I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I'm saying they should be fingerprinting everyone, and not just doing it to Americans for spite - security is everyone's business. But Brazil has made a national policy out of allowing criminals, ex-nazi's, etc. to live in their country without fear of extradition, so them getting all bent out of shape is frankly hilarious...
"But Brazil has made a national policy out of allowing criminals, ex-nazi's, etc. to live in their country without fear of extradition, so them getting all bent out of shape is frankly hilarious..."
This is also true of the US, it is a haven for WW2 criminals and all kinds of dictators take refuge in the US.
Orwellian is a good word to describe finger-printing, photographing, and whatever else they do to people comming or leaving. Maybe we wouldn't have a problem with terrorists if we weren't harassing muslim nations all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 12 2004, 01:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 12 2004, 01:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is also true of the US, it is a haven for WW2 criminals and all kinds of dictators take refuge in the US. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Such as? The US has pretty lax extradition rules - if you want someone and they're not a US citizen, you'll usually get 'em.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What's the big deal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There isn't one really. Just chatting. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Such as Haitian terrorist Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, one of the leaders of the haitian death squads, who now lives in New-York. Or, it is a known fact that the US governement brought in Nazi scientists after WW2. They let dictator Pervez Musharaf come to the US and be treated like hes some kind of royalty only because he pays lip service to the rhetoric of being "against terrorism".
It is US history since WW2, those who terrorize their people, be it state terrorism or "retail" terrorism, if they are pro-US business type people, they will almost always be supported by US elite political class. To take an example, Jacobo Arbenz was a democratic capitalist president of guatemala in 1954. He tried to nationalize United fruit companys land that they were not using, giving compensation to UF equal to what it claimed it was worth in its tax reports. Well there was a CIA/guatemalan military coup to overthrow the "communists", paving the way to an horrible "civil war" (mostly army people mowing down villages with machine guns) that killed 100,000 people in 40 years.
What you say is valid, but only if you say that american-sponsored (EDIT: or supported) terrorists are not terrorists.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 12 2004, 02:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 12 2004, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Such as Haitian terrorist Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, one of the leaders of the haitian death squads, who now lives in New-York. Or, it is a known fact that the US governement brought in Nazi scientists after WW2. They let dictator Pervez Musharaf come to the US and be treated like hes some kind of royalty only because he pays lip service to the rhetoric of being "against terrorism".
It is US history since WW2, those who terrorize their people, be it state terrorism or "retail" terrorism, if they are pro-US business type people, they will almost always be supported by US elite political class. To take an example, Jacobo Arbenz was a democratic capitalist president of guatemala in 1954. He tried to nationalize United fruit companys land that they were not using, giving compensation to UF equal to what it claimed it was worth in its tax reports. Well there was a CIA/guatemalan military coup to overthrow the "communists", paving the way to an horrible "civil war" (mostly army people mowing down villages with machine guns) that killed 100,000 people in 40 years.
What you say is valid, but only if you say that american-sponsored (EDIT: or supported) terrorists are not terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pervez Musharraf does not live here. Emmanuel "Toto" Constant was actually arrested by the US, but then his extradition was suspended due to human rights advocates saying he would not receive a fair trial in Haiti (an interesting line of defense that Hussein could use!) and President Clinton allowing him to remain here. Do you have any other examples which actually fit the scenario (your whole second paragraph was, well, not exactly relevant)?
Of course I realise that we've held scummy people here as well - when I was a kid there were Nazi's coming out of the woodwork for trials, such as Klaus Barbi. I was just hoping to see you provide sources for once. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Brazil has held, from what I can google, at least several thousand nazi concentration camp officials under state protection and the Israeli's basically had to kidnap them to get them back for trials - I do not know of the US doing such a thing, although you could make quite an argument for Von Braun being something of a war criminal himself thanks to the V-1/V-2 atttacks on London.
The point I am trying to make is that Brazil is the cliche for where to go when you're on the lamb. Having them worry about being fingerprinted is pretty silly, don't you think?
Is there anything to even blow up in Brazil? (that isnt blown up already)
They are just angry because their space program didnt work out. They wanted to buy space parts from us, but we had some security restrictions that offended them. So they went and bought stuff from the Russians. This is just silly backlash, but I dont really mind, the ink sometimes makes my fingers tingle!
<!--QuoteBegin--lolfighter+Jan 11 2004, 10:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jan 11 2004, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's not like this is a huge deal. Photographing surprisingly does NOT steal your soul, and I believe the fingerprints are taken with non-toxic ink. So all it does is take a little of your time and smudge your fingers. Big deal. You may feel slightly odd for getting a treatment commonly reserved for criminals, but so do the brazilians, the vast majority of which are just as innocent as you are. I'm not saying that the measures put into effect in America are bad or detestable, but neither are those in Brazil, being completely identical. The article suggests that those americans who were subjected to the fingerprinting were understanding when they learned the reasons. What's the big deal? Or, for that matter, is it big at all? Is there even a deal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The entire reason this was brought up was because it is only Americans being treated this way in Brazil... It is out of spite and for no other reason. In the US, everyone coming from anywhere but something like 27 countries will be photographed and their fingerprints taken ( mind you with an electronic scanner and not with ink... Come on Brazil, catch up already! ). So if Brazil were actually doing this for a real reason there would not be an issue here... But they were doing it out of spite. So its not a big deal... But it is.
irony: 1. a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. 2. a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity
More like spite: 1. Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate. 2. An instance of malicious feeling. or 1. Ill-will or hatred toward another, accompanied with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart; petty malice; grudge; rancor
"Do you have any other examples which actually fit the scenario (your whole second paragraph was, well, not exactly relevant)?"
My second paragraph is relevant, because not only the perpetrators of massive human rights abuse in guatemala (terrorists, those who use fear and violence as a political tool) were not caught by the US governement, they were trained by the US military at the school of the americas with US taxpayers fund.
I have tons of other example where the US lets in terrorists from all over the world, the Dictator Suharto from Indonesia in 1998 (i think) , Wesley Clark should be apprenhended as a war criminal for the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, but he is a presidential candidate, go figure.
If you want, when i get home, i can get you a list a hundred names long of terrorists who publicly landed on US soil and were not prevented from leaving, much less harassed at all for their crimes.
In canada they even send the police to beat up protesters in 1997 so that Suharto, that bloodthirsty terrorist, wouldnt be importunated by pesky non-polite canadians who think that mass murdering peasants and union activists is morally reprehensible, to say the least.
EDIT: and im not saying youre saying it, but to say emmanuel constant wouldnt have a fair trial is kinda ridiculous, because then, no one who committed atrocities in their own country could be judged there. So if you accept that as valid, no one who commits crime in the US could be judged there because the trial would be "biased"
This is getting off-topic though, maybe i should start a topic named "the double standards in mainstream america on what is considered terrorism" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ehhh, did I already say that I admit to the US housing undesirables, and I was basically pushing you to provide sources to make your argument stronger? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> The problem is that you sound more than a tad biased - saying Wes Clark is a war criminal is like saying FDR is a war criminal for fighting against the Nazi's: it all depends on your point of view. When you get as frothy as this, people just get turned off and think you're not objective enough to bother to listen to. Please feel free to list as many as you like. It doesn't change the fact that Brazil hosts the world's scum on a regular basis and has for a century, nor does it change the fact that we should know when said scum tries to come here from Brazil.
Your second paragraph is not relevant based on your own terms - we were talking about happenings inside of each of these two countries and how they handled scumbag fugitives from justice. You cannot simply start talking about all the other things a country did that were bad and have it considered relevant to the argument at hand.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT: and im not saying youre saying it, but to say emmanuel constant wouldnt have a fair trial is kinda ridiculous, because then, no one who committed atrocities in their own country could be judged there. So if you accept that as valid, no one who commits crime in the US could be judged there because the trial would be "biased" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I served in Haiti - did you? I can tell you that no one is ever going to get a fair trial in Haiti after what that junta did to their people for all those years. In the US (and in many other countries), it is reasonable to assume that no matter how guilty you are, you are going to get a fair trial once you get into court in this day and age. You can splutter and spout out inconsistencies and rare occurences, but by and large the US criminal justice system is one of the fairest in the world, because there are so many checks on it. Haiti on the other hand, would have given him a trial that lasted about 5 minutes without representation or evidence and resulted in his immediate hanging. Which he most assuredly deserved.
You're getting very worked up, and that's a big no-no in here. We want calm cool and clearheaded posting, or things get flamey and we have to put people in timeout. Please don't be that person - you have interesting things to say, so please try to focus on the head and not the heart. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I rapidly think this conversation is denegerating into an America versus rest-of-world (with regards to terroriwm policy) debate. I'm blatently a rest-of-the-word person (with regard to terrorism policy), so I won't say anything more.
Other than people should state what country they live in in their posts, so we can determine whether people's postings contain element(s) of bias/not
"I served in Haiti - did you? I can tell you that no one is ever going to get a fair trial in Haiti after what that junta did to their people for all those years."
So the alternative is letting him get his nice house in brooklyn and leaving him alone? I dont see how this is better than him being judged in Haiti.
I will write a more substancial post when i get home.
And i dont see where im worked up, all im talking about are facts, i got all the sources for what im saying.
"The problem is that you sound more than a tad biased - saying Wes Clark is a war criminal is like saying FDR is a war criminal for fighting against the Nazi's: it all depends on your point of view. When you get as frothy as this, people just get turned off and think you're not objective enough to bother to listen to"
Well thats what a good propaganda system does, when i say "The US governement has been a destroyer of democracy for the last 50 years" people are gonna think that i am not objective enough to bother listen to because the truth is so scarcely spoken, that when someone does, he sounds like a loonie. If you wanna start looking at why and how the US has been a destroyer of democracy for the rest of the world for the last 50 years, you can start
Wesley Clark is not a war criminal because he fought against Milosevic (well maybe he is, because aggressing a country that has not attacked you is a war crime, in fact its what the nuremberg nazis were charged with at the highest level) He is a war criminal of all what happened under his command, the poisoning of the Danube river, the cluster bombing of Nis, the attack on the television station 20 april 1999 which left at least 15 people dead, if my memory serves me well, the bombing of the China embassy, etc etc etc.
This is from the suit that was brought at the Hague against NATO leaders that chose to attack Serbia without the UNs approval:
The list of crimes includes "wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity, attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science."
Wesley Clark writes in his book, “Fighting Modern War,” that the NATO powers opted for warfare as a political weapon. The Kosovo war, he writes, "was coercive diplomacy, the use of armed forces to impose the political will of the NATO nations on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or more specifically, on Serbia. The NATO nations voluntarily undertook this war." This means General Clark collaborated in a crime against peace, the most serious of all war crimes.
Now i know sometimes my statements are hard to swallow, but i can assure you that i got 2 file cabinets here full of newspaper clippings and quotes from Wesley Clark that proves beyond doubt that he is a war criminal. Do you want me to make my case here and now? i dont think so
Well this is getting out of hands, and topic too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I had no choice but to reply to you saying i lose my credibility when i call Wes clarck a war criminal, because he is.
Maybe we can get back at that fingerprint stuff <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: my posting of an URL was by no means an attempt to hijack the thread, i just wanted to show you a concrete example of something i could say that sounds far fetched, but nonetheless true
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 8 2004, 10:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 8 2004, 10:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Americans Fingerprinted, Photographed at Brazil Airport" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And I'm still waiting for the punchline...
Um, why do people care so much about it? If they want to check my criminal background as a prerequisit for me, as a foreigner there, to get into their country, so be it. I guess I never saw a huge problem with extra security in a time when there are legitimate threats. How does being fingerprinted and photographed hurt anyone? Of course, the reasons behind it are rather silly, but that's their buisness. Obviously they'd be better off fingerprinting and photographing people from countries that have historically sent out more terrorists and such, but if they don't like us, this seems like a pretty mild way for them to express it. Have fun Brazil.
<!--QuoteBegin--alanmp+Jan 12 2004, 06:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (alanmp @ Jan 12 2004, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I rapidly think this conversation is denegerating into an America versus rest-of-world (with regards to terroriwm policy) debate. I'm blatently a rest-of-the-word person (with regard to terrorism policy), so I won't say anything more.
Other than people should state what country they live in in their posts, so we can determine whether people's postings contain element(s) of bias/not <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So does this mean that because I'm an American and because I for the most part support the war on terrorr and think that the US must look out for its own interests even at the price of some other country, which claims a monopoly on moral supperiority ( *cough* France *cough* ), support... That I'm automatically biased?
America is not alone... Everyone that's opposing the US wants to claim that its doing this on its own... But its not. Its just the one leading the cause. The US is not alone... Since when is Britain not a major world power, because that is what's implied. How about Japan? Australia?
It is not America vs the world until people start bashing the US and forget about what other countries do. What the US is doing now is only the beginning. Soon many more nations will do the same things. It should actually not be hard to imagine this ever happening... Especially now. Its quite simple with digital scanners and cameras. This is a good and proper use of technology that is beginning to finally mature.... Not some off the wall scheme to upset people. The US has a right to know those whom enter its country... As well as deny entry. This just makes it a bit more difficult to enter the country if you know you are not wanted.
It is not the US vs the world until opponents try to make the US appear as the great Satan. We just do what is best for us... Which is what we expect and know every other nation is doing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I had no choice but to reply to you saying i lose my credibility when i call Wes clarck a war criminal, because he is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In your opinion. If I think you are a criminal - does that make you one? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> And what precisely does this have to do with fingerprinting? Please stop hijacking and go start a topic about how everyone, ever, is a war criminal. We can talk more about it there.
QUOTE (AsterOids @ Jan 12 2004, 01:04 PM) This is also true of the US, it is a haven for WW2 criminals and all kinds of dictators take refuge in the US.
Such as? The US has pretty lax extradition rules - if you want someone and they're not a US citizen, you'll usually get 'em. <----- You
Im not hijacking the thread, you asked me what war criminal was living in the US, i answered.
Then when i say Wes Clarck is one of the war criminals im talking about, you then say i lose all credibility because i say Wes Clark is a war criminal.
I tell you why Wes Clarck is a war criminal (The bombing of the serbian TV station etc) , you then say i highjack the thread.
You misunderstand what thread hijacking is. Going off on a slight tangent is fine. Continously coming back to it over and over to the detriment of the subject at hand is hijacking. Now shoo shoo and go make another topic if you want to talk about it. This one is done now.
Comments
This is also true of the US, it is a haven for WW2 criminals and all kinds of dictators take refuge in the US.
Such as? The US has pretty lax extradition rules - if you want someone and they're not a US citizen, you'll usually get 'em.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What's the big deal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There isn't one really. Just chatting. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It is US history since WW2, those who terrorize their people, be it state terrorism or "retail" terrorism, if they are pro-US business type people, they will almost always be supported by US elite political class. To take an example, Jacobo Arbenz was a democratic capitalist president of guatemala in 1954. He tried to nationalize United fruit companys land that they were not using, giving compensation to UF equal to what it claimed it was worth in its tax reports. Well there was a CIA/guatemalan military coup to overthrow the "communists", paving the way to an horrible "civil war" (mostly army people mowing down villages with machine guns) that killed 100,000 people in 40 years.
What you say is valid, but only if you say that american-sponsored (EDIT: or supported) terrorists are not terrorists.
It is US history since WW2, those who terrorize their people, be it state terrorism or "retail" terrorism, if they are pro-US business type people, they will almost always be supported by US elite political class. To take an example, Jacobo Arbenz was a democratic capitalist president of guatemala in 1954. He tried to nationalize United fruit companys land that they were not using, giving compensation to UF equal to what it claimed it was worth in its tax reports. Well there was a CIA/guatemalan military coup to overthrow the "communists", paving the way to an horrible "civil war" (mostly army people mowing down villages with machine guns) that killed 100,000 people in 40 years.
What you say is valid, but only if you say that american-sponsored (EDIT: or supported) terrorists are not terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pervez Musharraf does not live here. Emmanuel "Toto" Constant was actually arrested by the US, but then his extradition was suspended due to human rights advocates saying he would not receive a fair trial in Haiti (an interesting line of defense that Hussein could use!) and President Clinton allowing him to remain here. Do you have any other examples which actually fit the scenario (your whole second paragraph was, well, not exactly relevant)?
Of course I realise that we've held scummy people here as well - when I was a kid there were Nazi's coming out of the woodwork for trials, such as Klaus Barbi. I was just hoping to see you provide sources for once. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Brazil has held, from what I can google, at least several thousand nazi concentration camp officials under state protection and the Israeli's basically had to kidnap them to get them back for trials - I do not know of the US doing such a thing, although you could make quite an argument for Von Braun being something of a war criminal himself thanks to the V-1/V-2 atttacks on London.
The point I am trying to make is that Brazil is the cliche for where to go when you're on the lamb. Having them worry about being fingerprinted is pretty silly, don't you think?
They are just angry because their space program didnt work out. They wanted to buy space parts from us, but we had some security restrictions that offended them. So they went and bought stuff from the Russians. This is just silly backlash, but I dont really mind, the ink sometimes makes my fingers tingle!
What's the big deal? Or, for that matter, is it big at all? Is there even a deal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The entire reason this was brought up was because it is only Americans being treated this way in Brazil... It is out of spite and for no other reason. In the US, everyone coming from anywhere but something like 27 countries will be photographed and their fingerprints taken ( mind you with an electronic scanner and not with ink... Come on Brazil, catch up already! ). So if Brazil were actually doing this for a real reason there would not be an issue here... But they were doing it out of spite. So its not a big deal... But it is.
Brazil are doing it because they have a sense of irony
[maybe]
irony:
1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.
2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity
More like spite:
1. Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate.
2. An instance of malicious feeling.
or
1. Ill-will or hatred toward another, accompanied with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart; petty malice; grudge; rancor
My second paragraph is relevant, because not only the perpetrators of massive human rights abuse in guatemala (terrorists, those who use fear and violence as a political tool) were not caught by the US governement, they were trained by the US military at the school of the americas with US taxpayers fund.
I have tons of other example where the US lets in terrorists from all over the world, the Dictator Suharto from Indonesia in 1998 (i think) , Wesley Clark should be apprenhended as a war criminal for the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, but he is a presidential candidate, go figure.
If you want, when i get home, i can get you a list a hundred names long of terrorists who publicly landed on US soil and were not prevented from leaving, much less harassed at all for their crimes.
In canada they even send the police to beat up protesters in 1997 so that Suharto, that bloodthirsty terrorist, wouldnt be importunated by pesky non-polite canadians who think that mass murdering peasants and union activists is morally reprehensible, to say the least.
EDIT: and im not saying youre saying it, but to say emmanuel constant wouldnt have a fair trial is kinda ridiculous, because then, no one who committed atrocities in their own country could be judged there. So if you accept that as valid, no one who commits crime in the US could be judged there because the trial would be "biased"
This is getting off-topic though, maybe i should start a topic named "the double standards in mainstream america on what is considered terrorism" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Your second paragraph is not relevant based on your own terms - we were talking about happenings inside of each of these two countries and how they handled scumbag fugitives from justice. You cannot simply start talking about all the other things a country did that were bad and have it considered relevant to the argument at hand.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT: and im not saying youre saying it, but to say emmanuel constant wouldnt have a fair trial is kinda ridiculous, because then, no one who committed atrocities in their own country could be judged there. So if you accept that as valid, no one who commits crime in the US could be judged there because the trial would be "biased" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I served in Haiti - did you? I can tell you that no one is ever going to get a fair trial in Haiti after what that junta did to their people for all those years. In the US (and in many other countries), it is reasonable to assume that no matter how guilty you are, you are going to get a fair trial once you get into court in this day and age. You can splutter and spout out inconsistencies and rare occurences, but by and large the US criminal justice system is one of the fairest in the world, because there are so many checks on it. Haiti on the other hand, would have given him a trial that lasted about 5 minutes without representation or evidence and resulted in his immediate hanging. Which he most assuredly deserved.
You're getting very worked up, and that's a big no-no in here. We want calm cool and clearheaded posting, or things get flamey and we have to put people in timeout. Please don't be that person - you have interesting things to say, so please try to focus on the head and not the heart. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Other than people should state what country they live in in their posts, so we can determine whether people's postings contain element(s) of bias/not
So the alternative is letting him get his nice house in brooklyn and leaving him alone? I dont see how this is better than him being judged in Haiti.
I will write a more substancial post when i get home.
And i dont see where im worked up, all im talking about are facts, i got all the sources for what im saying.
Well thats what a good propaganda system does, when i say "The US governement has been a destroyer of democracy for the last 50 years" people are gonna think that i am not objective enough to bother listen to because the truth is so scarcely spoken, that when someone does, he sounds like a loonie. If you wanna start looking at why and how the US has been a destroyer of democracy for the rest of the world for the last 50 years,
you can start
<a href='http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html' target='_blank'>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_...ons_WBlumZ.html</a>
here
Wesley Clark is not a war criminal because he fought against Milosevic (well maybe he is, because aggressing a country that has not attacked you is a war crime, in fact its what the nuremberg nazis were charged with at the highest level) He is a war criminal of all what happened under his command, the poisoning of the Danube river, the cluster bombing of Nis, the attack on the television station 20 april 1999 which left at least 15 people dead, if my memory serves me well, the bombing of the China embassy, etc etc etc.
This is from the suit that was brought at the Hague against NATO leaders that chose to attack Serbia without the UNs approval:
The list of crimes includes "wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully
and wantonly, employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity, attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings,
destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science."
Wesley Clark writes in his book, “Fighting Modern War,” that the NATO powers opted for warfare as a political weapon. The Kosovo war, he writes, "was coercive diplomacy, the use of armed forces to impose the political will of the NATO nations on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or more specifically, on Serbia. The NATO nations voluntarily undertook this war." This means General Clark collaborated in a crime against peace, the most serious of all war crimes.
Now i know sometimes my statements are hard to swallow, but i can assure you that i got 2 file cabinets here full of newspaper clippings and quotes from Wesley Clark that proves beyond doubt that he is a war criminal. Do you want me to make my case here and now? i dont think so
Well this is getting out of hands, and topic too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I had no choice but to reply to you saying i lose my credibility when i call Wes clarck a war criminal, because he is.
Maybe we can get back at that fingerprint stuff <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: my posting of an URL was by no means an attempt to hijack the thread, i just wanted to show you a concrete example of something i could say that sounds far fetched, but nonetheless true
And I'm still waiting for the punchline...
Um, why do people care so much about it? If they want to check my criminal background as a prerequisit for me, as a foreigner there, to get into their country, so be it. I guess I never saw a huge problem with extra security in a time when there are legitimate threats. How does being fingerprinted and photographed hurt anyone? Of course, the reasons behind it are rather silly, but that's their buisness. Obviously they'd be better off fingerprinting and photographing people from countries that have historically sent out more terrorists and such, but if they don't like us, this seems like a pretty mild way for them to express it. Have fun Brazil.
Other than people should state what country they live in in their posts, so we can determine whether people's postings contain element(s) of bias/not <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So does this mean that because I'm an American and because I for the most part support the war on terrorr and think that the US must look out for its own interests even at the price of some other country, which claims a monopoly on moral supperiority ( *cough* France *cough* ), support... That I'm automatically biased?
America is not alone... Everyone that's opposing the US wants to claim that its doing this on its own... But its not. Its just the one leading the cause. The US is not alone... Since when is Britain not a major world power, because that is what's implied. How about Japan? Australia?
It is not America vs the world until people start bashing the US and forget about what other countries do. What the US is doing now is only the beginning. Soon many more nations will do the same things. It should actually not be hard to imagine this ever happening... Especially now. Its quite simple with digital scanners and cameras. This is a good and proper use of technology that is beginning to finally mature.... Not some off the wall scheme to upset people. The US has a right to know those whom enter its country... As well as deny entry. This just makes it a bit more difficult to enter the country if you know you are not wanted.
It is not the US vs the world until opponents try to make the US appear as the great Satan. We just do what is best for us... Which is what we expect and know every other nation is doing.
In your opinion. If I think you are a criminal - does that make you one? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> And what precisely does this have to do with fingerprinting? Please stop hijacking and go start a topic about how everyone, ever, is a war criminal. We can talk more about it there.
This is also true of the US, it is a haven for WW2 criminals and all kinds of dictators take refuge in the US.
Such as? The US has pretty lax extradition rules - if you want someone and they're not a US citizen, you'll usually get 'em. <----- You
Im not hijacking the thread, you asked me what war criminal was living in the US, i answered.
Then when i say Wes Clarck is one of the war criminals im talking about, you then say i lose all credibility because i say Wes Clark is a war criminal.
I tell you why Wes Clarck is a war criminal (The bombing of the serbian TV station etc) , you then say i highjack the thread.
Im not disputing this is getting off topic...