|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
 Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes, we do have real enemies, yes, there are real terrorists who want to attack us, and given the performance of the war criminals in the White House over the past few years, it is likely that there will be some Iraqis, who following the revenge traditions of their tribal-based culture, will be trying even 15 years from now to take revenge on Americans for the killing of their loved ones. It's unfair if they manage to kill me for revenge. I opposed all that as best I could. Well, they would probably prefer to take revenge on the actual people who gave the orders and pulled the triggers, but realistically that's impossible. If I should ever suffer from terrorism from some Iraqis, one question that I will never be so stupid as to ask is, "Why me? I'm innocent." Duh. In the graves of Iraq, there are tens of thousands of American-made corpses that would cry the same words if they could.
...No wonder hatred for America worldwide is going through the roof.
This is an excerpt from a longer post here . . .
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?p=543629#543629 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
but more lives were saved - not only Iraqis by getting rid of Saddam.
In the 90's 70,000 trained in Al Qaida camps in Afghanistan this was while the US was saving muslim Kurds from Saddam and Muslims' in Kosovo from Slobidan. This was also while the US was trying to bring the Israelis and the Palestinian side together. What was the problem then?
Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, Assad destroyed the city of Hama killing at least 20,000, Khomeni killied 30,000 political prisioners in 1989, 60,000 were killed in the civil war yet you don't see the mideast street getting upset. US actions were far more justified than any of the above.
The reason for the hate is that mid east regimes , the elites and the media and the clerics who are all on the government pay rolls teach hate and incite violence so they can stay in power. The real problem is that Bathists , those who follow Khomeni or Bin Laden are all fascists, and their apologists are apologists for fascism.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat May 14, 2005 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| ...it is likely that there will be some Iraqis, who following the revenge traditions of their tribal-based culture, will be trying even 15 years from now to take revenge on Americans for the killing of their loved ones.] |
Those evil Americans!
FRANCE: French civilians killed by Allied bombings in World War II
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/wais/ztopics/week020105/france_050201_civilianskilledinwwII.htm
Sixty years, and yet I'm still waiting for French suicide bombers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Sixty years, and yet I'm still waiting for French suicide bombers. |
We didn't occupy France, set up a Quisling government, and build permanent military bases there either. If we had, it probably would have produced many French terrorists. And the French Resistance did attack their occupiers, didn't they?
Perhaps if there were some military power with an air force that could start bombing Iraq right now and had a reasonable chance of being able to remove Iraq's current military occupiers, the Iraqis might, like the French in WWII, view that favorably in spite of the loss of innocent civilians and invite their liberators back every year to celebrate VI Day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
We didn't occupy France, set up a Quisling government, and build permanent military bases there either. If we had, it probably would have produced many French terrorists. And the French Resistance did attack their occupiers, didn't they?
|
But we did that in Germany. Sixty years and still no suicide bombers shouting Heil Hitler! as they blow themselves and coffee shop patrons to Valhala. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love it according to RSR the freely elected new Iraqi government are traitors but Saddam's goverment was legitimate. 
Oh well 9 out 10 insurgents agree. You have a nice day RSR I think this thread is just about over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 1:50 am Post subject: Re: Christian martyrdom in new book, Suicide Bombers |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
When someone believes in a cause so much that he will kill himself and several other random people who happen to be in the area, it is vile, vile, vile. |
I agree. It is vile, vile, vile.
So, flakfizer, I guess you must also believe that when "someone believes in a cause so much that he will kill several other random people who happen to be in the area so that he can get his intended target, it is vile, vile, vile.
Even if he calls them not people, but "colateral damage" that he knew he would inevitably kill in order to try to get his target. Is that not vile, vile, vile, also?
I do very seriously want to know your opinion about that, flak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But we did that in Germany. Sixty years and still no suicide bombers shouting Heil Hitler! as they blow themselves and coffee shop patrons to Valhala. |
Didn't you see Die Hard? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I love it according to RSR the freely elected new Iraqi government are traitors but Saddam's goverment was legitimate.
. |
How can they be "freely elected" when it was a secret who the actual candidates were? Say it is not so, Joo. PS. Love your eye-rolling emoticon, Joo. It says so much about your creativity and the quality of your agruments.    |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I love it according to RSR the freely elected new Iraqi government are traitors but Saddam's goverment was legitimate.
Oh well 9 out 10 insurgents agree. You have a nice day RSR I think this thread is just about over. |
Hey, Joo. There's smarter people than me on here who know a lot more about international law than I do, so I hope they will correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
Nasty as it was (sort of like our ally, Uzbekistan that had to put down an uprising and kill 500 or so today), wasn't Saddam's government a legitimate government under international law with a seat at the UN and everthing?
And, secondly, is a government that comes to power (using that expression very loosely) in elections that are conducted by an occupying power considered a legitimate government under international law? I don't think it is, but, like I said there are people on this forum who are more knowledgeable about international law than I am.
Why, you read an awful lot, Joo. Maybe you know the answer. Is a government that comes to power in elections that are conducted by an occupying power considered a legitimate government under international law? Thanks in advance for your help on that, Joo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nasty as it was (sort of like our ally, Uzbekistan that had to put down an uprising and kill 500 or so today), wasn't Saddam's government a legitimate government under international law with a seat at the UN and everthing? |
How does that make his govt legitimate. By the same reasoning Idi Amins' regime or the regime of Pol Pot was legitimate. I guess the North Korean regime is legitimate.
| Quote: |
| And, secondly, is a government that comes to power (using that expression very loosely) in elections that are conducted by an occupying power considered a legitimate government under international law? I don't think it is, but, like I said there are people on this forum who are more knowledgeable about international law than I am. |
Kind of like what the US did to the axis powers in WW II.
| Quote: |
| Why, you read an awful lot, Joo. Maybe you know the answer. Is a government that comes to power in elections that are conducted by an occupying power considered a legitimate government under international law? Thanks in advance for your help on that, Joo. |
Sometimes yes besides the UN endorsed the US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/09/content_337830.htm
| Quote: |
16 February 2005
U.N. Security Council Endorses January 30 Iraqi Elections, February 16, 2005
(Council affirms continuing support for Iraq's political transition)
Following is the text of the U.N. Security Council statement February 16, congratulating the Iraqi people for the January 30 elections:
(begin text)
UNSC Presidential Statement. February 16, 2005
The Security Council congratulates the people of Iraq on the successful elections of 30 January 2005. These elections represent a historic moment for Iraq and a positive step in its political transition. In turning out to the polls, Iraqis demonstrated their respect for the rule of law and non-violence. They voted for democracy and full ownership of their affairs. The Security Council commends the Iraqi people for having taken this step to exercise their right to freely determine their own political future and encourages them to continue to do so in moving ahead with their political transition.
The Security Council congratulates the newly-elected coalitions and individuals in these elections. |
http://usunrome.usembassy.it/UNISSUES/sustdev/docs/a5021705.htm
Even if the UN hadn't endorsed the actions the US would have still be right
But more than anything Saddam's actions made his government llegitimate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And, secondly, is a government that comes to power (using that expression very loosely) in elections that are conducted by an occupying power considered a legitimate government under international law? I don't think it is, but, like I said there are people on this forum who are more knowledgeable about international law than I am. |
Kind of like what the US did to the axis powers in WW II.
|
I'm sure a smart guy like you knows that that body of international law came into force several years after WWII, Joo. Probably just slipped your mind because I know you wouldn't try to fool us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Such laws would be the last word in every situation besides the US has UN endorsement for the elections. Yesor no?
But as I said more than anything Saddam's actions destroyed the legitimacy of his government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I guess what I'm saying is that I don't find it all that difficult to understand why someone might be willing to blow himself up. The part I don't understand is the hatred. I just don't get that part. How can someone hate a group so much that you would blow up men, women and children who have little or no power to make political decisions? |
In a way it's more honest than these armchair generals who supported bombing some 'ragheads' in revenge for 911, jeering from the sidelines as many people they'd never met and who'd never done them wrong, lost their lives. Thousands of poor b@stards copped it in Afghanistan, thousands more saw their loved ones blown to pieces or maimed for life. And many thousands died of starvation when relief organisations were unable to assist the millions of Afghanis affected by a famine (that had already been predicted before 911). Just to slake the desire to hit back at any poor buggar in revenge for 911. Of course the government wasn't motivated by revenge, but that's a different story. The point is, the government was enabled by the support of many, who felt no compassion for the thousands of innocent Afghanis they knew would have to die, or suffer horrific injury. And I spoke to some US citizens who were gleeful about it!
All the same, to stand among a group of civilians, some of them children, knowing you're going to blow them all to oblivion, takes a certain frame of mind. Few, if any, of them are psychopaths, so they must have found a way to justify it to themselves. But it doesn't seem that far down the road from justifying supporting your President in a brutal assault on an innocent populace in a poor 3rd world country. |
I read your post, Big Bird, with utter amazement. It's not exactly surprising that someone on the far Left would find more in common with just about anyone than a picture of generals 'who supported bombing some 'ragheads' in revenge for 911, jeering from the sidelines as many people they'd never met and who'd never done them wrong, lost their lives.'
But it seems to me you should hear again why many of us across the political spectrum condemn the suicide bombings in Iraq. Outside of the obvious fact that suicide bombing is disgusting and cowardly and almost always directed against civilians, it's because many of these bombers are employed by Al-Zarqawi, who believes in bombing principally Shi'a (not American soldiers) for one of two purposes. Either that of motivating the Shi'a into open conflict against the United States because the Shi'a might blame their powerlessness to prosecute the bombers, or inciting the Shi'a to to throw away their advantages in the occupation era in order to effectively prosecute many Sunnis for the crimes of a few.
The invasion of Iraq was not intended as a brutal assualt on the innocent civilians of Iraq. It was intended to remove Saddam Hussein. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sure, and Noam Chumpsky predicted that a million would die in Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
