6 ms·

>>somehow the US government is finding it even easier to erode civil liberties now than it ever did during the Cold War. Iran is probably the worst country on

by berntb 14y ago

>>somehow the US government is finding it even easier to erode civil liberties now than it ever did during the Cold War. Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism. Consider that democracies in general seems to go crazy when they have active terrorism problems and throw out human rights and the law book. E.g. Germany, USA, Israel, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, etc. (The only exception afaik is India.) It is logical because the whole point with terror is to scare civilians -- and politicians wants to be elected again. They have to solve terror problems, no matter what. You don't have to like this, in fact no one except companies earning money doing security likes it. All choices in the real world also has disadvantages, even democracy.

jbattle 14y ago
I don't think it's as simple as "Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism." Every powerful country uses violence to advance it's political goals. Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries, publicly expressing varying amounts of regret.
- berntb 14y ago
  The parallel comment by salimmadjd has a point about Pakistan maybe being even worse than Iran, when it comes to terror support (I do doubt that Saudi A as a country is worse). I might stand corrected, there. >>Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    > To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that. Democracies generally try not to publicize doing that. Unless it's done with drones apparently, then you brag about it.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      Link to a democracy bragging about intentionally targeting a civilian?
      - freshhawk 14y ago
        That was a reference to the fact that the election related PR is focused around Obama being tough, having a kill list that he oversees and the successful drone strikes against "militants". Because the definition of militant explicitly includes civilians in the area surrounding the targets and this was recently highly publicized I tied the two together in a flippant comment. But I suspect you knew that already and now want to argue about the US use of drones. I'll save you the time, it's terrorism dressed in Orwellian doublespeak and it's pointless to have internet arguments about it.
        berntb 14y ago
        The war laws are specifying when/how you can risk civilians -- there will always be dead civilians in a war, you are required to try to minimise that. If you would want to be serious (somehow I doubt it), either (a) argue against the war laws or (b) argue that usa breaks them. Note that in this case, the terrorists target civilians and seem to use their own civilians as shields. You have no problem with that?
  - Cadsby 14y ago
    You are leaving out a rather glaring example. Neither atomic bomb, dropped by the one and only country ever to use them, were dropped on military targets. The "Democracies" of the world kill many innocent civilians, an order of magnitude in fact than any terrorist related event if you really want to compare the two. Not because the people running them are cartoonishly evil or anything, it simply reflects the massive imbalance of military power between us and whoever the terrorist are supposed to be. It's cloaked in talk of noble intentions and euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. I doubt it makes a difference to the populations affected whether they were an intentional target, or the gps on the smart bomb that just leveled your house glitched out.
    - berntb 14y ago
      I wrote: To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war Got the answer: "kill many innocent civilians" Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. Then, someone isn't morally right by being weaker, so different strength have nothing to do with it. The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. And so on. I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(
      - Cadsby 14y ago
        > Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality. While it's an aspect worth considering, I don't find it as nearly as persuasive as you seem to. Many military actions are undertaken knowing full well the result with be civilian causalities, often many, and they are done anyway. Like I said earlier, I don't think your distinction means much to the victims whether they were intentional targets or not. > The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, Uh, not really. It's still within living memory for many. And I think highly pertinent when discussing current issues of nuclear weapons/proliferation. > 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. I didn't get into those aspects in the interest of brevity, and because it veers a bit too off topic. I have considered them all at length, and ultimately find them unconvincing from a moral standpoint. Also notice how any actions taken by our society, or those representing it, immediately become complex and a hundred shades of grey. I'm sure those supporting acts of terrorism make similar rationales. No one buys it in that case, and I think we should be highly skeptical when our leaders seek to justify it in ours. > I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-( I'm not sure how to respond to such hyperbole. Everything I've stated is factually true. You can disagree with my interpretation, or the implicit conclusions I've drawn, but labeling it as simplified propaganda is just silly.
salimmadjd 14y ago
>>Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism. Really? Sounds like rewriting the history again. Everything I read pointed 911 to pakistin intelligence and Saudis
- tkahn6 14y ago
  That's a strawman in that 9/11 isn't the only terrorist attack to happen in the 21st century.
  - berntb 14y ago
    Thanks, now I understood what the gp wrote. :-) I have too little experience with conspiracy theories.
nmridul 14y ago
>> Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism. Maybe you want to update your knowledge and find out what is the worst country. You will surprised to see the so calle "best" democracies there. http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/shocking-facts-about-whos-arming-human-rights-abusers-infographic/ http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/shocking-facts-about-whos-armi...
- jwoah12 14y ago
  That link shows what countries are exporting weapons to other countries. This isn't the same as "supporting terrorism," as the parent clearly states. Iran directly supports groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.
ucee054 14y ago
I grew up in London when the IRA were leaving bombs in the trains stations, we didn't have this "throw out rights and laws" nonsense. And Norway didn't go nuts over the Breivik attack either. Oh, and are you aware that Israel backed Jundullah, which is a Pakistani AlQaeda? Command of the facts helps avoid embarrassment.
- berntb 14y ago
  Hello again! Do you still believe in Jewish conspiracies controlling media? Or that T-shirts of some individuals prove something about a heterogeneous country -- and are as bad as official policies in another state?! Ah wait, you refused to touch that "logic" of yours in comment after comment... Breivik was an individual crazy/nazi/xxx. There are hardly realistic threats for more attacks in Norway. I argued about fear of terror, not mourning after one attack. (Edit: It is really fun that you condemn Israel for working with unpleasant groups where they have common interests -- all countries with physical threats do similar things -- but previously refused to criticise similar groups.) And so on, sorry but I can't take you seriously.
- refurb 14y ago
  I'm a little confused. The UK gov't instituted a number of very harsh laws that severely curtailed the rights of UK citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts "This part allowed for the arrest of individuals without a warrant and on reasonable suspicion that they were guilty of an offence under the Act or otherwise "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism""
  - berntb 14y ago
    (I don't think you should have too high expectations of facts and logic from ucee054, at least re politics. :-) ) Thanks for the link, I didn't know the name of the law. Also, there were some ... cough ... controversial interrogation methods in the 70s, until there was too much human rights criticism. Anyway, I'm not an expert on the UK and IRA, but believe/assume part of the inspiration for the wonderful T Gilliam movie "Brazil" came from this.

by berntb 14y ago

jbattle 14y ago

I don't think it's as simple as "Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism." Every powerful country uses violence to advance it's political goals. Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries, publicly expressing varying amounts of regret.

berntb 14y ago
The parallel comment by salimmadjd has a point about Pakistan maybe being even worse than Iran, when it comes to terror support (I do doubt that Saudi A as a country is worse). I might stand corrected, there. >>Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  > To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that. Democracies generally try not to publicize doing that. Unless it's done with drones apparently, then you brag about it.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    Link to a democracy bragging about intentionally targeting a civilian?
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      That was a reference to the fact that the election related PR is focused around Obama being tough, having a kill list that he oversees and the successful drone strikes against "militants". Because the definition of militant explicitly includes civilians in the area surrounding the targets and this was recently highly publicized I tied the two together in a flippant comment. But I suspect you knew that already and now want to argue about the US use of drones. I'll save you the time, it's terrorism dressed in Orwellian doublespeak and it's pointless to have internet arguments about it.
      - berntb 14y ago
        The war laws are specifying when/how you can risk civilians -- there will always be dead civilians in a war, you are required to try to minimise that. If you would want to be serious (somehow I doubt it), either (a) argue against the war laws or (b) argue that usa breaks them. Note that in this case, the terrorists target civilians and seem to use their own civilians as shields. You have no problem with that?
- Cadsby 14y ago
  You are leaving out a rather glaring example. Neither atomic bomb, dropped by the one and only country ever to use them, were dropped on military targets. The "Democracies" of the world kill many innocent civilians, an order of magnitude in fact than any terrorist related event if you really want to compare the two. Not because the people running them are cartoonishly evil or anything, it simply reflects the massive imbalance of military power between us and whoever the terrorist are supposed to be. It's cloaked in talk of noble intentions and euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. I doubt it makes a difference to the populations affected whether they were an intentional target, or the gps on the smart bomb that just leveled your house glitched out.
  - berntb 14y ago
    I wrote: To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war Got the answer: "kill many innocent civilians" Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. Then, someone isn't morally right by being weaker, so different strength have nothing to do with it. The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. And so on. I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(
    - Cadsby 14y ago
      > Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin. You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality. While it's an aspect worth considering, I don't find it as nearly as persuasive as you seem to. Many military actions are undertaken knowing full well the result with be civilian causalities, often many, and they are done anyway. Like I said earlier, I don't think your distinction means much to the victims whether they were intentional targets or not. > The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, Uh, not really. It's still within living memory for many. And I think highly pertinent when discussing current issues of nuclear weapons/proliferation. > 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that. I didn't get into those aspects in the interest of brevity, and because it veers a bit too off topic. I have considered them all at length, and ultimately find them unconvincing from a moral standpoint. Also notice how any actions taken by our society, or those representing it, immediately become complex and a hundred shades of grey. I'm sure those supporting acts of terrorism make similar rationales. No one buys it in that case, and I think we should be highly skeptical when our leaders seek to justify it in ours. > I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-( I'm not sure how to respond to such hyperbole. Everything I've stated is factually true. You can disagree with my interpretation, or the implicit conclusions I've drawn, but labeling it as simplified propaganda is just silly.

salimmadjd 14y ago

>>Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism. Really? Sounds like rewriting the history again. Everything I read pointed 911 to pakistin intelligence and Saudis

tkahn6 14y ago
That's a strawman in that 9/11 isn't the only terrorist attack to happen in the 21st century.
- berntb 14y ago
  Thanks, now I understood what the gp wrote. :-) I have too little experience with conspiracy theories.

nmridul 14y ago

>> Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism. Maybe you want to update your knowledge and find out what is the worst country. You will surprised to see the so calle "best" democracies there. http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/shocking-facts-about-whos-arming-human-rights-abusers-infographic/ http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/shocking-facts-about-whos-armi...

jwoah12 14y ago
That link shows what countries are exporting weapons to other countries. This isn't the same as "supporting terrorism," as the parent clearly states. Iran directly supports groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.

ucee054 14y ago

I grew up in London when the IRA were leaving bombs in the trains stations, we didn't have this "throw out rights and laws" nonsense. And Norway didn't go nuts over the Breivik attack either. Oh, and are you aware that Israel backed Jundullah, which is a Pakistani AlQaeda? Command of the facts helps avoid embarrassment.

berntb 14y ago
Hello again! Do you still believe in Jewish conspiracies controlling media? Or that T-shirts of some individuals prove something about a heterogeneous country -- and are as bad as official policies in another state?! Ah wait, you refused to touch that "logic" of yours in comment after comment... Breivik was an individual crazy/nazi/xxx. There are hardly realistic threats for more attacks in Norway. I argued about fear of terror, not mourning after one attack. (Edit: It is really fun that you condemn Israel for working with unpleasant groups where they have common interests -- all countries with physical threats do similar things -- but previously refused to criticise similar groups.) And so on, sorry but I can't take you seriously.
refurb 14y ago
I'm a little confused. The UK gov't instituted a number of very harsh laws that severely curtailed the rights of UK citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts "This part allowed for the arrest of individuals without a warrant and on reasonable suspicion that they were guilty of an offence under the Act or otherwise "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism""
- berntb 14y ago
  (I don't think you should have too high expectations of facts and logic from ucee054, at least re politics. :-) ) Thanks for the link, I didn't know the name of the law. Also, there were some ... cough ... controversial interrogation methods in the 70s, until there was too much human rights criticism. Anyway, I'm not an expert on the UK and IRA, but believe/assume part of the inspiration for the wonderful T Gilliam movie "Brazil" came from this.