Justice

Point in case, though BigOle, the problem is that with little actual evidence other than rumors and annoymous sources to build their case on, suddenly jumping to the conclusion that "Gitmo is the Gulag of our time" is idiotically strong language. I can understand the entire 'without due process' argument, and I agree with it. But that doesn't mean that much of the report has little basis, or that the statement is no longer idiotic. Using those quotes is basically the equivilent of using the Al-Quada statement that says "We want Kerry, not Bush" as a reasoning for voting Republican. It's flawed.

Awww, is somebody angry? Congrats. One wouldn't at all know this from your posts. Factually incorrect? What the hell are you talking about? You tried roundabout ways to make it seem like they weren't attacking the civilian population. Trying to make 'oil town' (Which doesn't at all imply an attack on any foreign interests, it only tells you what the town is known for) into 'obviously meant to be an attack on foreign interests' is still ignoring the fact that civilians are the ones they are killing. People who aren't actively helping 'the occupiers', but just trying to live their lives. You are justifying their attacks by putting those weak excuses to why certain attacks 'aren't really' attacks on civilians, but instead 'simply an attack on foreign interests'. That doesn't make it any less an attack on the civilian populace, but you don't seem to understand that. The figure shown is civilian deaths in Iraq. It's not broken down into 'killed helping the occupiers' or 'killed installing the new puppet government', it's civilians. The fact that you are trying to make this distinction to somehow absolve them of some of the wrongness in it is truly frightening. To us, a car bomb killed 10 civilians. To you, it's 'a car bomb killed 10 people helping the new government, which doesn't technically count as civilians'. If you look at it all, attacks on Americans and American casualties are down. Instead, the focus has shifted towards the public. You hear more about attacks in markets instead of checkpoints, carbombs on streets killing dozens of regular Iraqis, not American Soldiers. Our casualties have gone down, but instead we are seeing them start to rend the public in what could be construed as them trying to turn the people against a government perceived as 'not able to protect them'. Hey look, I summed up their reasoning without devaluing the fact that they are killing innocent people. Imagine that. To sum it all up: It's okay to name and try to understand the reason behind an attack. Perhaps if you didn't try to deny that those who were attacked were civilians nonetheless, no matter what 'reasoning' was behind this, would make people think that you weren't, well, justifying it. But whatever. You've shown to be hopeless before, I don't think you'll change now.

Hey, come on. I'm in chat. Join.

I understand. I mean, it's not completely wrong of them to seize on some of these stories, and they should be published. But many of the times it seems that they are so desperate for something big that they'll overblow what little they have or run a story that lacks proper confirmation. I'll concede that much of the stuff that doesn't get news time doesn't warrant it, the over-blown part is what I'm really talking about. But yes, that's an excellent point.

Sorry, double post.

Make shit up? If I did, then it was certainly out of an effort to try and get something out of an incoherent post. And hey, if you want to believe I've somehow lost credibility, go ahead. You are basically on the level of CronoT. You aren't really someone who anything other than crappy emotional appeals. Here, lemme try again, and tell me if I got it right: Okay, explain this. Is this an indictment of the CIA twenty-five years after the fact? Is this a connection to the CIA's support of the Mujaheeden? If so, isn't that a huge case of hindsight? Please, explain this in a more clear manner, because as it is, it doesn't make sense as a statement. It's not bias, it's sensationalism. Look at Newsweek, Amnesty, and the Qu'ran. They are quick to jump on any story that looks bad because people will watch and read those stories. It doesn't pay to sell 'Ho hum, we are still rebuilding Iraq' stories. The news likes to put a spin on it to make it more interesting. Whether purposefully partisan or not, it tends to spin to one side of the political spectrum. These people believe it because they've been taught not to believe us. How much Anti-US Rhetoric has been propigated in the Middle East? Does anyone remember finding schools in Afganistan that was teaching young children Islamic Fundamentalism? This has been going on ever since we supported Israel's right to exist back in 1948. It's NOT because we like randomly bombing them and destroying their families. This is something that has been ingrained there, and we (In our planning) failed to realize how deep it truly ran. It isn't as though we haven't tried to win 'their hearts and minds'. We've been trying hard as hell to protect them from this insurgency, to try and get a democratic government up and running, and to fix their infrastructure so that they can compete on a global playing field. How much more 'winning' do you want us to try and do? I don't think that's too much of a question. Actually, it was one of the most well-run wars ever. But agreed, the rebuilding part was greatly botched. Ooooooookay. Whatever. This is pretty much a throwaway 'emotional appeal' statement. Explain this accusation. We haven't been using a sledgehammer. After Fallujah, we have been concentrating on more traditional CT Ops. Not only that, but we've been trying hard on the administrative side to help get things running over there. I don't understand how we are using 'force' when we have been concentrating on CT stuff and setting up a government. Explain this better, because it doesn't seem to fit what's going on currently. Hell, that's arguably better advice right now for the insurgency than us. And you say I have no credibility. Once again, this is just over-emotional appeal with a basis that has yet to have facts to support it. They are too high. They are impossible, actually. To try and judge the conduct of the entire military on the actions of a few fuck-ups in the MP Corp is a flawed and irresponsible way to judge. Again, 'the actions of the few do not reflect the actions of the whole'. Of course, already are believing publications that are taking stories from an 'annoymous source' about rumors of possible allegations of torture. Do you see the problem here? I was cruel before, but if you look at all the fact, that post is utter crap. There is little substance, and much of it just emotional appeals using reasons that have little basis to be actually believed. To sum it all up, it's just the same whiney, 'trying reach deeper meaning but failing utterly' crap that you normally post. Sorry if I was harsh, but it's the truth. Up to the task of perfection? Do you want the Superfriends or something? A few bad apples who are currently being prosecuted and false allegations from guys trained to lie are not indicators that the military is 'not up to the task'. If anything, they've done incredibly well in trying circumstances, despite some bad turns. Again, they are. The few do not reflect the whole. This idea that a few people can ruin everything that they've done over there is truly deluded. How can you live with yourself, then? This 'instant safety in a box' interests me greatly. Do you happen to know where we can purchase it? And for Cognress: Does it cost a lot? Have you ever happened to look at the other score, or are you too nearsighted in this argument to concern yourself with that part? I agree completely. Both parties need to start to get legislation that will increase container checks and other things at customs. And we need get this Mexican Immigrant crap sorted out so we can start enforcing our borders again. Of course, citing false allegations as a fact do not make an argument, no matter how hard you try. Publishing stories like Newsweek did sure had a lot of people buying into it. Indeed. But also publishing false stories based on rumors put out by guys who are trained to tell these sorts of lies will probably hurt us just as much if not worse. This... just doesn't really make sense. You are talking about Gitmo, right? Unless this compromise is 'Let everyone at Gitmo free', I'm not sure how we have to release anyone who we think is criminal. I've already suggested military tribunals, which would be excellent deciders of guilt. But this idea that this is somehow a 'peaceful solution'... To what? What is causing unrest in all this is the false accusations of a newspaper. This idea that we need to find a 'solution' when the problem with this isn't the actual problem is flawed logic. No offense, but I'm fairly sure that if they are planning a terrorist attack, releasing prisoners from Gitmo will do little to placate and stop them. Perhaps that is because you have an absolutely warped view of what we are actually doing over there. Your idea of failure at the moment is the fact that the entire military is not perfect, and that we actually had to prosecute some screw-ups. I'll say it again: I'm not missing anything. Our goose, at the moment, isn't being cooked. There aren't any good changes that we can make at the moment: We are trying to let the Iraqis take over on both a governmental and a military level. Both of those need improvement. We need to put those at Gitmo on trial, yes, that needs to be done. But making claims of 'a huge change in policy' is just dumb. What 'changes' do you want to make? And how feasible would they be? Edit: Ah, fuck all. Damn quotes.

Yeah, in one of the versions I believe he was supposed to cry out "You promised me amnesty!" after he says "Kill him."

Aww, can't come up with an actual response, so simply cry about 'typical conservative argument' ruining it for you. Sorry, nope. There's a difference between explaining the reasons the insurgency and trying to legitimize them. You were trying to legitmize them by saying that they weren't attacking civilians or didn't mean to. You were justifying why they would attack those targets in an attempt to discredit the idea that they didn't care about the civilian population and that they were attacking it with more fervor, both of which are very much false. My reading comprehension is the problem here? You are the one who seems to have problems understanding your writing. Hell, even Brian, a guy who I don't oft agree with on Iraq, thought you dug yourself a hole with this stuff. You are the only one who can't recognize what you yourself are saying.

Probably. I mean, we don't edit Mein Kampf. I know I'd like to take a look at it.

Hey, how about some spoiler tags there, man? o.0

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

In the last 18 months, idiot. Not only that, but consider the thousands of Iraqi police officers and forces that have died due to these people which count towards your total, and the Saddam troops that also count. Of course, if you want to continue to lie to yourself and keep telling stories of American Extermination Squads, go ahead. But oddly enough, no foreign interests were cited in the article. You do know that we don't own the oil wells, too. The Iraqi government does. Not exactly 'foreign'. ... and completely ignoring the collateral damage in killing 7 innocent civilians. Congrats: You've just become a terrorist appologist. And this justifies attacks on innocent workers? There are still Iraqi civilians working at all these places. Government elected by the Iraqi people. And that's not an attack on the Iraqi people? Yeah, for real. Not like they serve any other useful purpose like protecting innocent Iraqis and stuff like that. END IRAQI OCCUPATION! POLICE OUT NOW! Actually, not true. Attacks on American forces have been steadily dropping and dropping since last year. The terrorists have been more focused on hitting Iraqi targets rather than foreign ones. But hey, I'm not the ones appologizing and legitimizing the deaths of innocent civilians.

Another article from the Post that C-Bacon should probably read: Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000

"For all those who still believe in giving peace a chance, thanks for the extra time you bought me. If not for you, I wouldn't have had so much time to destroy any records that could have proven useful to the Coalition. Keeping fighting the power guys, Saddy"

This has been less and less true as the days go past. More and more they've been directly attacking the Iraqi populace. Trying to deny this is just ignorance. And Germany was worse off when the Allies took it back in 1945. That doesn't mean that they were better off under Hitler. Rebuilding an entire country, especially one with an insurgency, takes time. Indeed, we forged those elections. I mean, Ibrahim al-Jaafari is definitely in our pocket, right? In all honesty, I doubt there is anything we could do to convince you that Iraq had democratic elections other than make sure Sadr himself was voted Prime Minister. Must every government in the world instantly hate the US to gain legitimacy? So... which one of those says that the insurgency is the one funding and rebuilding their country and helping put a democratic government in place? Because I don't really see a disagreement in any of those. Just because they might not want us over there doesn't mean we aren't the ones doing the work and footing the bill. If we rebuilt say, Britain, but they didn't want us there, does that lessen our contribution anymore? Or is it all based on PR with you? Oh, and funny thing right from your own article: Guess they are in denial about which government they prefer, eh?

*Sigh* And let us watch once again as a high concept flies right over Cheesala's head. Even if you didn't want to be there, putting a statement like that trying to justify the insurgency's actions DOES put you behind suicide bombings. C-Bacon says that we are the ones bombing and hurting the Iraqis. He said of course they'd resist if we were occupying their country. He misses the point that, well, if you look at the news that the insurgency is the one diving into crowds with detonators, they are the ones trying to prevent Iraq from getting a working democracy off the ground (Because, as we know, this majority is SURELY in the pocket of the CIA, right?), and it is they who are targeting civilians. And we are the bad guys? You fault us for not winning 'hearts and minds', but the people you say Iraq was better off with are the ones that are jumping into crowds and blowing themselves up. If you honestly think that they were 'really' better off with Saddam's iron fist, remember that it's that regieme that set up this insurgency. We have made great efforts into trying to get the Iraqi people to trust us, despite what you want to believe. We have been rebuilding their country slowly but surely, despite hinderences from the insurgents. We are the ones who are helping the Iraqis, not the insurgents. Please consider that we are the ones footing the better part of this bill in both men and money.

Father, without a doubt. That's one of the greatest moments in movie history because it's one of those twists that you didn't think about, but when you look at it, makes perfect sense. Anakin becoming Vader completely hinges on you knowing who Vader is beforehand, imo.

Hey, here's the UN's take on their own report. Wow, we can't see the bias in your story, C-Bacon. And I'm sure that the insurgency cares about the Iraqi people. I mean, their constant suicide bombings of public places truly shows that they are freedom fighters for the people. I'm glad to know that you support the 'minutemen', C-Bacon. I'm sure you're right there 'winning their hearts over' by making them live in fear of going to the market, lest they get blown to pieces by a martyr or a carbomb.

No one could put words that stupid into your mouth. Trust me on that. In regards to BigOle: I've said that I desire trials for these people. I've never said that I didn't, nor do I think we should continue this practice. I'm not a big fan of Gitmo myself. But. There is very little them are confirmed or even have evidence to back up their claims. These claims of mass torture, of 'flushing Qu'rans', of all that sort of stuff, they are basically trained to make these claims. There is little proof in AI's report than what people like Newsweek have reported (And retracted). Yes, I've read their report on us: It's more a political manifesto than any sort of anaylsis. The little information they seem to have comes from unconfirmed and anonymous reports of abuses. Looking at the Qu'ran one, that was a rumor that was being passed around the mess hall that the prisoner passed on. Is that] something substantial? While I'm not a fan of the Gitmo situation, this idea that it is 'the gulag of our time' and that we are constantly 'redefining terrorism' is insulting. On the Extraordinary Rendition: I've known about this for a while, though I've never really been a big supporter of it. I'd like to see more sources on it than Jane Mayer of all people. Have you ever read Strange Justice before? She's not exactly, a, well, reliable and unbiased person.

Indeed. Cadian Shock Trooper guy. But recently I actually watched Episode I again, and I think I'll rate it above Episode II. While Jar Jar and Jake Lloyd are horrible, I think that, in all honesty, it's a much better film than I previously thought. First off, the pacing is pretty good: The beginning is an excellent way to introduce the Jedi and the Trade Federation, and the Invasion of Naboo. Moving to Tatooine is perhaps the slowest part, but overall the film has a pretty good rhythm to it that maybe I just didn't realize until after watching it after the last two films. The storyline is okay as an opening act, even thuogh they could have done more, I can't fault the movie itself for that. And it has soem of the strongest acting in the prequel trilogy. Natalie Portman is actually pretty good as Amidala in this one; she doesn't seem to be sleepwalking through it all (Perhaps because aren't hokey love-lines to spout in this one?). Ewan McGregor is BRILLIANT as Obi-Wan back when he was a Padawan, and it's really interesting looking back and seeing how they aged him so well so-as to make it seem a bit believable. Liam Neeson is great as the consumate Jedi Master Qui-Gon, and you actually see a little of what Obi-Wan picked up from him in Alec Guinness. Darth Maul is actually a fairly interesting villian as he's set up, even if he doesn't talk at all. I'd argue that despite Jar Jar and the HORRIBLE Jake Lloyd, the acting overall was better. Lastly, the ending action sequence (And I'd say the action sequences overall), overall, was better in Ep I. The Jedi battle between Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan and Darth Maul just seems a bit more natural and less, well, arbitrary. The Dooku fight seems more to say "Hey, Yoda can fight!" instead of the Qui-Gon fight, where Maul is there to stop both the Jedi once and for all. Hell, and I'm a huge fan of Dooku, too. And compare the beginnings: The opening action seems so much better imo just because it feels more necessary and less showy; it seems to be used more to help a plot point rather than showing off special effects (Which the 2nd one is rife with). So after rewatching the first movie, it seems to have the advantage of flow and stand-out performances over Ep II. That, and no horribly-executed love plot. I guess that puts it at #5 rather than #6 now.

Or how about Politika predicting within months of when Yeltsin was leaving office? (Of course, stroke and resignation are different, but...) And then the prediction of a possible terrorist attack on the millenium eve (The Argentinians got caught, though).

... What the hell are you talking about? This statement makes absolutely no sense. SJ nailed the reason why: It's simply because the media wants a story. Seriously, what is exciting about "Gitmo: Hey, they're still there"? Nothing. But when an unconfirmed story about torture from a prisoner who wasn't even there talks about what you are saying... well then, the media jumps on it. It's not a PR 'fuckup', much of the time it's prisoners knowing how to exploit someone who is looking to find something wrong with Gitmo. And 'winning their hearts and minds' comes more from the fact that we freed their country, are rebuilding it, putting a democratic government in place, and fighting an insurgency that would put them back into a tolitarian dictatorship. This statement is full of such whiney bullshit it's hard to sift through it all. "LOOK at ME, I can CAPITALIZE important STATEMENTS for EFFECT!" Lemme sum up this entire statement of crap: *Cry cry cry* We can't win this with force, we torture people! I don't know what we WILL win this through with, but that's not my concern! I don't have a real statement to put in here, so I'll just through around statements about 'COMPRISING' and that 'I WANT TO BELIEVE!' for the rest of the paragraph! Lemme give C-Bacon credit for, however much bullshit he likes to shovel, being able to form a coherent opinion and make it sound intelligent. This entire paragraph is you jumping between something like 3 unrelated subjects trying to form some horribly botched emotional appeal. What 'compromise'? Are you trying to refer to letting Gitmo guys go? How in God's name does that spark a peaceful solution ANYWHERE? Do you honestly think that some sort of violenc will talk, or that they will stop badmouthing us if we let them go or something? Gitmo right now is pretty much inconsequential to ANYTHING going on right now. This 'compromise' isn't a solution, it's moronic. *shakes head* 'So does one, so do they all', eh? They all aren't doing this! It doesn't make us 'wrong' when a small, select bunch of idiots do something. It makes that small, select bunch of idiots wrong. Or is personal responsibility something new in your vocab. "I do not want to be wrong." Sorry, but I found that statement to be utterly hilarious. Well, if we are going by a bodycount, I'd say we are coming out way ahead of the Insurgency at the moment. Once again, you are trying a horrible abortion of an emtional appeal. None of us suggest torturing anyone. There's little proof that we actually have in Gitmo. In Abu Ghraib, the MPs responsible are being prosecuted. This isn't a conciencious action by the US military. It's not their policy. Trying to call us out on 'being right' is falling horribly flat because you don't realize that it's not us doing it, it's a very small group doing it. Trying to say "What will be enough? Torturing? Killing?!" doesn't apply because it isn't our policy to do so. Are on the side of right? Yes, because we aren't DOING most the stuff you are referring to, and the other stuff is done by a select group of individuals acting on their own accord. And, oddly enough, they are being prosecuted and punished. Congrats, you just wasted an entire paragraph on basically nothing. ... "Hey, we are the greatest country in the world. Why can't we all fly on will? If we are really great, we should really start trying." That's basically what you are asking. We can't control how every individual behaves, no matter how much we try. We've been acting like it for a while now. Seriously, how many other countries would have put up with the crap we've been putting up with? Perhaps if you looked past the idea of "Damn one, damn them all!", you'd figure this out. ... You are buying into it. Every time, as it seems, judging by your statements of TORTURE! Seriously, while we've made mistakes in Iraq, there are basically no other options to this. This would have happened no matter how many 'HUGS AND FLOWERS' we gave out. See, the funny thing about this part is that you've completely ignored everything he's said, which was actually very concise and exactly on point.

Actually, they did, though in a really obscure place. I play WH40K, so I went down to a local hobby shop to check out the stock, and there were a bunch of Star Wars books for playing RPGs, I guess. Anyways, one of them just on planets, and looking through a few of the entries, I came across the Kamino one, which says it was actually Dooku, who took the guise of Sifo-Dias. Yeah, so completely unreleated geekery actually resulted in an answer to that one.

Silly Bush Wow, because that site really rings of integrity. Why didn't you just link me to Democratic Underground? Actually I see the problems quite clearly. However, It's one thing to criticize one's country, it's another thing to declare war upon it. You're condeming me for the very thing that the US has done. I percieve the US to be a threat of Canada's sovereignty and World peace, therefore I view that as a much larger problem than who Belinda Stronarch is fucking. You see the 'problem' through your rose-colored glasses. I'm sure you are next on our hit list. For real. I'm serious. Or it could be that you just harbor this irrational hate of the Americas brought on by the brainwashing of the propaganda that you are fed. *Shrugs* I don't think Iraq wanted them there. Ditto Afghanistan (unless you ask US client Karzai that is) and other Middle Eastern nations. It dosen't matter if some nations want military bases there. It's the goals set that are the problem. Like the Roman Empire who tried to use military power to support i's weaking hold over it's colonies, the US is inserting itself into new regions to prevent competitors from doing the same. The whole reasons for the 9/11 attacks were due to issues involving military bases in the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. The ramifications of other bases could result in other huge consequences. In terms of an empire, the US is indeed one because it dominates the world through its military power. You don't have to call it an empire or even an informal one, but it still means puppet regiemes are being financed, supported and recieve military aid from the US. Bullshit. Most countries ask us to put bases in their countries (Saudis, all of Europe, etc...), so trying to push this off as us instigating it every time is a dumb statement. And I'm sure while the Iraqis and the Afganis might be irriate with us, I'm sure they would rather have us than their former regiemes. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein weren't exactly 'high' on the popularity list. Of course, if you'd rather have them, then please, have the balls and come out with it. Or bring another solution to either of those problems. You've never actually come out with one that didn't completely come down to vague claims of "US Imperialism". I'd love to hear an actual plan for the Middle East from you. OSAMA's reasons for hating the US originally stemmed from US Bases in Saudi Arabia and his subsequent exile. There are a slew of other things in the West that he hates. Trying to blame us for 9/11 indirectly because the Saudis asked us for bases is pretty lacking as a justification. If we are going on the 'financing' of regiemes, just put the better part of Europe in as well. Many of them have sold military weapons and vehicles to those in the Middle East and around the world. To act as though this is an 'exclusive' thing for us which makes us an 'empire' is compeletely ignoring the fact that just about every other country out there has the same power to do these sorts of things. We aren't in an age of Empires anymore. We are in an age of Superpowers. Some are more powerful than others, but there are many out there with that power. Please, move on to the 21st century. Or even the 20th. Just like Abu Gharib, right? What makes you think that all of the claims at Gitmo, are thus fabircated? Again, refer to the links I posted to get a bet understanding of what kind of reality we're talking about in this world of "good vs. evil". But go ahead and continue to be spoon-fed the same old rhetoric. I'd say this sums up the recent Amnesty/Conservative issue quite well: Perhaps if it weren't a documented part of their training to smear their captors, it'd be a little easier to believe. But considering that they are specifically told to accuse the US of this stuff no matter what so as to raise an uproar in the Arab world, it kinda comes into doubt, especially when there are so many unconfirmed accounts that could easily be bullshit.

YES! The score is perhaps the greatest of all time. The opening theme sets it all and it just goes up from there. My personal favorites: The Asteroid Field and Duel of the Fates. On the Organa thing, I wrote something on another board about this, and I'll just repost it here.