face with pepper spray. It still burns. So much for the land of the free... Where one of the barricades had been broken through, an older cop let me and my boyfriend through.

We went into Au Bon Pain of all places, and got some coffee since we were very shook up, and freezing also. As we sat looking out the window, several more times the crowd charged the barricades. Many people were arrested. The truck carrying the barricades was taken over by a whole bunch of people. Another huge group had climbed on top of a news stand, which I was convinced would collapse eventually. A coffee cart was being pushed by the crowd into the police. Eventually, loads more cops showed up, many of them plain clothes, and then a cavalry sort of stampeded into the crowd, injuring a few people. Saw a guy being smashed against a wall by the police for no apparent reason. The idiotic thing about it was, there appeared to be absolutely no logic as to why they would not let the crowd move. It was felt that they wanted to keep the rally from happening, the protesters divided.

We finally arrived at the rally, and the police were nicer in that area, although I felt real panic when they put up more barricades and pushed all of us together really tight. Just as I felt like I couldn't stand it for one more second, they decided to move the barricade back a little. Those of us who had just arrived kept trying to tell the people who had gotten there earlier and were corralled in the center of First Avenue that there were thousands more trying to get there. Thousands More! we kept yelling. Every time a new group arrived, we cheered for them. It had been such a battle just to get there.

Anyway, I'm exhausted and my eye is burning. I will post more thoughts about this later.

@at99: I didnt comment on you opinion at all, I just pointed out that your argument that war must be tried if there are no better alternatives is absurd if you do not belive war will solve or ease the problem. And I think many here does not belivie that.

@VoodooDali: I hope you are alright.

Pepper Spray can kill????

Chemical weapon

"In terms of scale, this breaks new ground in the U.S.," says Terry Allen, a journalist who has reported extensively on the police use of pepper spray. "Now, you go to Korea, and this is like kid stuff."

Pepper spray (in police jargon "OC," for its Latin name of oleoresin capsicum), an oil derived from cayenne peppers, is classified as a chemical weapon, and as such banned for use in war--but not in domestic police work. Pepper spray was introduced to the U.S. in the 1980s by the Postal Service, which used it as a dog repellant. Thereafter, it was quickly adopted by corrections officers and police departments, which adopted it primarily for use in incapacitating violent suspects; the FBI proclaimed pepper spray its "official chemical agent" in 1987. (Helping push OC's use was FBI Special Agent Thomas Ward, who later pleaded guilty to accepting a $57,500 kickback from a pepper spray company.) It's quickly become a common part of the police arsenal: Rikers Island guards have used pepper spray or mace on inmates 1,500 times over the last three and a half years, according to the New York Times (11/8/99).

The pepper spray used by police is highly concentrated--300 times as strong as jalapeño peppers, and five times as strong as the pepper-spray mixture sold for self-defense to the public. When sprayed directly in the eyes, as was done on countless occasions by Seattle police wielding fire-extinguisher-like dispensers, it can create intense, burning pain and restricted breathing unless quickly flushed out. (The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in fact, requires commercially sold pepper spray to carry a caution label: "Warning: irritant, avoid contact with eyes.")

Steven Christianson, who was sprayed by Burlington, Vermont, police during an anti-war protest in 1998, recalled the effects of pepper spray to the Vermont Rutland Herald (2/22/98): "I felt this incredible burning, loss of breath, from the time the cop stuck the spray in my face until 45 minutes later, everything is a blank, just excruciating pain. I have no recollections. All that went through my mind was pain."

In fact, more than 100 people in the U.S. have died in police custody after having pepper spray used on them, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (Vermont Rutland Herald, 2/22/98). This statistic should have come as no surprise to the mainstream media: The first major report on deaths involving pepper spray appeared in 1995, on the front page of the Los Angeles Times (6/10/95).

Geez - no wonder my eye is still burning...

I got back from the rally in Vancouver a few hours ago, about 35000 there (the population is smaller in BC)...it was exhilerating to be part of a huge group ... all ages, social classes and occupations...all united and against this immoral and illegal war....

here is a link from our national media:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/15/pe ... ists030215

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by at99
Thats the whole problem, anti-war people may claim this but you never seem to come up with anything other than peace rallies.

If someone opposes a particular war, that does not mean they are an "anti-war person" per se. IMO it is not necessary for a person to be either all for war in every circumstance, or all against war in every circumstance. It is very possible to support one war and oppose another. In fact, IMO this kind of discernment is absolutely necessary to maintain a healthy and safe balance in life and the world.

I see no reason why people should find it necessary to divide into all-pro or all-con camps.

Originally posted by Dottie
@at99: I didnt comment on you opinion at all, I just pointed out that your argument that war must be tried if there are no better alternatives is absurd if you do not belive war will solve or ease the problem. And I think many here does not belivie that.

@VoodooDali: I hope you are alright.

huh?

Re: Re: Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Der-draigen
They fought to gain and keep political and economic autonomy. Politics and economics were the cause of that war, not morality.

If I remember correctly, the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1820, because the north considered the cruelty of shipping the slaves to be immoral, and while they didn't see the Africans as equals, they knew that preventing the shipping of slaves would force southerners to treat their slaves better. There was also great controversy about slavery expanding into the territories, because many northerners didn't want slavery to expand. Equality at that time wasn't morality. You cannot judge the past by present values. They saw the black man as inferior, and in the confines of that view the north tried to act morally.

Originally posted by Der-draigen
I don't recall suggesting that the world ever offered an easy way out of anything, even if a person does believe in a deity. (You think believing in a deity offers easy solutions? At times it can be the hardest thing a person can do.) But if you want to talk about easy solutions, IMO warfare is an easy solution. Diplomacy and pursuing a peaceful solution to conflict -- that is the hard way; that is what requires long, hard, creative thought. The path of peace is the truly difficult road. Just ask people like MLK and Gandhi.

I never remotely suggested that I had all the answers. What I said was, there is an answer "out there" and it should be sought. I didn't say it was automatically available. Few things ever are.

What I was saying with the deity thing is that with a god, you can have faith that the human race will survive, and justice can be attained. I infered from your statements that you did have faith in a something, and if I was wrong I apologize, but I was pointing out that things don't necessarilly have to happen remotely like we want to.

IMO war isn't the easiest solution, just the most obvious. But peace and negotiation can only go so far. What I was saying in my earlier post is that closing or delaying an option because it has harsh consequences can at times make it worse, and should be avoided unless you are very sure another option can be used that will work. I would rather have war now than delay it, to my possible regret, because I don't see anything else that can work. And if no one else can suggest something viable, then protesting war on principle is pointless.

Hi all I too attended the peace protests, only I was in Naples, by the way I'm male too so lets dispell that little peaceful female only stereotype. Sorry about the pepper spray Voodoo, hope it gets better, our protests were actually rather peaceful, sure some people gave us the middle finger, but the majority of people were supportive of the antiwar stance, or to couch it in better nonnegative terminology propeace.


Incidently item one on the war on Iraq, nobody nobody has asked if this will actually make the world a safer place, in fact most people say it will make it more dangerous not less.

Item two, is violence effective in stopping terrorism or terrorist attacks, that is to say is there any level of security that can effectively solve the problem of terrorism, any true military option that can effectively wipe out the enemy, or say stop a terrorist from using some WMD to wipe out a city or two. The war in Afghanistan for example, was that effective in stopping Al Quaeda, the answer was that no it was not, it merely caused the organization to mutate into a more dangerous form, one that is not as easily attackable. So if a certain level of security no matter how great will not stop a terrorist attack, bear in mind that only one needs to get through, where is the logic in having huge quanitities of security, well two reasons one to give the illusion of security and two to stifle dissent more effectively.

So I will ask the question, is there any violent solution that will solve the problem, that of terrorism, think through it logically does it make the problem worse or better, will the war in Iraq solve the problem of terrorism(bear in mind the evidence linking this country to Al Quaeda is rather skimpy), does it solve the problem of nuclear proliferation, say like stopping North Korea, Pakistan, India, from having these weapons, has violence been effective in stopping WMDs from being distributed? Just a question all.

Oh yes for more information on the supposed 'evidence of war' check out this link.

http://www.michaelmoore.com

Originally posted by dragon wench
I got back from the rally in Vancouver a few hours ago, about 35000 there (the population is smaller in BC)...it was exhilerating to be part of a huge group ... all ages, social classes and occupations...all united and against war....

here is a link from our national media:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/15/pe ... ists030215

Good for you - and it is really moving to see the solidarity of the anti-war movement worldwide.
NYC - at least 500,000 people
Barcelona - 1.3 million
Sevilla - 200,000
Madrid - 600,000
Tel Aviv - 3,000
Auckland & Wellington - 10,000
Kuala Lumpur - 1,500
Bangkok - 2,000
Melbourne - 150,000
London - 2 million
Berlin - 500,000
France - 300,000
Rome - 1 milliion
Athens - 50,000
Istanbul - 5,000
Moscow - 1,000
Amman - 2,000
Baghdad - 150,000
Damascus - 200,000
Oslo - 60,000
Brussels - 50,000
Stockholm - 35,000
Amsterdam - 10,000
Copenhagen - 10,000
Capetown - 5,000
Johannesburg - 4,000
Tokyo - 6,000
Vienna - 3,000
Dhaka Bangladesh - 2,000
Kiev - 2,000
Mostar Bosnia - 100
Cyprus - 500
Thessalonika - 10,000
Sofia - 2,000
Hongkong - 600
Almaty Khazakhstan - 50
Srinigar India - 100
Canberra Australia - 5,000

In the thousands:
Philadelphia
Budapest
Seoul


About 6 million worldwide.

Re: Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Chanak
Let me ask you...are a group of people, who have pronounced themselves the sworn enemy of your people, and are willing to commit such a horrific act such as that done on 9/11/01, people you wish to bargain with? Are their goals worthy of your consideration? They have promised further attacks...and in fact, several have been thwarted since 9/11, such as attempts to spread Anthrax amongst the populace.

All I ever said was that a war -- on the scale this war promises to be; with the risk of violating international law and losing credibility with the United Nations; with the availability of weapons capable of wreaking death on a scale the world will wish it had never seen -- is extremely ill-advised. Like I said in my last post -- modern warfare with modern weapons is far, far too horrible, in the truest sense of the word, to jump into; but that is precisely what Bush would love to do, and it frightens me.

My point is: Will a war stamp out terrorism? The answer should be clear. Has a war ever stamped out terrorism? No, it has not. Because for every terrorist killed in a war, at least twenty will rise to take his place. People will not stop teaching their children to hate; mothers will not ever stop telling their children to kill the Americans because they killed his daddy. Terrorists can hide for years and re-surface; they do not have the same time-frame that we do. They can wait an incredibly long time, biding their time until they rise up again. Then there will be another war, and they will go into hiding again, and raise a new generation on their doctrines of hatred. And it goes on and on and on. Is a war going to stop any of this? No, it will not.

If warfare is indeed seen as the solution, then there are only two options. Either:

1.) We completely blow the entire Middle East region of the world off the face of the earth (and even then, there would be sympathizers in other parts of the world who would pick up the torch and the terrorism would still go on in the future); or:

2.) We keep the world in a perpetual state of warfare from here to eternity (and still again, terrorists would keep hiding out and continuing their mission).

Either choice leads to a dead-end path of destruction and a never-ending cycle of death for everyone involved -- including our own people. (It seems as if lots of folks suppose that war-opposers somehow don't care about their own people. But in fact, it's precisely because they care so much about their own people that they are opposing the war.)

At best, war (in this case) is a short-term solution; and IMO the price of modern warfare is far too high to pay for short-term solutions that plant seeds for worse situations in the future. I'm not opposed to warfare in general; I just think that this particular one would accomplish absolutely nothing, at a cost too high to be contemplated.

An aside on the anthrax situation: I sincerely believe -- as do many if not most of the investigators -- that the anthrax incidents were caused not by a foreign terrorist, but some wacked-out American taking advantage of the 9/11 situation. Like the Unabomber or Tim McVeigh or some such. It is highly probable that the anthrax threat came from within. To the best of my knowledge, all leads have pointed that way; and the few suspects that have been cited have not come from al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization.

Meeting the demands of terrorists only encourages others of like disposition and malice. Terrorists must face unified opposition throughout the world, and giving into any of their demands would be a tragic mistake.

Again -- enaging in warfare also encourages like disposition and malice. So what is to be done?...

I don't recall ever suggesting that terrorists' demands be met. I agree that it would be a tragic mistake to do so. But don't you think that a global war would also be a tragic mistake?...

Wow - did London really have more people than anywhere else in the world? I'm not surprised to be honest, but proud all the same

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Zelgadis
If I remember correctly, the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1820, because the north considered the cruelty of shipping the slaves to be immoral, and while they didn't see the Africans as equals, they knew that preventing the shipping of slaves would force southerners to treat their slaves better. There was also great controversy about slavery expanding into the territories, because many northerners didn't want slavery to expand. Equality at that time wasn't morality. You cannot judge the past by present values. They saw the black man as inferior, and in the confines of that view the north tried to act morally.

I think we're both right You are right in saying that slavery was considered an abomination by many in the North and this is where the great abolitionist movement came from. This is also why abolitionists supported the war. It's also why the South lost a potential ally in England, which had outlawed slavery some years before. So emancipation was indeed a factor in some circles; but the war was started for Southern autonomy, which had everything to do with Southern economy.

Good compromise?

What I was saying with the deity thing is that with a god, you can have faith that the human race will survive, and justice can be attained. I infered from your statements that you did have faith in a something, and if I was wrong I apologize, but I was pointing out that things don't necessarilly have to happen remotely like we want to.

No, you were right; I overreacted and I apologize

IMO war isn't the easiest solution, just the most obvious. But peace and negotiation can only go so far. What I was saying in my earlier post is that closing or delaying an option because it has harsh consequences can at times make it worse, and should be avoided unless you are very sure another option can be used that will work. I would rather have war now than delay it, to my possible regret, because I don't see anything else that can work. And if no one else can suggest something viable, then protesting war on principle is pointless.

You have very good points. I've always said that if it becomes abundantly clear that warfare is the only inevitable solution to defend our nation -- and the rest of the world, for that matter -- I will shut up and pray for the best But it's not solely on principle that I'm opposing this particular war; like I've said, I feel that there are good logical and wisdom-oriented reasons for not jumping into war with Iraq at the present time. But I'm not opposed to the idea of war on principle. Sometimes it's the only way to defend yourself if all other possible options have been thoroughly and utterly exhausted.

I've watched the news on the protest here in NYC - and it has thus far been very biased and inaccurate, and appears to blame the protestors for situations like I found myself in.

Here's the most unbiased accurate report I've found (from the only non-corporate-owned paper in NYC - the Village Voice)
New York Rally Shows Mainstream Opposition to War