Interesting Stories

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
Post Reply
BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Interesting Stories

Post by BainbridgeShred » 08 Jun 2009 19:22

There's been two storie's in the media recently (One far more than the other) that have aroused my slight interest (One far more than the other).

Sometime after September 11th, six Bosnian men were arrested on request from the US government. The reason given for the arrest, which was originally thrown out by the Bosnian courts for "total lack of evidence", was that the six had been involved in a plot to blow up the US embassy in Sarajevo. Again, this was thrown out by the I'm sure outstanding Serbian courts, until the US threatened to close its embassy and pull out its peace keeping forces from the country. Yes, this being the same Serbia that saw one of the two worst genocides of the 90's, until Clinton bombed the fuck out of it.

Unwilling to defy the Americans (Clinton bombed the fuck out of them) the men were arrested and put on trial, undergoing a thorough investigation into their entire lives. No evidence was produced. The Bosnian supreme court again ruled that they be released. Rumors started circulating that they would be seized anyways, and a riot/protest broke out outside the prison in Sarajevo. Using tear gas the crowd was disperesed and the men were taken into US hands early in the morning.

After this, all charges of an attempt to blow up an embassy were dropped, and they were instead charged with planning to travel to Afghanistan to fight there.

Now, as you can conjure, the men were all Bosnian Muslims, who had come to the country in the 90's to fight in the war. Afterwards they had been granted citizenship, fucked Bosnian women and had carmel children. Some of them worked for a charity called the "Red Crescent" which from what I tell is the equivilent of the Red Cross.

Anyways, they got sent to Guantanamo. And Guantanamo has always been a interesting place to me. For a long time I assumed that the worst going on their was a little water boarding, a little sleep deprivation, maybe a few trained Dobermann's. From the reports of these men and others before them, the waterboarding was actually having a hose shoved in you mouth until the water filled your nose and throat so as you couldn't breathe; the sleep deprivation lasted for 16 days; and detainee's were frequently mauled by vicious Iberian Lynx. Just kidding on the last one.

But Guantanamo also interests me for other reasons. Why didn't Fidel overrun that shit when he had the chance? What a pussy bitch. Someone fill me in. Was he worried Kennedy would bomb the fuck out of him? I doubt he would have.

Anyways, these guys were eventually released by a US judge after 7, count them, 7 fucking years of Guantanamo. And like I said earlier, I've already learned that my once held view of what went on at Guantanamo to be incorrect. Whether it is honestly worse than what goes on in general population of a United States federal prison is debateable, but that is irrelevent. Walking out of that bitch after seven years would definitely leave you with some damage. What it reminds me of, in hindsight, is how Guantanamo is portrayed in the Harold and Kumar movie, sandwiches and all.

Which got me thinking about another reference to that movie which now seems fitting. Who the fuck in the US government is calling the shots to pull these 6 men off the street? Is Rob Cordry actually running the show at Homeland security? Is a movie with an amazing bottomless-party scene really a forsight into what truely went down?

Because it gets to another credit that I earlier gave to the US government after September 11th. A credit that one of these 6 men even said he understood, "had his detention" been a month, two months, not SEVEN FUCKING YEARS. He also says in five of the seven years of his detention, he was not once asked to speak on any terrorist plot that he was supposedly involved with.

But the credit that I gave to the government in wake of what happened, was the credit that any intelligent person knows and has known for years: The United States is an empire and when empires get hit they strike back.
This theory was tested in the least exciting sequel to a pretty epic trilogy.

And now, don't get all whiney because I said the US is an empire. In the history of dominant empires (And I'm talking top dog empires, not the Bailiwick of some shitty desert serfdom) the US takes the cake for being the most decent. And no, don't go bringing up examples to the contrary, because I don't care and I'm just saying that to make a point anyways. USA!

But back to the original question of how this apparent lapse in decency and intelligence occured in the US government, to hijack 7 years of these mens lives. I have a few propsitions:

1. Evidence (How substantial I have no idea) may suggest that one of these men was actually planning on doing something. Maybe 6 got rounded up for the sins of 1.
2. A consistently reliable source falsely accused these men for reasons or motivations unknown. In wake of September 11th, and with nut jobs for government officials, they weren't going to take a chance. I wouldn't downplay the possibility that Bush was centrally focused (For reasons of legacy) on preventing another attack.
3. A source correctly accused the men, and they are all guilty playing the victim now to debase the United States. This seems unlikely, given the complete lack of evidence and the numerous trials these men have now encountered.
4. The US is the leading proponent in the New World Order (Does anyone remember WCW ;) ) and for some incromprehensible, pointless, blunder of a power trip, snatched these men up just for the fuck of it.
5. Rob Cordy is running Homeland Security.

If you have any other reasons you can think of, suggest.

Either way, it doesn't answer the central question of why, for seven years, with no evidence-and haebus corpus moot- did these Serbian charity workers have their lives taken from them. And in regards to point 4, if you really believe in all the conspiracy theory shit then you'd have to figure that this was some action of the one world government. The only question is, why would they make such a boneheaded move. If these people are the top brass, they would realize it would be better suited for whatever plan they are hatching up to wait and spring their trap on the people of the world in one foul swoop. Why a test run of six Serbian's?



Now you're wondering. Why is it called "Interesting Stories", why the plural Dan? Well, the reason is that their is another story that has been in the media a lot lately (Certainly more than the tale I just spun above), about 2 pretty Asian-American women who had been filming a documentary on the border region between China and North Korea. Intentionally or not, they crossed over the border-river, and were arrested by the North Korean's sometime later. Today they were sentenced to 12 years hard labor.

The response from US politician's has been viceral. Al Gore and Bill Richardson have already offered their services to mediate. Hillary Clinton is enraged.

But my question is, what the fuck were these fools doing crossing into North Korea. You know what happens if a Korean tries to cross into the US illegaly? Well, it isn't twelve years labor, but they do get their asses tossed out. And that's only the letter of the law that isn't enforced in the slightest.

But Dan, they were filming a documentary, they wanted to show the plight of the border people. We have a responsibility to show their plight, so a handful of artsie fartsies can watch and not give a shit. So Euna Lee and Laura Ling can say they accomplished something. I feel and relate to their urge to want to do something powerful, but this was another boneheaded move, of the same proportion of the US government stealing away the lives of five-six assumed honorable, pious monotheists (Rhyme time baby).

And regardless of the point that they were trying to expose the plight of the North Korean's, because to what end? Their own government is doing the same thing. Make a documentary about that you selfish fucks. Just because your Korean you get arrested for your cause, despite prior repeated warnings from the North Korean government of what would happen if tyou crossed the river. When the six men were held for seven years and you didn't speak up? Even Condaleeza Rice spoke up for them. You didn't say shit. And now you're only good for shoveling gravel 16 hours a day for twelve years. A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

And no one even knows about the first story. No one knows so no one really cares. The great marriage of money and Democracy, no media outlet is going to give this the time they're giving two pretty Korean girls. Why would they? People care about pretty girls, not beared Serbian Muslims. Frankly, I don't think the Serbian's give a fuck about you either, except to hate you for voting in the people who robbed them of their freedom in a gross over-reaction to the death of 3,000 people. How fucking unfortunate of a world we live in.

Besides, a "great" US general was the one who created this mess, against the protest of a great American president. MacArthur (Who my Grandpa actually worked for personally in Tokyo after the war) created the North Korean state by making the same mistakes Euna Lee and Laura Ling made: Crossing too many a river.

So yes, a very strategically sound American general created the North Korean state partially out of a genuine and intelligent fear of communism, and partially for his own great pride (He wanted war with China a few years after WW2. This was a man afterall with the comb-over as perfected as his amphibious assault; who had photographers kneel before him to take pictures as to appear taller. My Grandpa was a stern dude who I'm sure clashed with MacArthur's love of himself, and I wonder if his height of 6'6 didn't increase the bitterness between them.)

But really, why the fuck are American's concerned with North Korea. I mean I understand what's at stake now that we've created this mess with our sometimes well-meant, capitalism driven colonial ways, but I don't think the government should protest this. If the North Korean's really did warn the girls repeatedly of what the consequences were, then let's respect the sovierngty of their little Bailiwick hermit state with their serf's and their honorable mad-man Bailif ruler. It's time we start worrying about the men the government we vote in, not that dumpy chronic masturbator-dictator (When I drop it when I drop I just can't stop it) an ocean away, whose serfdom we and the Chinese created by not cornering the NKA after Inchon, while being careful not to drag in China.

But it gets to the heart of something that's been happening in the West since sometime after WW2. It had been there looong before that, but it's increased since then. And with no genuine wolrd threat to arm ourselves against anymore (And don't give me the Islamo-Facists laugh laugh) we've gone a bit batshit trigger happy. Atleast, that's what we've allowed our government to do in the name of our safety, so we can continue living our lives through our favorite characters on TV (Mine's Lamar Odom when he's playing like he did last night).

Something that my brother has said before, something that I agree with at times, is that he understands why Al-Qaeda does what they do. Of course my brother (Who goes back to Iraq in two months) is saying it for laughs, and also because no one in their right minds wants women in veils, but their hatred for us is a valid one. If the Ancient Hebrew's saw us (Or Israel for that matter), they'd be flying planes into our buildings too. The problem is that people interpret the ancient texts of a banished, hated, chased, villified people (The Ancient Hebrews) and think that some of their less humanistic acts were righteous. Fools don't understand why Moses could kill when he had to but also gave "Thou shall not kill" as his first commandment. People don't understand how his sucsessor Joshua could be even more brutal. But as you've learned, if you've come this far with me dear reader, people dont care to understand a lot of things. Like how detractors take away from what Moses or Abraham did by pointing to his mistakes, and not understanding the position that he and his people were in. People don't understand that it was a good thing (Historically) that Moses preached what was shown to him, and how the positive foundations that the world is run on today sprung from the ideas of his word and his peoples book.

Now, listen the fuck up because I'm gonna end soon. America is not the threatened, harrased, enslaved, solitary nation that Israel was when Moses was marching his thousands of hungry through the desert to the land that God gave them (To be fairly reconquered later by the Caananites, due to Israel's own wickedness) We do not need to be killing in the name of our God, because if their's one thing, maybe even the first thing God doesn't want us to do, it's kill. Killing is the taking away of the freedom that God gave to us to live our lives on this Earth. It's worse than taking seven or twelve years from someone's history and torturing them or making them work.

AMERICA. EUROPE. WHITE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. Recapture your culture. The culture of the Hebrews. Stop meddling in the affairs of others, where your greed, the greed that can also stimulate amazing progress at home, only creates problems for your country.

Salaam Alaikum
Image

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 08 Jun 2009 19:23

Yeah, that was longer than intended. But if you're gonna read some of it read it all the way through, I promise I atleast try to tie it all together at the end.

GO LAKERS
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 08 Jun 2009 22:31

You probably need to spend more time researching the things you're writing about, however I think I agree with some of your sentiment.

Certainly it seems to me to have been a ridiculous failing of the West in dealing with terrorism to not just respond to using the current laws that existed prior to 9/11. We obviously can only speculate but it's hard to see much benefit from the approach they did take over following the initial laws. The people who were arrested without evidence are now being released and compensated. The people who were arrested because they actually committed real crimes would have been charged anyway. Killing people and blowing things up, or even plotting to do it, has always been a crime.

The West should also certainly choose to follow these laws overseas, even if they don't have to. Surely our laws are the law because we believe following those is the right way to behave. That must mean that we believe not following our laws is the wrong way to behave. Therefore we must believe that following actions that would be illegal in our countries in countries where it's no illegal is still morally wrong. If it's not morally wrong, we should change our laws so that in the circumstances where breaking those laws is permissible, it's legal as well, and stop with this farcical situation of renditions and foreign jails.

Regarding North Korea - yep those journalists are fucking idiots. Imagine going in to a country like that without doing any research to make sure you don't get arrested. They are stupid people who will probably get freed soon but at a price to the efforts from the Western world in dealing with North Korea, and that will ultimately hurt the North Korean people. They're obviously too stupid to understand this, and will spend the rest of their lives thinking that they're martyrs for free press.

But the solution to these issues, and the greater issues surrounding them is certainly no isolationism. You only need to look at the history of the US in the 20th Century (especially in the World Wars) to see that isolationism is an impossible policy in the world today. I don't know what the solution is, except I'm sure a big part of it is in trying to win supporters through aid and good will, not killing their enemies. Of course it has to be effective aid, and that's a super complicated issue. Clearly long term strategic thinking is necessary.

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 08 Jun 2009 22:56

You probably need to spend more time researching the things you're writing about, however I think I agree with some of your sentiment.
I find it out of the range of the proable to believe if you did fine factual fault in some of the things I wrote, that you would refrain from commenting. But really, if you do have a bone to pick pick it that's why I posted this here and not in my own head.

You're right though that some of my information about the six men and the two women might be wrong, but as of now details are hard to come by on both stories.

Glad to see someone agree's with me on the journalists though. I really didn't even think about the effect this will have on actual relations between the two countries.

And I never called for isolationism. Me being an isolationist is actually kind of a funny notion given some of my past positions. I simply don't think we should get involved militarily in tribal issues that have been raging for millenia (Which is essentially what most conflicts we have today deduce to).
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 09 Jun 2009 17:09

Well my quibbles with your facts were fairly trivial, I didn't think it was necessary to go in to details. It was more that I thought you missed the depth of the issues than were wrong about anything in particular. I don't really want to write out a long analysis of US foreign policy, especially in the Balkans. There are a few good books about it though.
I simply don't think we should get involved militarily in tribal issues that have been raging for millenia
I'm guessing you're exaggerating about the millennia, but which conflicts are you talking about? The US involvement in Bosnia was really spurred by the specifics of what was occurring at the time, and I think most people would agree that some kind of international response was necessary. Certainly a great of deal of strategy and politics was also involved (ie. trying to protect Muslims there so as to gain favour with different Muslims in different countries). While that conflict certainly has origins from its Soviet past, it really was the events that occurred in the 90s that should be seen as the primary cause.

Of course Afghanistan and Iraq are conflicts that, even if you look at the origins, have strong connections to the US and the US must bear some responsibility for the situations in those countries, even prior to the post 9/11 wars.

I would argue that in all three cases the US definitely should have been involved with those conflicts (unless, perhaps, we're talking about the decisions they made in the 40s and 50s), although I'd also argue that their approach was far from ideal. I hope the US continues to play a serious role in international affairs, but also that it starts doing so in an intelligent and compassioante manner, rather than being primarily concerned with their military strength.

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 12 Jun 2009 11:35

Well my quibbles with your facts were fairly trivial, I didn't think it was necessary to go in to details. It was more that I thought you missed the depth of the issues than were wrong about anything in particular. I don't really want to write out a long analysis of US foreign policy, especially in the Balkans. There are a few good books about it though.
Well considering the last book I read on the Balkan's had to do with Justinian's influence, I probably wouldn't disagree. Then again, when in my original post did I try to go into depth about US foriegn policy in the Balkans? That wasn't anything close to what I was going for.

The US involvement in Bosnia was really spurred by the specifics of what was occurring at the time, and I think most people would agree that some kind of international response was necessary. Certainly a great of deal of strategy and politics was also involved (ie. trying to protect Muslims there so as to gain favour with different Muslims in different countries). While that conflict certainly has origins from its Soviet past, it really was the events that occurred in the 90s that should be seen as the primary cause.
Uhm, well the US has only been around for 200 years so I don't think my point was that they we had been dragged in on some tribal bias towards one side or the other. But Jerome, if want to accept all the humanitarian benefits of the war, that's great; but keep your mouth shut next time the US kidnaps 6 presumed innocent men, because that's what all the benefits come with. All this talk from you about our responsibility to intervene in conflicts seems very short sighted and idealistic too me.
I would argue that in all three cases the US definitely should have been involved with those conflicts (unless, perhaps, we're talking about the decisions they made in the 40s and 50s),
Exactly, but at some point we're going to have to realize that we're not going to get the 40's or 50's back (Or the 1890's for that matter) and stop giving a fuck about stupid little conflicts that don't benefit us to get involved in. It may be easier for an Australian in a nanny state to want to step in the middle of every conflict, but when America is the one shouldering the burden every single time, it not only leads to mismanagement, but a raw deal for the people of my country. I see the cost of needless intervention everytime I walk through downtown Seattle.

And I put most of the blame on every western nation who slashed it's military budget over the last 60 years, giving the US a complete monopoly of power.
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 14 Jun 2009 17:26

1. There are more choices than; Take military action and abuse human rights or take no action.

2. America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. If people are living in poverty, it's not because of the money you're spending on the military - it's because of the way your government distributes wealth.

3. There are plenty of military interventions going on around the world that don't involve the US. Sudan, DRC, East Timor, Solomon Islands, Fiji, etc. The largest conflict in the world since WW2 is going on in the DRC, and there is a large international force trying to bring peace to the region, with no US troops.

4. America has found it increasingly difficult to get support for each military campaign it enters since WW2. The reason for this is primarily their poor strategy, especially in choosing force as their main weapon. Why is the US using cluster bombs in Iraq when bombing civilian areas? Why were the only buildings they protected at the invasion of Baghdad the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Oil? Why did they give so many weapons away to Israel after the Gulf War and why don't they demand that their weapons not be used to directly target civilians. Why is their first response to accidental targeting of civilians to lie about it, rather than trying to bring about justice?

Good intentions aren't enough. All those issues I've brought up would be easily rectifiable by the US, and wouldn't cost more money. The reason the US has so little international support going to war these days is because although most nations would agree in principle with the military intervention, they don't want their force being linked with civilians casualties and being hated by the people of those countries. Iraq and Afghanistan have worsened the US' position in the Middle East and rather than being welcomed or supported by the local population, they're hated because of their heavy handed and indiscriminate tactics. It would be merely speculation to say that the people would have been better off without those invasions, but it's a reality to say that they feel that way.

Post Reply