Opinion on Habib. [Archive] - FARKIN.NET Forums

olly1oo6

13-01-2005, 09:31 AM

Seriously people we need to look at why these people are commiting such inhumane acts and try to understand their problem, rather than just thinking that they have done something wrong.

thats very true, ppl are judging him based on what he has/hasnt done in THEiR eyes. i think its bad enuf the us holds him without trial in the first place, and then sez he cant sue. i mean wtf!? hell never live down the accusations of him being a terrorist, let alone losing three years of his life. and after all this we as the public know nothing more about what hes done to deserve it.

the most likely reason why they locked him up was because he was 'under suspicion of being a terrorist' (or if you look at it a different way, like johnny's trying to point out: "under suspicion of being a great hero") this is what makes terrorism so hard, the problem with no outcome or answers, nor reasoning for him being locked up is that no one knows wherther hes a terrorist, a hero, or a nobody.
and i bet hes not happy about that

after saying that i think that the correct mainstream definiton of a terrorist is not that far wrong. a lot of ppl died in 9/11, first the govt pinns bin laden for it, then the public blames bush etc etc.
theyre both *wrong*. now lets think about whos more wrong realtively. who was more directly involved with killing a lot of people, more so than the other?

who gives a shit if george is a bit trigger happy, hell when i saw it i was! hes just doing what he thinks is right, but so is bin laden.
but bin laden killed a lot more people in cold blood (9/11) than bush did in hot blood (war in iraq etc).

and thats all im saying

toodles

13-01-2005, 10:19 AM

What is a terrorist?

bloody hell - i thought you knew this johnny. They have beards and turbans (or whatever those things are called). They all use AK-47s but carry .50 cal ammo in belts slung over their shoulders and can't aim. They can be taken out by an alcoholic ex-cop with a partner who is due for retirement, or a father who has just been pushed too far. Don't you watch any television? Sheesh.

protecon

13-01-2005, 10:37 AM

"Are you, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?"
House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1947.

johnny

13-01-2005, 10:44 AM

RCOH

13-01-2005, 10:49 AM

now lets think about whos more wrong realtively. who was more directly involved with killing a lot of people, more so than the other?

who gives a shit if george is a bit trigger happy, hell when i saw it i was! hes just doing what he thinks is right, but so is bin laden.
but bin laden killed a lot more people in cold blood (9/11) than bush did in hot blood (war in iraq etc).

and thats all im saying

Okay, If you are going to say who was DIRECTLY responsible for killoing in 9/11 or Iraq War then it is neither 'Dubya' or Bin Laden. That is being literal ie they didn't actually kill anyone themselves. But they responsible for the deaths becasue they ordered the actions that got people killed.

More Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq war then there were people killed in 9/11. That is a fact.

Osama Bin Laden sent 9 ( or 11) of his 'troops' to their death in the 9/11 attacks. George w bush as sent over 170 000 US soldiers to afghanistan & an unrelated war in iraq, over 1500 of which have died, not to mention deaths of international 'coalition of the willing' soldiers.

So who is worse now?

As for Mahmoud Habib, I am very happy he is to be released but very sad it took so long for it to happen. The anti-terrorism laws that allow people to be held for so long without trial are a massive violation of even the most basic human rights & I am ashamed that the current australian supports them. John Howard has even said he wants Habib to be repatriated & will not allow him to seek compensation for being tortured & held with no charge. Whatever happened to innocence until proven guilty. No longer exist!!! No if only David Hicks would be released from guantanamo bay & tried in australia in a normal court, things might begin to look up & the government might gain some respect.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

johnny

13-01-2005, 11:03 AM

bin laden killed a lot more people in cold blood (9/11) than bush did in hot blood (war in iraq etc).

Uuumm, could you define the difference between cold blooded and hot blooded killings?

I would've thought that flying a plane full of civillians into a building is about the same as a plane dropping a bomb on a wedding full of civilians. Didn't the yanks bomb the wrong house the other day? So was that cold blooded because they were innocents killed by some one 15 000 ft away, or was that hot blooded because it was in a war zone?

When an unarmed wounded Iraqi insurgent crawls between two buildings to hide and a US marine marine just sticks his riffle in and puts two rounds in him is this hot blooded because it happened in a war zone, or is it cold blooded because the Iraqi was wounded, had now way of defending himself and posed no immediate threat to anyone and killing him is so much against the laws of combat, it becomes murder?

There's no such thing as hot and cold blooded killing dude. There's just killing.

How many people has the Bush family executed when govenors of Texas and Florida?

Bodin

13-01-2005, 11:27 AM

bloody hell - i thought you knew this johnny. They have beards and turbans (or whatever those things are called). They all use AK-47s but carry .50 cal ammo in belts slung over their shoulders and can't aim. They can be taken out by an alcoholic ex-cop with a partner who is due for retirement, or a father who has just been pushed too far. Don't you watch any television? Sheesh.

Classic response, Toodles. Best post I've seen in a while.

I love Lethal Weapon...

floody

13-01-2005, 11:28 AM

What is a terrorist?

As far as I can fathom, someone who spreads terror by whatever means, military, martial action, propaganda and so on - often with a political, possibly economic or occasionally religious agenda.

Now as far as I can tell, Bin Laden , J.I. et al aren't the terrorists we should be most worried about. I think the western governments who ram down our throat that we are in danger, that there is a constant threat, and try and justify killing by reference to this mysterious threat are probably the most dangerous terrorists in the world. The "War on Terror" is a ridiculous thing, since its really been a "War to Justify and Reinforce the Creation of Terror".

As for M. Habib, well, I can't say whether I think he is a terrorist or not, I mean I think the yanks are , well, stupid but not so silly they would just lock people up without doing a bit of groundwork - I could be wrong though!
He has got the best deal. Sure people have been complaining about the fact our authorities have stated he will be under close scrutiny, but I would assume being under suspicion but relatively free in Australia is better than being held captive on a vague charge in Guantanamo Bay...

Just a side note, while I'm whinging about the yanks, it occurred to me that the American populace were happy enough to boot Clinton for f#cking one intern, but they are content to roll along while Bush f#cks the whole world.

wombat

13-01-2005, 11:34 AM

it occurred to me that the American populace were happy enough to boot Clinton for f#cking one intern, but they are content to roll along while Bush f#cks the whole world.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

And johnny, cold blooded is when "they" kill "us"; hot blooded is when "we" kill "them".

johnny

13-01-2005, 11:48 AM

As far as I can fathom, someone who spreads terror by whatever means, military, martial action, propaganda and so on - often with a political, possibly economic or occasionally religious agenda.

.
Yeah one of the problems we face today is purely theoretical. If you are going to charge some body for terrorism, there has to be a standard definition and there isn't. I've recently posted a thread which addresses some of this question: http://forums.farkin.net/showthread.php?t=24336

I will now plagerise (sp?) it/myself: What is a definition of Terrorism?
(1) Many are overlapping but none are absolute and comprehensive: An act intended to create terror; Primary goal to create fear in a population by undermining a common sense of security. The act plays to an audience beyond it’s victims by the targeting of representative groups The action is to consequence an action and the terror itself is not the desired end action. Terrorism is “the use, or threat of use, of anxiety-inducing, extra-normal violence for political purposes by an individual or group, whether acting for or in opposition to established governmental authority”. The UN defines terrorism as: “Any person commit(ing) an offence within the meaning of this convention if that person by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: death or serious bodily injury to any person, or: serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility, or the environment, or: damage to property, places, facilities or systems referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by it’s nature or it’s context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from dong any act (Working Group of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly. Document: A/C.6/56/L.9, annex: I.B.A/57/37.) Terrorism is the substate application of violence or threatened violence intended to sow panic in a society, to weaken or even overthrow the incumbents and bring about political change.

Basically, terrorist acts are violence, or the threat of that targets a REPRESENTATIVE of a the group you wish to affect. Take assassination for example. Just assassinating John Howard because you hate him is not an act of terrorism. This is because once the murder has happened, your mission is complete. Yet if I was to assassinate a doctor at an abortion clinic, that would be terrorism, because I’m doing this to discourage any other doctors from carrying out abortions, obviously because they will now fear for their lives. Therefore, terrorism is an act of violence on person/object A, in order to elicit a response out of person/object B. With out this premise, violence cannot be labeled terrorism.

RCOH

13-01-2005, 11:52 AM

Maybe 'Cold blooded' killings occur in NY near the beginning of their winter while 'hot-blooded' killings occur in a desert environment.:confused: :)

wombat

13-01-2005, 11:54 AM

Maybe 'Cold blooded' killings occur in NY near the beginning of their winter while 'hot-blooded' killings occur in a desert environment.:confused: :)
Hmmm, maybe terrorists are reptiles.....

parallax

13-01-2005, 11:58 AM

Hasn't anyone seen the Manchurian Candidate (remake 2004)?? They put a chip in his brain so that they can control him.

<American Government>
Habib
Mundoo (sp) Habib
Mr Mundoo Habib
Go to the shops and get me some orange sherbert.
</American Government>

johnny

13-01-2005, 12:01 PM

Mamdouh or spelling as such, pronounced Mum-do.

Maybe if they didn't have such silly names, they wouldn't be so angry all the time..........I'm allowed to be ignorant and superficial every now and then :p

Cave Dweller

13-01-2005, 12:16 PM

America and their attitude stinks.

It doesn't matter if this guy was innocent or not, he has rights under the geneva convention and they have been violated by the US.

nitwit

13-01-2005, 01:01 PM

So if the whole Red Scare was the "McCarthy Syndrome" what will we call the whole Islamo Scare in the future? The Green scare maybe? (Green is the colour of Islam), or the Bush/bin Laden Syndrome; the Terror syndrome etc....

Was'nt it the "RED MENACE" if we are thinking of the same thing i.e Communism, the the "YELLOW PERIL" Asians.

Anyway, as for who has killed more people in cold blood, ha, do you think the US Govt. thinks twice before it passes laws that in turn will kill millions of peoples livelyhood, which in my opinion is a fate worse than death.

This whole subject is very arguable in terms of who is right. Killing people in the name of any cause is wrong, to most people. Has anyone on this forum thought to look at what makes these "So Called" terrorists do what they do, instead of just saying "hell lets just lock them up". Its not right to try to get your point across by killing millions of innocent people, but hey neither is lending money to 3rd world countries at interest rates that will forever leave them in Debt.

And yes Mat (cave dweller) it is in breach of human rights and the geneva convention, when does'nt the Us govt. breach those laws as well as our govt.

We are living in a time where we as all people, regardless of race, religion, political following, colour or any difference for that matter, must work together to ensure peace and well being for all. That may sound a bit idealistic, but fuck, we are all going to die if we dont.

No_Style

13-01-2005, 01:12 PM

And if the government did/do know something about him.....would you tell it to the public?
Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public....

olly1oo6

13-01-2005, 01:53 PM

ok ok what im tring to get at with this cold blooded vs hot blooded idea is that terrorists seem to have an agenda, they screw things up royally, and intentionally. their ultimate desire is to make life for them better, by making others lives miserable. now im not exactly a no 1 supporter of the war in iraq, but bush cant really be compared to a terrorist (like many say) because he doesnt intentionally WANT to make others lives miserable (or i hope not) HOWEVER, it IS an outcome of the decisions he has made, and in that way he messed things up pretty bad.

for those who didnt read my previous post i think its about bloody time they let habib out, and they should let all the others have a fair trial before people start assuming things about them.

P.S i hate that michael moore guy more than all three of the characters that i have mentioned simply because he whinges too much and doesnt DO anything exept pick fights.

ironically this is exactly what im doing at the moment :D

roasted

13-01-2005, 02:26 PM

Im gonna make this blatanly obvious point: Isn't our current state of security similar to the black listing in the USA in the 40/50s (I think those years)?

13-01-2005, 03:45 PM

He is a terrorist.

SPOON

13-01-2005, 04:03 PM

He is a terrorist.

haha you seem absolutely sure..what makes you so definite?

cam-o

13-01-2005, 04:07 PM

haha you seem absolutely sure..what makes you so definite?
Coz S. is always sure, even when he's not. That's why we like him. :p

SPOON

13-01-2005, 04:08 PM

Coz S. is always sure, even when he's not. That's why we like him. :p

hmm.....lol

Dhfactory

13-01-2005, 04:10 PM

SPOON

13-01-2005, 04:13 PM

He maybe have been a terroist or he may still be, i don't think he'd be stupid enough to do anything after all this.

If he still is we will catch him, he won't get a second chance again, I think it's good that he's been released. If he is, in his mind maybe he will understand now.

-Sean

hmm yea perhaps...but i watched on tv about the terrorists that bombed the bali bombings....and the terrorist was raving on about how he doesn't care if he dies...he only cares about the cause...and that if he dies he'll be happy to do so.

They have twisted minds...

No_Style

13-01-2005, 04:15 PM

He maybe have been a terroist or he may still be, i don't think he'd be stupid enough to do anything after all this.

If he still is we will catch him, he won't get a second chance again, I think it's good that he's been released. If he is, in his mind maybe he will understand now.

-Sean

That is ill founded hope. Fanatics of any description be it religous or whatever will never be dettered from doing what they believe is the true cause. The cure to a fanatic is a high velocity slug to the head. Unfortunate but true.

johnny

13-01-2005, 05:19 PM

That is ill founded hope. Fanatics of any description be it religous or whatever will never be dettered from doing what they believe is the true cause. The cure to a fanatic is a high velocity slug to the head. Unfortunate but true.

Ok, I'm going to do my best to be polite here.........

So, how is it that you know so much about terrorists?

Which terrorists are you talking about?: Nationalists, secessionist, anarchists, iconoclastics, anihalists, islamo-fascists, republicanists, anti-abortionist/christian fundamentalists, socialists, state terorism, racists.....mate I could go on for hours but I'll leave it at this.

Terrorism as a documented form of political communication has been around for over 2000 years. As far as we know, the JEWS were the first terrorists, and they were nationalists. Terrorism is all over the world today from Israel to Istanbul, from Bali to Bolivia, from belfast to Bogota, from Ireland to Aceh, from Xinjiang to New York.

For some body to be able to sum up many millions of people throughout history and all over the world in just about every culture, you must be one learned dude!!! Could you please give me even just a partial break down of your analysis of the situation, methodology of research, are you taking a foundationalist ontology or anti foundationalist perspective, this will quite obviously dictate whether you will use qualitative theorising or quantitative empericism. If you've gone for empiricism, could I see your data, sample population and the statistical methods you've used to draw inferences from it (that cover every culture in all periods of civilised history......man that must be some pile of data you've got going) and if you've gon for qualitative, I'd love to read the transcripts of your interviews! So do you speak Mandarin, Persian, Arabic (Morrocan, Egyptian, Yemeni and Algerian dialects) Portuguese, Sth American Latin, Bahasa Indonesia, Thai, Urdu, Russian and so on, or did you just hire a whole heap of interpreters? You probably could have just got a whole lot of previous interviews and done a content analysis on them, but hang on that would empirical, but then again, not if you study and define the semiological inferences drawn from cultural/anthropological qualitative analysis. But you've probably already thought of that huh!?

I'd love for you to take me through how you've been able to sum up such a broad cross section of society in one fell swoop. You must have been researching for years on this, I'm very impressed.

Ok, so I didn't do too well at being polite, but at least I was only sarcastic and not blatantly rude. Sorry for getting a bit narky at you mate, but this is obviously an issue that I'm quite attentive towards, and get pretty fired up when I hear opinions that I feel are ignorant.

S., you need to get your rank back up again :p

johnny

13-01-2005, 05:39 PM

. Has anyone on this forum thought to look at what makes these "So Called" terrorists do what they do, instead of just saying "hell lets just lock them up".

Yeah, apparently No Style has it all worked out! (Sorry mate, not trying to be a prick towards you, it's just that you've left yourself wide open for a bit of flaming :p )

And MAtt, M. yeah Red Menace, Red Scare, same thing, different way of saying it. Just like McCarthyism is another term for the same mind set.

And Roasted: You've nailed it in one! "OOhhhh look out!!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!! Of course WE had nothing to do with why it's falling......."

nitwit

13-01-2005, 05:43 PM

Ok, I'm going to do my best to be polite here.........

So, how is it that you know so much about terrorists?

Which terrorists are you talking about?: Nationalists, secessionist, anarchists, iconoclastics, anihalists, islamo-fascists, republicanists, anti-abortionist/christian fundamentalists, socialists, state terorism, racists.....mate I could go on for hours but I'll leave it at this.

Terrorism as a documented form of political communication has been around for over 2000 years. As far as we know, the JEWS were the first terrorists, and they were nationalists. Terrorism is all over the world today from Israel to Istanbul, from Bali to Bolivia, from belfast to Bogota, from Ireland to Aceh, from Xinjiang to New York.

For some body to be able to sum up many millions of people throughout history and all over the world in just about every culture, you must be one learned dude!!! Could you please give me even just a partial break down of your analysis of the situation, methodology of research, are you taking a foundationalist ontology or anti foundationalist perspective, this will quite obviously dictate whether you will use qualitative theorising or quantitative empericism. If you've gone for empiricism, could I see your data, sample population and the statistical methods you've used to draw inferences from it (that cover every culture in all periods of civilised history......man that must be some pile of data you've got going) and if you've gon for qualitative, I'd love to read the transcripts of your interviews! So do you speak Mandarin, Persian, Arabic (Morrocan, Egyptian, Yemeni and Algerian dialects) Portuguese, Sth American Latin, Bahasa Indonesia, Thai, Urdu, Russian and so on, or did you just hire a whole heap of interpreters? You probably could have just got a whole lot of previous interviews and done a content analysis on them, but hang on that would empirical, but then again, not if you study and define the semiological inferences drawn from cultural/anthropological qualitative analysis. But you've probably already thought of that huh!?

I'd love for you to take me through how you've been able to sum up such a broad cross section of society in one fell swoop. You must have been researching for years on this, I'm very impressed.

Ok, so I didn't do too well at being polite, but at least I was only sarcastic and not blatantly rude. Sorry for getting a bit narky at you mate, but this is obviously an issue that I'm quite attentive towards, and get pretty fired up when I hear opinions that I feel are ignorant.

Gold Johnny!! you sure have a talent for putting people in thier place, hahahaha, i need to use my head in another way (not headbutting) to get my point across. Teach me the way wise Jedi. lol

13-01-2005, 05:44 PM

haha you seem absolutely sure..what makes you so definite?

Dude, it's obvious. HE IS A TERRORIST.

No_Style

13-01-2005, 05:57 PM

I'm not talking about terrorists, i'm talking about a fanatic. I draw a distinction between the two. Terrorists are perpetrators of violence on other bodies/properties etc to achieve a goal. Fanatics are people with a warped mind, totally consumed by whatever it is they feel or believe.

fanatic:

a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

I never said Habib was a terrorist or a fanatic. But yes i reckon a lot of these people never will change their view of the world, politics, religion etc. It is so deeply in grained in their up bringing that it would be impossible for them to believe otherwise. I'm no authority on this, i'm stating my opinion.

My view of terrorism is this:
1. We live with em and get over it.
2. We get killed by them, until we are eradicated.
3. We kill all of them until they are eradicated.
4. Over time (like in say generations) we can hope that withever increasing access to different media they will give up extermist beliefs.

I'm not talking about giving up civil liberties, like the right to religious belief. I have no problem with people who are religious, but i truly despise bible bashers, who will attack others for a belief with no tangible evidence inflict suffering beyond reason because they consider themselves right. In the case of a fanatic, they would keep doing this until they die. Hence why i say the only cure for it is death.

That is a brilliant argument you got there, you are obviously far more knowledgable than me on history. But i could tell you that 'terrorism' started far earlier than 2000 years ago, the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans etc all had rebel off shoots that used what you could consider terrorist devices (i.e political violence) long before 2000 years ago. I don't draw a distinction between religious terrorists, political terrorists, racial terrorists etc. As far as i'm concerned there actions are all for a reason, therefore there is hope that they will stop if they percieve this to be achieved. A fanatic would never see their goals as complete.

Agreed i did leave myself open to flaming but bring it on :D

Sorry if it strikes you as ignorant, but i probably am. I'm a really world weary lad of 17, believe me i have seen it all, you should see my archives :D
P.S. Remind me never to tangle in an argument with you again Johnny, your making my head hurt.

johnny

13-01-2005, 06:01 PM

wombat

13-01-2005, 06:03 PM

Parra? Fanatic or not that's a punishable offence. :p

No_Style

13-01-2005, 06:05 PM

Yeah, that's a pretty good reply.

Can't say I completely agree with it though, but I don't have anything to back myself up with.

My Dad is going to be pretty unhappy when he finds out that he's getting a hot slug to the head, being that he's a fanatical Parramatta supporter and all :p

Yes well.....I'm not certain but i assume your dad doesn't blow up plane loads of people, or buildings, or torture villages or cities full of people, until his demands for Parramatta to win every match are met :)

johnny

13-01-2005, 06:23 PM

Yes well.....I'm not certain but i assume your dad doesn't blow up plane loads of people, or buildings, or torture villages or cities full of people, until his demands for Parramatta to win every match are met :)

No....but he does have a beard and yells giberish when they lose!

I think there is some hope for fanatics. One of the Bali bombers has changed his tune, he narked on his associates, was remorseful for his actions, denounced political violence and said he wouldn't appeal his sentence. There are also some ex-terrorist/fanatics in Palestine that (try) to go around to schools and speak about the losses political violence incurs (on both sides). So whilst you're probably right in the majority sense, I think there are/could be many exceptions to the rule. As I said though, I tend to look more at patterns of social action and analyse cause and effect etc. I have a couple of threads in off topic (about 4000 words each) discussing what my research shows IMO.

No_Style

13-01-2005, 06:25 PM

I should add to that i have no ill feelings to people of religious belief. But i have had years of school where people have tried to force feed me religion and as far as i'm concerned it has done nothing but bring stupid amounts of pain and suffering. (Excepting the argument that people, whoever they are, with nothing and who suffer for it always need something to believe in, thats hard to counter i'll have a chew over that one).

But I do see religion as escapism.
I think it is stupid to believe in the concept that there is a 'god' that can somehow exist in time physically (as a person as religious belief would claim i.e. Jesus or prohpets or whatever) and also exist outside of our universe and our time (which from much scientific evidence we can but conclude to be infinite in expanse and 'time') but yet continue to influence events that exisit within 'our' universe (a universe of cause and effect [hence a universe with 'time']) whilst at the same moment continuing to exist externally to our universe in someother way that apparently experiences no cause or effect meaning everything is infintie, meaning no change can or ever could be effected, meaning that this 'god' could not exert any influence with in his own universe, let alone ours.

Thats hard to follow, I'm sorry for that, i'll try and make it more cohesive if anyone cares.

And sorry that was hugely off topic :eek:

No_Style

13-01-2005, 06:32 PM

No....but he does have a beard and yells giberish when they lose!

I think there is some hope for fanatics. One of the Bali bombers has changed his tune, he narked on his associates, was remorseful for his actions, denounced political violence and said he wouldn't appeal his sentence. There are also some ex-terrorist/fanatics in Palestine that (try) to go around to schools and speak about the losses political violence incurs (on both sides). So whilst you're probably right in the majority sense, I think there are/could be many exceptions to the rule. As I said though, I tend to look more at patterns of social action and analyse cause and effect etc. I have a couple of threads in off topic (about 4000 words each) discussing what my research shows IMO.

Well by definition then they are not fanatics, but reformed terrorists. Talk about splitting hairs :) And the beard and gibberish only make him a bearded gibberish yeller, not a 'terrorist.'
I'm sure S. could argue that though... :D

Anyway, i figure we should settle in for the long haul and get used to it. Violence has always been part of our society and always will be. Someone somewhere will think the grass is greener somewhere else, and thats all it takes... :(

I agree with you though, some people (thanksfully) do change. I have a habit of making grossly ignorant and large scale generalisations, so thanks for making me think about it when i have made one, i live and learn :)

Binaural

13-01-2005, 06:38 PM

(One of) my problems with Habib's case is that has been held for about three years without trial - justice delayed is justice denied. If the US had firm enough grounds to hold him, they should (as a prerequisite) have had enough material to charge him. It seems suspiciously pathetic that with 2 years+ of intensive interrogation and no pesky international laws to hold them back that the "military intelligence" at Guantanamo were unable to extract enough information to satisfy even an internal military tribunal.

It will be interesting to hear what the bloke has to say for himself when he returns to Sydney in a couple of days. The problem with forming an opinion on whether he's a bad guy or not is that the only two sources of real information are his family and the US military, neither of whom can be trusted to tell the truth.

Cheers! N

johnny

13-01-2005, 06:41 PM

And sorry that was hugely off topic :eek:

Not if it was posted in this thread: http://forums.farkin.net/showthread.php?t=22126&highlight=religion GIve it a look, you may be quite interested and it's a damn fine read.

But also remember, that not all religious types are aggressive in their preaching. there are many who go about their lives doing massive amounts of good for others without asking ANYTHING in return. Half the time you won't even know that they are religious.

Anyway, back on topic. From what I know of Habib, he DID have very aggressive and fundementalist leanings. He was removed from a mosque in Auburn (I think it was Auburn) for his hardened beliefs. I think there is a good chance that he was being naughty, but that does not excuse imprisonment without trial. Then again, the guy he was travelling with was released after a couple of days as innocent and he said he could give a record of his where abouts at the thime the Yanks said he was at an Al Qaeda training school. He was also unarmed and in Peshawar (I think) when apprehended. The fact still remains that he was held in prisons that we don't subject child molesters to, without any evidence made public.

No Style, you say that the public are dumb. Are you part of the public? What makes the US government so much more intelligent (let's not forget that the Attourney General, John Ashcroft, who presided over all the legalities of the war on terror and Guantanamo is a FUNDEMENTALIST CHRISTIAN. He made his staff sing Christian hymns every moring before work and had the bare breast of the statue of justice covered because it was sinful for a woman of stone to show her body. This is the man you say is smarter than the general public? But I thought you said fanatics need a hot slug to the head. He may not fly the plane himself, but he has been responsible for many being put to death under the Christianic law system he presides over).

No_Style

13-01-2005, 06:50 PM

Not if it was posted in this thread: http://forums.farkin.net/showthread.php?t=22126&highlight=religion GIve it a look, you may be quite interested and it's a damn fine read.

But also remember, that not all religious types are aggressive in their preaching. there are many who go about their lives doing massive amounts of good for others without asking ANYTHING in return. Half the time you won't even know that they are religious.

Anyway, back on topic. From what I know of Habib, he DID have very aggressive and fundementalist leanings. He was removed from a mosque in Auburn (I think it was Auburn) for his hardened beliefs. I think there is a good chance that he was being naughty, but that does not excuse trial without error. Then again, the guy he was travelling with was released after a couple of days as innocent and he said he could give a record of his where abouts at the thime the Yanks said he was at an Al Qaeda training school. He was also unarmed and in Peshawar (I think) when apprehended. The fact still remains that he was held in prisons that we don't subject child molesters to, without any evidence made public.

No Style, you say that the public are dumb. Are you part of the public? What makes the US government so much more intelligent (let's not forget that the Attourney General, John Ashcroft, who presided over all the legalities of the war on terror and Guantanamo is a FUNDEMENTALIST CHRISTIAN. He made his staff sing Christian hymns every moring before work and had the bare breast of the statue of justice covered because it was sinful for a woman of stone to show her body. This is the man you say is smarter than the general public? But I thought you said fanatics need a hot slug to the head. He may not fly the plane himself, but he has been responsible for many being put to death under the Christianic law system he presides over).

The bit in bold is a solid point. Genreally speaking Buddhism is a very good example (compared to amny other religions) etc

And no i'm not part of the general public, i'm and individual like everyone else :) My essential point there was to say that large groups of people have a habbit of making things far worse than they are, they generate their own energy of stupidity, paranoia, anger whatever. Often once that has happened it's to late to control. You ahve to give the public (me included) all or nothing. I don't reckon most people could handle 'all' so better to stick with nothing.

Didn't know that about Ashcroft, thats just bloody scary...

johnny

13-01-2005, 06:51 PM

The problem with forming an opinion on whether he's a bad guy or not is that the only two sources of real information are his family and the US military, neither of whom can be trusted to tell the truth.

Nothing more needs to be said on the matter. This is the only opinion one can rationally have.

No Style, hey I never said my Dad was a terrorist (but then again, I don't follow him around all day. I might see what the yanks have to say about him.....) I said he was a fanatic! My turn to split hairs........ :p

johnny

13-01-2005, 06:59 PM

The bit in bold is a solid point. Genreally speaking Buddhism is a very good example (compared to amny other religions) etc

And no i'm not part of the general public, i'm and individual like everyone else :) My essential point there was to say that large groups of people have a habbit of making things far worse than they are, they generate their own energy of stupidity, paranoia, anger whatever. Often once that has happened it's to late to control. You ahve to give the public (me included) all or nothing. I don't reckon most people could handle 'all' so better to stick with nothing.

Didn't know that about Ashcroft, thats just bloody scary...

Yes, fair point, but......we were not given "nothing". We've been given bits and pieces and been left to put the rest together. This I believe is the worst possible outcome, this way our imaginations make up whatever we want and viola, you have urban myth, missinformation and possibly a far worse situation. The best example of this has already been mentioned: McCarthyism or the Red Menace. This ignorance/irrational fear culminated in the Vietnam war. The Yanks were so scared of communism, that they went into Vietnam thinking that the Russians were pulling the strings, remember the domino theory? Well as it turns out, and I can prove this, the Vietnamese were fighting for simple nationalistic reasons, while the Yanks were fighting for ideological reasons. This is the outcome of partial/misinformation based on rumour, fear and ignorance. History is scattered with this kind of absurdity, the Crusades come to mind..............

Yeah, Ashcroft and a few others are pretty scary, ever heard about the Project For the New American Century? That will make your eyes open!

No_Style

13-01-2005, 07:22 PM

Nothing more needs to be said on the matter. This is the only opinion one can rationally have.

No Style, hey I never said my Dad was a terrorist (but then again, I don't follow him around all day. I might see what the yanks have to say about him.....) I said he was a fanatic! My turn to split hairs........ :p

LOL you would make a good lawyer...If i may refer to my previous statement......those were your words not mine....etc :D

wombat

13-01-2005, 07:36 PM

As much as I am loathe to do it, gentlemen this is the intarwebbe, and you are not allowed to argue unless there is more name calling and unrelated bitching; don't make us lock this thread......

Fine print: none of the above is to be taken literally and is not legally binding.

13-01-2005, 07:42 PM

Damn, a dozen posts and you guys STILL haven't had a go at each other. What the hell is wrong with you?

Especially you Johnny. You know better!

P.S. you're both wrong.

No_Style

13-01-2005, 07:43 PM

Yes, fair point, but......we were not given "nothing". We've been given bits and pieces and been left to put the rest together. This I believe is the worst possible outcome, this way our imaginations make up whatever we want and viola, you have urban myth, missinformation and possibly a far worse situation. The best example of this has already been mentioned: McCarthyism or the Red Menace. This ignorance/irrational fear culminated in the Vietnam war. The Yanks were so scared of communism, that they went into Vietnam thinking that the Russians were pulling the strings, remember the domino theory? Well as it turns out, and I can prove this, the Vietnamese were fighting for simple nationalistic reasons, while the Yanks were fighting for ideological reasons. This is the outcome of partial/misinformation based on rumour, fear and ignorance. History is scattered with this kind of absurdity, the Crusades come to mind..............

Yeah, Ashcroft and a few others are pretty scary, ever heard about the Project For the New American Century? That will make your eyes open!

No i haven't heard of the Project for the New American Century, but now i'm gonna go a lookin' on the net :)

Your completely right, giving people some information is definately the dumbest thing they could do.....and guess what they did :rolleyes:

I'm familiar with domino theory, what is it that you can prove, is it the belief behind the domino theory or the manner in which the theory would have worked (i.e. the way communism would have spread from one country to another)?
The Viet Minh's struggle with the French was a good indication of the vietnamese peoples belief in their nations sovergnity (sp?), it should have been no suprise to the yanks....Vietnam has spent a large portion of it's modern life under occupation from foreign nationals.

Americans have never learnt well from the lessons of history. Before invading Iraq they should have looked at Britians involvment in Ireland, and their own involvment in Vietnam and then combined the two, because thats pretty much what they have stepped into...Heres hoping they can sort it out, but i'm not holding my breath.

Red menace, is prehaps more similar to the Nazi's perception of Jews than it is to Americans conception of terrorists (but then again i'm not American politican so prehaps its not...).
All it ever takes is something to sow the seeds in peoples minds....from there the imagination can grow all sorts of things, this is only worsened by a continued abscence of information in my opinion...not to mention the distrust it generates in people for offical institutions and sources of information.

I would argue though that the situation with modern religious terrorist is somewhat different The Vietnamese were never going to attack an American city and would probably have been happy to drop the conflict (if not the animosity) with the yanks once they left (as ended up happening). The fact that religious terrorist however have no physical goal to achieve makes it almost impossible for us to appease them, for really their is (i would imagine) no sign to them that their goal (of spreading their religion or whatever it is they aim for) as been achieved, unlike the situation in Vietnam of removing an occupying force from their land, which can be seen and be believed...

No_Style

13-01-2005, 07:46 PM

As much as I am loathe to do it, gentlemen this is the intarwebbe, and you are not allowed to argue unless there is more name calling and unrelated bitching; don't make us lock this thread......

Damn, a dozen posts and you guys STILL haven't had a go at each other. What the hell is wrong with you?

Sorry to disappoint :D Imagine this doesn't make for much of a spectator sport does it? lol

wombat

13-01-2005, 07:49 PM

Sorry to disappoint :D Imagine this doesn't make for much of a spectator sport does it? lol
That's why the twenty-20 is on in the background; it's different to usual, but I like it!

johnny

13-01-2005, 08:25 PM

No i haven't heard of the Project for the New American Century, but now i'm gonna go a lookin' on the net :)

Your completely right, giving people some information is definately the dumbest thing they could do.....and guess what they did :rolleyes:

I'm familiar with domino theory, what is it that you can prove, is it the belief behind the domino theory or the manner in which the theory would have worked (i.e. the way communism would have spread from one country to another)?
The Viet Minh's struggle with the French was a good indication of the vietnamese peoples belief in their nations sovergnity (sp?), it should have been no suprise to the yanks....Vietnam has spent a large portion of it's modern life under occupation from foreign nationals.
Americans have never learnt well from the lessons of history. Before invading Iraq they should have looked at Britians involvment in Ireland, and their own involvment in Vietnam and then combined the two, because thats pretty much what they have stepped into...Heres hoping they can sort it out, but i'm not holding my breath.

Red menace, is prehaps more similar to the Nazi's perception of Jews than it is to Americans conception of terrorists (but then again i'm not American politican so prehaps its not...).
All it ever takes is something to sow the seeds in peoples minds....from there the imagination can grow all sorts of things, this is only worsened by a continued abscence of information in my opinion...not to mention the distrust it generates in people for offical institutions and sources of information.

I would argue though that the situation with modern religious terrorist is somewhat different The Vietnamese were never going to attack an American city and would probably have been happy to drop the conflict (if not the animosity) with the yanks once they left (as ended up happening). The fact that religious terrorist however have no physical goal to achieve makes it almost impossible for us to appease them, for really their is (i would imagine) no sign to them that their goal (of spreading their religion or whatever it is they aim for) as been achieved, unlike the situation in Vietnam of removing an occupying force from their land, which can be seen and be believed...

I meant that I can prove that the Vietnam war was a mistake. The Vientamese, as you've said, were sick of being occupied by foriegn powers and just wanted a socialist state. The Yanks thought they were Soviet puppets and fought them like they did. I was basically pointing to the theory that you MUST be able to EMPATHISE with your enemy, for if you don't don't understand him/her, how can you efficiently combat them? Plus, you also run the risk of fighting a needless war!

Now that's a very interesting theory which deserves much thought before I can have an opinion. Seriously interesting proposition........well to me it is :)

Ah, now that I can and will argue against! But it's too late tonight, I will pick this up again tomorrow.

johnny

13-01-2005, 08:34 PM

P.S. you're both wrong.

Goddamnit that made me laugh!! :D

How would you know? You shouldn't go around telling people that they're wrong, because you are wrong to do that. Anyway, how do you know, were you there when it all happened? I'm so much smarter than you because my cousins cousin was in NY when the planes hit so I'm so much more relevent and informed than you. Anyway I'm not going to fall into your trap of arguing on the net and name calling, because that's for stupid judgemental assumptive little kids like your fuckwit self. Maybe if you'd get on your bike and ride once in a while and tear yourself away from your computer, you'd be a bit smarter just like me. It's always so easy to be tough from sitting behind your keyboard isn't it, if you were here I'd bash you so bad, I'd kick your arse man. Your just a forum geek anyway.

I think that successfuly covers all the stupid hypocritical and ironic styles of intarweb arguments :)

S. is a terrorist

13-01-2005, 08:45 PM

Ok, that's it. I've had enough of these internet tough guys (ITGs). If I ever meet any of you ITG wankers, I'm gonna kick your arse(s).

naz

13-01-2005, 08:57 PM

Ok, that's it. I've had enough of these internet tough guys (ITGs). If I ever meet any of you ITG wankers, I'm gonna kick your arse(s).

ill kick johnny's punk ass for you. :p

Commander Dilsnikk

13-01-2005, 10:08 PM

Just an interesting aside to the issue of constructing a workable definition for "terrorism"...

...if you look into the history of the word, it was first used (in the current sense) to describe the actions of those in power during the phase of the French revolution known as "the terror" (the Jacobins). In fact it wasn't until the early-mid 20th century that it was used to describe the actions/ events we would (rightly or wrongly) call terrorism today. Terrorism, as such, was instead, originally, state (government)-based violent suppression.

An interesting fact when you think of the people who have established a war on this abstract concept in the 21st century.

johnny

18-01-2005, 02:34 PM

Letter in today's Herald:

Such grand faith in democracy, Dr Crane (Letters, January 17). No doubt the Howard Government has evidence of Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks throwing their children overboard; using Peter Reith's phone card; streaking on the SCG at the first day/night cricket match; and prior knowledge of Francis de Groot's hijacking of the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of the Harbour Bridge.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: there are things we don't even know that we don't know (until the Government tells us).

Seth Richardson, Surry Hills, January 17

some funny shit right there :)

No_Style

24-01-2005, 10:19 PM

I meant that I can prove that the Vietnam war was a mistake. The Vientamese, as you've said, were sick of being occupied by foriegn powers and just wanted a socialist state. The Yanks thought they were Soviet puppets and fought them like they did. I was basically pointing to the theory that you MUST be able to EMPATHISE with your enemy, for if you don't don't understand him/her, how can you efficiently combat them? Plus, you also run the risk of fighting a needless war!

Now that's a very interesting theory which deserves much thought before I can have an opinion. Seriously interesting proposition........well to me it is :)

Ah, now that I can and will argue against! But it's too late tonight, I will pick this up again tomorrow.

Are you gonna pick this up again Johnny? Because i personally have found this to be an interesting discussion.

No_Style

24-01-2005, 10:36 PM

sockman

25-01-2005, 12:46 AM

innocent unless proven guilty

noitall

25-01-2005, 08:57 AM

What is a terrorist?

somone that wears a towel on his head, has a mostache like his mum and blows himself up.

Other than that...a dickhead.

that should define pretty well. ;)

johnny

25-01-2005, 11:23 AM

somone that wears a towel on his head, has a mostache like his mum and blows himself up.

Other than that...a dickhead.

that should define pretty well. ;)

In that case the IRA aren't terrorists, ETA, The Shining Path, FARC, Baader Meinhoff, Irguni, the Una-bomer and Timothy Mcveigh weren't/aren't terrorists either eh?

Are you just talking shit, or do you really believe that crap?

johnny

25-01-2005, 11:27 AM

Oh and Johnny mentioned this a little earlier on in the thread:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Talk about an eye opener :eek: Those people are just...well it's hard to find words to describe them. The truly scary thing is i'm sure they would whole heartedly believe every thing on that website. This one in particular is a real beauty http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf :rolleyes:

Yeah I do, but as others here may have noticed, it takes me about two months to collect all my info, back it up/source it and then write about three and a half thousand words to express my opinion! It'll come, but you'll have to wait. In the mean time, check out my terrorism series. Just search under terror and they'll come up. There are about three, 2-5000 word posts.

As for the PNAC, the most disturbing aspect is the Statement of Principles page. Read it and check out the signatories at the bottom of the page. Nothing IMO eclipses this in all of geo-politics today.

No_Style

25-01-2005, 12:40 PM

You prepare your posts......wheres the raw skill of argument in that :D
In that case i'm happy to wait, it should be an informative read.

noitall

25-01-2005, 04:21 PM

In that case the IRA aren't terrorists, ETA, The Shining Path, FARC, Baader Meinhoff, Irguni, the Una-bomer and Timothy Mcveigh weren't/aren't terrorists either eh?

Are you just talking shit, or do you really believe that crap?

Umm its called "a sense of humor"... some people just dont have that.

johnny

27-01-2005, 10:13 AM

Umm its called "a sense of humor"... some people just dont have that.

Wow, and what an amazing sense of humour you have too :rolleyes: I mean labelling terrorists (Arabs) as towel heads, is that your own work? You should go on tour with such original material like that!

noitall

27-01-2005, 12:59 PM

Wow, and what an amazing sense of humour you have too :rolleyes: I mean labelling terrorists (Arabs) as towel heads, is that your own work? You should go on tour with such original material like that!

yeah thats what i told ya mama last night too.

wombat

27-01-2005, 01:26 PM

yeah thats what i told ya mama last night too.
Quick tip: resorting to cheap shots like that when they're in a context like this is a good way to get banned.

Clean up your act.

Rik

27-01-2005, 04:33 PM

Divert your attention from the sideshow alley clowns back to the main stage:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/Degrading-torture-on-Habib-lawyer/2005/01/27/1106415674136.html?oneclick=true
:eek:

I don't think we could comprehend just what he's gone through, if these allegations are true... if he didn't hate the USA before he was captured, he sure has a reason to do so now.

johnny

28-01-2005, 07:38 PM

yeah thats what i told ya mama last night too.

Wow, more original stuff.......

Back O/T, don't you love it how he can't even tell his story. What are they scared of? The free and the brave......hah!

Rik

29-01-2005, 03:22 AM

Well... did anyone see the 7:30 report on the 27th?
Mr Ruddock has decided he is going to redefine right and wrong...
Transcript of story. (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1290923.htm)
And...
the killer line
"PHILIP RUDDOCK: It's not a question of whether or not somebody has been successfully prosecuted; it's a question of a civil standard of proof"
So, the Americans spent how many years trying to bring charges against him, didn't even get a chance to do so, let alone prosecute him, and now a "civil standard of proof" will be the excuse to continue putting this man through hell.
Thank fuck I wasn't waving an Australian flag on Wednesday.