Pastor Terry Jones as a representative of American actions and values

Discussion in 'World Events' started by S.A.M., Apr 2, 2011.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I'll be happy to reassign the blame for all the problems resident in the Afghan occupation to where it really belongs - feel free to expound on who you think is really responsible for DynCorp running child prostitution rings with impunity

    No this thread is about Terry Jones as a representative of American actions and values. It is about the symbolic Terry Jones, the image vs the reality. Although its clear from most responses that people have not understood the OP.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I don't get it. I don't see much difference between what it was Michael had pointed out and the two articles linked by Quad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Ok. That's just an amazing statement there...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Here you go. Can see the gratefulness in the Afghan child's face?
    She was injured in a 2009 airstrike on 3 Taliban-held villages that apparently killed 147 civilians, according to Afghan officials:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html

    We are at war there, Mr Michael. War is a gods' awfully ugly thing.
    Maybe those getting rich off the occupation want us there, but I doubt the majority want dangerous armed groups of foreigners in their country.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    What about civilian casualties due to suicide bombing? Do you have pictures of those too?

    A deluge of data arrived last year from WikiLeaks, the organization that has made public thousands of classified documents. It includes the raw observation of casualties by soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, but the many unknowns surrounding those reports have left researchers puzzled about how to interpret them. A few independent organizations, including the United Nations, have published their own reports on civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but only for illustrating broad trends. The data underlying their reports have never been released.

    For the first time, those data are now publicly available. In January, ISAF provided Science with a database of civilian casualties called CIVCAS. It is the military's internal record of the death and injury of Afghan civilians, broken down by month, region, weaponry, and perpetrator. By its reckoning, 2537 civilians were killed and 5594 were wounded over the past 2 years, with 12% of those casualties attributed to ISAF forces and the rest to insurgents. The death toll is 93% identical to that in the WikiLeaks data, revealing those raw field observations to be far more reliable than researchers had suspected.


    In February, after learning that the military was releasing these data, both the UN and an Afghan human rights organization agreed to release versions of their own civilian casualty data to Science. They show twice as many civilians killed over the same period, including 393 deaths by air strikes that were not counted in the military database. ISAF officials acknowledge the gap. “The civilian casualties reported by the UN have always been higher than those reported by ISAF,” says U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the director of communications for NATO based in Kabul. “But the trends have been very consistent.”

    Science assembled a team of experts to analyze the released data sets. They conclude that while the war has grown deadlier for Afghan civilians over the past 2 years—up to 20% more civilians were killed in 2010 compared with the year before—ISAF has become a safer fighting force. The majority of deaths, and nearly all of the recent increase, are attributed to indiscriminate attacks by insurgents rather than ISAF soldiers. In spite of a troop surge and the launch of new operations against the Taliban last year, the data provided by the UN show a 26% drop in civilian deaths caused by military forces. And both the UN and ISAF data sets show a drop in deaths due to air strikes last year, by 50% and 10%, respectively.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256.full


    A great deal of attacks against civilians are by insurgents, this was true too in Iraq. You could argue that those insurgents wouldn't be active if there were not foreign troops on the ground but by and large insurgents kill more of their own than they do the 'intruder'.
     
  8. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Mrs Lucy, I was responding to Michael's statement that the Afghans were glad we were there.

    Because it just gobsmacked me.

    So I...wanted to jar him a bit, perhaps?

    Maybe some of them are glad we're there, and not for the money. The Talibs were absolutely no treat. The warlords aren't either.

    But that does not change the fact that we're still a bunch of jumpy strangers with armaments...an accidental shooting or bombing waiting to happen. And it does regularly. I appreciate that the insurgents probably care less about this, I appreciate that our civilian casualty rate has gone down.

    But I still don't think anybody's going to be really entirely happy about a war being fought in their home.
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I'll give you a hint..

    Paedophilia is not sanctioned in the religion as Michael claimed, nor is it acceptable in Afghanistan (as it is illegal both under Sharia Law and under their Civil Code). Nor is it in the general culture, otherwise we wouldn't have had so few reports of it - considering the sheer number of journalists in Afghanistan during the course of the war, one would have imagined someone would have picked up on it sooner before the supposed 'expose'.


    If we were to use Michael's style of debate, one could say that paedophilia is culturally acceptable in the US when one looks at the Christian Churches and how so few priests have been charged and how the Catholic leadership, for example, not only hides paedophiles but protects them from the law.. But that would be wrong because we all know it is not culturally acceptable in the Catholic community in the US or elsewhere, no matter how many priests are raping children.



    Which is another issue altogether really.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2011
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Bells

    Micheal referred to this as 'Afghan pedophilia' and says its 'Islamically sanctioned'.

    Wiki refers to it as "The practice of bacha bazi is one form of pederasty in the Muslim world. In pre-modern Islam there was a "widespread conviction that beardless youths possessed a temptation to adult men as a whole, and not merely to a small minority of deviants." In Sufi teachings, in particular, pederasty is presented as a way towards communion with the divine."

    The other article explains it like this: "Many of the Pashtuns interviewed allow "that homosexuality is indeed prohibited within Islam, warranting great shame and condemnation. However, homosexuality is then narrowly and specifically defined as the love of another man. Loving a man would therefore be unacceptable and a major sin within this cultural interpretation of Islam, but using another man for sexual gratification would be regarded as a foible -undesirable but far preferable to sex with a ineligible woman"

    I really don't see any real difference in what Michael had to say and what is expounded upon in those two links save that 'islamically sanctioned' may be a stretch, however if we said that pedophilia was sanctioned by the catholic church we would immediately understand that although it would not be sanctioned by the teaching of the church it was and has been quietly sanctioned, yet we would never take that statement to amount to 'hate speech'. So why is it in the other instance?
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    That child and her family are certainly NOT grateful. While such is truly sad, it still doesn't speak for the majority of Afghans who understand it was unintentional. That little child was not targeted by the USA. This is juxtapose to the Taliban position. The Taliban actually send suicide bombers to purposely target women and children.

    Do you see the difference?

    Anyway, the USA has taken the approach that building hospitals, schools for girls, roads and infrastructure will lead to longer term rehabilitation of the country and stability in the region.

    Afghanistan has some small strategic importance to the USA as a route by which an oil pipe will run. That's about it. That said, the USA will build that pipe line. We will remain in Afghanistan until a time when we decide to leave. There's not a damn thing anyone is going to do about that.

    I wonder if you get that?

    Oh, don't make the mistake that "I" want the USA in Afghanistan. I don't - it's a waste of money and not worth Citizens lives. The country isn't a threat. But, we don't make these decisions do we? The USA will remain in Afghanistan until our energy needs are met.


    Lastly, whether you want to acknowledge reality or not is really up to you. But the simple fact of the mater is there is much more positive outcomes relative to negative. And like it or not, Afghanistan was a narco State run by psychotic Theocratic despots prior to our invasion. If it weren't us, it would have been China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran. One way or another, Afghanistan (akin to your local heroin addict and trouble maker) was in for a reckoning. Maybe it was Karma. They probably shouldn't have blown up those 2500 year old statues of Buddha. As they say: Karma's a Bitch.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Of course not. And, maybe with the help of the USA and AU, they will have an opportunity to live in a secure and peaceful environment. Maybe they'll be responsible and stop selling 90% of the world's heroin? Maybe they'll get paid a little for having a pipe line (like Belarus)? Let's hope things work out for the best for them and they develop into a functioning secular democracy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2011
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Not really. Not when someone takes a picture of a injured child and then uses it to frame what that victim is grateful or not grateful for. If the wounds had occurred by insurgents would the victim be anymore grateful? No. Most polls show that Afghans are sick of US troop presence but I would wonder how many polls would dare to ask them how they feel about violence inflicted by insurgents. I'm sure the results would be the same.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    25% of global child sex tourism is by Americans - does this mean pedophilia is an American predilection? Should we assume that since so many sex tourists are Americans - that this is a culturally sanctioned activity in the US?

    Anyway the issue is not how many Americans are privately bonking kids vs Afghans, the issue is that at the level of state and government, US citizens who run child prostitution rings [although that is a wrongful description, it should be child rape rings, since there cannot be the issue of consent by a 12 year old to sexual acts by ageing American contractors] are not held accountable for these criminal acts.
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    If it was culturally sanctioned in the US they wouldn't be going to developing and third world nations where there is easier access to children who are not as well protected. Get it? That's why they are leaving the US to engage in the act which was Micheal's point all along.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Actually, that depends on the positions of Afghans as a whole. I don't recall any polls being posted so far: what's the general stance?

    Maybe not: but then when the Taliban returns and engages in absolute misogyny and religious bigotry/fascism, we should feel no compunction to help them. And we should prevent all human and philosophical traffic from Afghanistan (and Afghans) to ensure that such attitudes remain there.


    Whoa whoa whoa: at the least he can cite the State Department; they might or might not be complicit. It's a big place. But let's ease off here.
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    And yet clearly you've missed S.A.M's
     
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    This is worthy of a thread in and of itself. Is this an effect of Disney sexualizing pre-treens in order sell sexualized clothing and other crap made in China to easily impressionable American children? Is it the average number of pedophiles in any given society and because Americans are rich they can afford to be a sex tourist and are caught doing so? Are we including the Yemeni who was divorced from his 12 bride as a pedophile? The girls father as a trafficer? Or are they something other than?

    IMO Sex Tourists probably do deserve a category of their own.


    Eitherway, I'm certainly not going to shy away from the topic. I'm not going to get bent out of shape at the insinuation. If this is the case, it needs to be addressed. If Americans made up a quarter of known pedo sex tourists (still an extremely small overall number of Americans) then we need to do something to stop that. And, actually, we are. Our State Department works closely with officials in SE Asia and SA to arrest sex tourists. Pedophilia, has to my knowledge, never been an accepted practice in America. Unlike other cultures --- where what we think of as pedophiles is or was culturally acceptable - such as the example I gave of Christian London in the pre-1800s and Polytheistic Greece in the pre-200BC through much of Pax Romana.

    Please note to any Christians Londoners and Polytheistic Greeks. I only make note of this as a Historical example. If you would prefer to rewrite History so as to fit our modern Western view of the world, well, maybe we should do so? No sense trying to learn from history if it's going to make us up upset. Much better to live in a delusion..... a happy delusion..... a hapillusion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    AmeriKKKa Bad, Bad, Bad. Me Good. Oh, I'd like a BigMac with my McLatte thank you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2011
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Of course they are. We kill their civilians and bring in pimps to kidnap and turn their children into sex slaves and prostitutes. Who wouldn't be thankful?

    Michael, you can think whatever you like.

    What you post here however has to adhere to this site's rules. If they do not, then yes, you will face sanctions, whether you like it or not or whether you put me on your ignore list or not.

    Let me make one thing very clear to you. Administrators and moderators alike think you should have been banned and the ban would have been a lengthy one. Not just myself or what you deem to be my 'bent nose from another thread'. But we are giving you another chance, since one suggested we try something different with you. So this is your last chance so to speak.

    Really?

    The UN passed laws to make your presence there legal? Is that what you believe?

    The invasion itself went against the UN Charter, if you really must know and no, they never passed any laws to make the invasion of Afghanistan itself legal. Quite the contrary. The invasion itself went against Article 51 because Al Qaeda was not a State, and the UN never authorised Bush's "Operation Enduring Freedom". It was 2 months after the US led invasion of Afghanistan that the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1386, which established the International Security Assistance Force, which has now been handed over to NATO and no, it does not allow for an indefinite presence, quite the contrary, they have definite end dates.

    But at no time did the UN change laws to allow for the invasion of Afghanistan. The UNSC never authorised the initial invasion of the country.

    As I have stated to you previously Michael, you can think whatever you like. What you post here, however, has to adhere to the rules of this site. If they do not, then you will face sanctions from the moderators and administrators of this site. Them's be the rules.

    So I don't really care who you vote for, or if you think that Afghani's should be thankful to you and other Americans and Australians for being there or whatever. You either adhere to the rules of this site or face moderation. Up to you.

    Refer to above.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Well according to what Michael has posted here, they like us and want us there and they should be thanking us for being there, etc. However:


    In January 2009, an independent analysis by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington D.C. found that "the majority of Afghans are now deeply opposed to the foreign troops on their soil" and that the presence of a foreign occupier in Afghanistan is the single most important factor behind the Afghan insurgency.

    (Source)


    So who do you believe is more accurate?

    Spoken like a true Westerner.

    Firstly, we felt no compunction to help them when the Taliban were engaging in absolute misogyny and religious bigotry and facism, which went on for years and years. Secondly, we do try to prevent all human and philosophical traffic from Afghanistan (in Australia at least, we lock up all Afghan refugees for years and years in detention centres before sending them back).

    So tell me, what exactly would be different in your opinion?

    I would suggest you stay out of it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Michael knows exactly where we stand on this issue, I can assure you. That has been made clear to him by myself and others. So do not fret. It is up to Michael how he posts on here. We can only request that he posts within the rules of this site. If he knowingly and openly chooses not to, then yes, he will face sanctions.

    But both would amount to hate speech.

    It isn't Islamically sanctioned, as it is forbiden in Islamic law and in civil codes. Michael was very clear by what he meant and how he worded it.
     
  20. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    I think China could-not militarily, mind...they could just threaten to dump our T-bills at once...although actually doing it would hurt them, they might decide they were willing to take the hit.

    Quite frankly, nobody's mentioned that China, Pakistan and India would seem to make closer customers for an Afghan gas pipeline...maybe China's leadership looked at Afghanistan's combination of horrible terrain and extreme politics and said "Nah, not touching that."

    For myself...a good part of why I did not want us to go into Afghanistan...and if we went, did not want us to stay...was a purely strategic one.

    It's nightmare terrain has been and will always be where invading armies go to die. I understand the southern mountain chains' name, "Hindu Kush" translates as "Killer of Hindus."
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Afghanistan - Graveyard of Empires.
     
  22. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Ayuh, prolly ours too.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And the media is along for the ride..

    "In the US Army manual on counterinsurgency, the American commander General David Petraeus describes Afghanistan as a "war of perception... conducted continuously using the news media". What really matters is not so much the day-to-day battles against the Taliban as the way the adventure is sold in America where "the media directly influence the attitude of key audiences". "


    http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/why-are-wars-not-being-reported-honestly

     

Share This Page