| Welcome to Nikki And Helen. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Where were you? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 11 2007, 10:40 PM (1,470 Views) | |
| Porcupine Girl | Sep 26 2007, 04:17 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Courtside, Row 1 Seat 2
![]()
|
Well put Annie. Sorry to hear about your cousin. How is he/she doing? My cousin just finished a tour in Iraq in June. Luckily he came back in one piece and with all his pieces. |
| "Fancy a snog? Meet me in the pottin' shed." | |
![]() |
|
| richard | Sep 27 2007, 09:12 PM Post #17 |
|
Enhanced
|
Don't know about the other side of the pond but the treatment of Brit soldiers who have been wounded has not been good. The government are proposing to close the one remaining specialised military hospital in Britain and there have been justifiable complaints that what is called 'the military compact' between serving soldiers and the government has been broken by the same government that sent the troops there. It is especially deplorable that during the 1st world war, the military pioneered the treatment of what was called 'shell shock' which must be happening to today's soldiers and just look at what has happened. I openly admit to being against the war but that opposition is at the politicians who sent the troops there to do a job that is increasingly impossible - most unusually for Brit generals, they are coming out in open opposition in just these terms. What I do feel is total sympathy with all those who have relatives in Iraq (or Afghanistan) and not knowing if or when they could get the worst possible bad news. I hope this post is received in the spirit it was intended. |
![]() |
|
| hypothesizer | Sep 27 2007, 10:41 PM Post #18 |
|
Don't you wish it was electric
|
Thank you richard for sharing your point of view. That is one of the reasons i love this board. We are people from all over the world who have differing views and it has led to a lot of insight, at least on my part. I originally was one of those Americans who was blinded by hate right after the Sept. 11th attacks, and my attitude was basically 'to hell with them all'. I have since matured emotionally and have done exstensice research on the subject. I now believe the original goal of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was admirable but poorly though out and planned. If our world leaders had taken the right amount of time to figure things out i truly believe we wouldn't be in the debacle we are in right now. So in turn i support our troops and the main reasons for the war but i do not support the way it was undertaken. And to those of you who asked about my cousin, he is doing okay and is receiving medical treatment in Germany. We were told to expect him home by Halloween. |
| Yes my name is Annie. My hair is not red, i'm not an orphan, and if you break into song i will be forced to hurt you! | |
![]() |
|
| 4us | Sep 29 2007, 01:17 AM Post #19 |
![]() ![]()
|
In a perfect world we would all get on and show restraint and respect for the deeds and thoughts of others.........I doubt that there are many who relish the thought or prospect of war and have missgivings of the outcome of such an act...........to argue a point of relevance or results would be to spend ones life contemplating both sides of the arguement and then possibly still not finding the right solution....the old preaching an eye for an eye has something to answer for in my book.......... I can't help but be amazed and slightly confused by the powers that be who set laws that to smack your child is abuse yet expect men and women to retaliate with violence in times of war......so often we see and hear that the old fashion way of disciplining our children with a smack is now viewed as a violent act and one that does not remedy their wrong doings and therefore should be abolished as a negitive and violent solution ....yet here we are in the age of technology making millions out of shooting and car crashing not to mention all other acts of violence on both our screens and video games.....so just what is the message we are sending to our kids.......is it violence and war is ok .....but smacking is out for parents........makes you wonder how our next generation will view this....... As a parent myself I personally do not advocate hitting children.....for me this has always been a sore point having been hit as a child myself..... Also war is not in my opinion always the best alternative and we all know that many view some as being totally not necessary......vietnam being one..... But just what is the solution? we need to have our freedom and our rights.....we need strict governing laws to enforce that these rights are carried out.........greed and power being the main ingredient for a war and yet these two evils we try so desperately hard to teach our children to be free of........ 9/11..........how can anyone respond to such a disgusting act of evil violence that brought about so much distruction and loss to so many?.......how could we possibly bring back or compensate for the lives lost.......venting more violence is that really the answer?.........probably not but I understand though that retaliation is all we have and the most natural reaction we feel......... How sad is it for us all that we live in a world of revenge..right or wrong it is human nature and something we may not like but have to accept....... The worst of it all is that so many innocent people are caught up in the web of evil that these monsters cause and this for me is a bitter pill to swallow......9/11 changed not only our lives but the world and it is something that time will not nor cannot heal......... The morning of 9/11 will always be a world wide day of mourning for us all.......... |
|
Think it...Say It...Do It WHY ??? BECAUSE I CAN | |
![]() |
|
| Canadabadgirl | Sep 29 2007, 06:43 AM Post #20 |
|
G3 Curtain and Duvet!
|
Just a couple of thoughts from a non-parent: The adage "an eye for an eye" was never intended to advocate revenge, it was meant to advocate restraint if one chose to take revenge. In context, it admonished people not to go overboard and to respond with no more than an equal degree of violence. It has been taken out of context and abused, but that is not the fault of what was once a cautionary instruction. The idea that the current violence in Iraq is in any way related to the events being memorialized by this thread is fiction. No Iraqis attacked us on 9/11. Most of the attackers came from our gulf "partner" Saudi Arabia, which also produced Osama bin Laden. Well, Saudi Arabia and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan produced Bin Laden and then we armed him, and turned him into a war hero who people were willing to follow with astounding devotion. Then he arranged to have us attacked and more than 3,000 of us killed on that terrible day. He's still at large and we invaded an unrelated country, resulting in more than 50,000 (the most conservative estimate from the US military) innocent civilians (non-combatants) dead. Most other estimates place that number over 200,000. For every New Yorker who witnessed the events of that day, (my sister was in the WTC but is safe), there are tens of thousands of Iraqis who have witnessed similar or worse horror, who have lost loved ones and who have lost their homes (4 million Iraqis are reported to be "displaced"). For every American who feels less physically safe, there is at least one Iraqi who lives in real terror and whose life is at risk. As we remember where we were and how we were affected, I hope we spare a moment for those Iraqis, because they are probably at least as confused as to why they were selected to have their cultural treasure destroyed, loved ones killed and basic safety stripped away. By any measure, life for the average Iraqi is now far, far worse than it was under Saddam Hussein and the American General in charge of the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan "cannot say" whether we're safer than we were before that terrible Tuesday in September. |
![]() |
|
| I love MJNet | Sep 29 2007, 09:54 AM Post #21 |
|
The bosses slave!
|
All great points. And there is one group of people who unfortunately for the last 6 years who have, at times, suffered massive abuse right here in the UK. I know of at least one person, of Iran/Pakistan/UK heritage who on returning from Pakistan from his Grandmothers Funeral was set upon and brutally attacked - because he had a rucksack not a suitcase *this is as a result of the July London Bombings that also took place* At times, all of his brothers and cousins have struggled with abuse - some physical, some verbal - simply because of their looks/heritage that esculated beyond all proportion after 9/11 and is still there today. And yet they were born and brought up in the UK and are British. We have to remember that some people within the UK, USA and even other Western countries have now lost some of their freedom, sometimes even resulting in these kind of hideous attacks simply because of their heritage. They have suffered as innocents through this for the last 6 years. And all because someone attacked a country, purporting to be in their name as well! There are no winners......... And that is the saddest fact. |
“In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this.”
| |
![]() |
|
| richard | Sep 29 2007, 10:14 AM Post #22 |
|
Enhanced
|
CBG has made a timely reminder about how horrendous life is in Iraq for the Iraqis there. History invites the timely reminder of how after the 2nd World War, the American Marshall plan did enable the war torn countries of Europe to get back on their feet and how the basic facilities in Iraq are simply not there. Saddam Hussain may have been a lot of things, a lot of them bad, but one thing he was not was an Islamic fundamentalist - as a poster I read on an anti war march put things so very pithily. 'Guess what Iraq and Al Quaeeda have in common? They both share the letter Q' The well respected Australian giant of a journalist John Pilger put the situation thus in an article. "An experienced British officer serving in Iraq has written to the BBC describing the invasion as "illegal, immoral, and unwinnable," which, he says, is "the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers." In a letter to the BBC's Newsnight and MediaLens.org he accuses the media's "embedded coverage with the U.S. Army" of failing to question "the intentions and continuing effects of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation." He says most British soldiers regard their tours as "loathsome," during which they "reluctantly [provide] target practice for insurgents, senselessly hemorrhaging casualties and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-U.S. rout until after the next U.S. election." He appeals to journalists not to swallow "the official line/White House propaganda." " I love MJnet has recounted a very disturbing story and makes a timely comment that the war which is been supposedly for 'democracy' has seen the attack on civil rights on both sides of the pond. |
![]() |
|
| 4us | Sep 29 2007, 10:55 AM Post #23 |
![]() ![]()
|
Ally I am afraid you have lost me..........I in no way claimed that the Iraqis be held accountable for 9/11.........I agree that they have suffered and that their world is filled with horrors we could not imagine........as far as the defence forces, the men and women are to be upheld and honored for their bravery that goes without saying.......what I was merely stating is the hypocricy we are subjecting our children to....ie. that violence is acceptable when it suits, but as parents our hands are tied when it comes to disciplining them...the same powers that be are making laws to stop violence in the home yet sending our soldiers off to war where many innocent people fall victim to senseless killing..... Simply put........if the bad man blows up a building and kills people then we will send many more to kill them as payback.......but if you are naughty mummy is not allowed to smack you as that is seen as abuse or being violent........(of course I realise that some take this to extreme and really do abuse and batter their children which of course is unacceptable) Too easily we are all tared with the same brush, of course there are good and bad among us all and it is unfair to judge us as a whole.......it is usually a minority that go bad and the majority are held accountable..... Nice to hear your views as always...... btw.....we have extra kids if you want one...... :rolleyes: .PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Think it...Say It...Do It WHY ??? BECAUSE I CAN | |
![]() |
|
| richard | Sep 29 2007, 12:08 PM Post #24 |
|
Enhanced
|
As a parent whose daughter is (at last) growing up , I grinned appreciatively in reading the parting sentiment of your last post and you have my sympathy, 4us. Your counterposing of 'don't smack children' but 'let's bomb and shoot nameless strangers' is particularly effective. As a Brit, I know that the reality of the horrors of 9 11 exceeds my capacity of my imagination except that I have once been up the world trade centre and have a photo taken from the top. I respect hypothesizer's post of her feelings at the time as it is honest and shows her attempt to come to tems with it. The bit that I quoted of your original post, 4us, very clearly sets out the moral dilemmas that hypothesizer also talks about. The real problem is that the unholy double act, Bush and Blair, didn't react in this 'eye for an eye' manner but saw this as an opportunity to coldly exploit 9 11 for their own ends. For instance, the film by Michael Moore 'Fahrenheit 9 11' graphically documents Bush's less than 'holier than thou' reaction, in letting the Bin Laden family jet out from America immediately afterwards and that information has come to light that Bush and Blair had taken the political decision to invade Iraq at least a year before the invasion took place. Everyone else, the Iraqis first and foremost, the ordinary American and British soldiers, British civiliand killed by the London tube bombings are all caught up in the horrors that these piliticians created. CBG pointed out that the obvious 'bad guys' Bin Laden and his kind were trained and armed with means of destruction by the Americans in an earlier battle by Afghanistan to drive the Russians out, a case of the chickens coming home to roost. |
![]() |
|
| song_stress | Sep 29 2007, 01:00 PM Post #25 |
|
the Mother of all that is FRAP
![]()
|
Thank you for that explanation CBG. In all my years of early teaching and since, noone has bothered to explain the original meaning of that passage. It now makes MUCH more sense to me. I have learned something today. |
The Muppet Clock wall ~ does anyone really know what time it is?![]() I believe in the power of laughter, the benefit of tears and the importance of a hug | |
![]() |
|
| 4us | Sep 29 2007, 06:53 PM Post #26 |
![]() ![]()
|
|
|
Think it...Say It...Do It WHY ??? BECAUSE I CAN | |
![]() |
|
| Canadabadgirl | Sep 30 2007, 02:52 AM Post #27 |
|
G3 Curtain and Duvet!
|
Again, my understanding is that it's saying to take no more than an eye for an eye which, when compared to taking a life for an eye, is an improvement and is certainly not the spirit in which it is usually quoted nowadays. It's advocating that the punishment fit the crime and when I hear it used as a battle cry for revenge, my usual response is, "an eye for an eye is likely to leave the whole world blind." I'm confused as to why terrorists have to be treated differently from the perpetrators of any other heinous crimes, including war crimes i.e. with police action. It's true that it would require international/multinational police action and the cooperation of nations who are not normally allies, but aren't terrorists simply murderers and people who conspire to murder? Why does there have to be a solution beyond tracking down the conspirators, bringing them to justice and breaking up their networks through investigation and intelligence? Here again, getting reliable intelligence means developing relationships with people who are not the most comfortable allies, learning about their cultures and treating them as equals... I can't see a down-side to going that route rather than declaring "war" on the use of terror as a technique for striking at real or perceived enemies, when policing techniques are so advanced in so many parts of the world. I guess that's why I'm not a politician... A. |
![]() |
|
| 4us | Sep 30 2007, 05:35 AM Post #28 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well A. maybe you should be.....a politition that is, because your perspective on how these terrorists should be treated is spot on and as it should be........of course they are murderers and if as you say they who committed the crime were hunted down and prosecuted it would be a fair decision.........perhaps it is too logical and simple for our polititions or perhaps there should be more women in power.....If this had of been an outlaw motor cyle gang that had wreaked such havoc they would have been targeted singly and not a whole country forced to take the consequenses for such actions.......it would appear that the retaliation of 9/11 was an excuse or validation for underlying reasons........it was too easy to disguise at the time because so many people were angry and up in arms at what had taken place...... I had always thought that an eye for an eye was not so litteral and meant that if one persons life was taken then so be anothers..ie what ever you dealt out expect back to equal that which you have taken or dealt....maybe I am not explaing clearly .......eg...if one man chopped of anothers foot he should not be killed but prepared to lose his own foot........YES/NO...??????? So I guess it's a NO on the spare kids eh!!!!!
|
|
Think it...Say It...Do It WHY ??? BECAUSE I CAN | |
![]() |
|
| richard | Sep 30 2007, 09:38 AM Post #29 |
|
Enhanced
|
This is a tricky issue and the problem with bracketing terrorism with other forms of crimes is that it leaves out the political dimension. Tony Blair has taken in psychologising the whole thing, talking about 'terrorism' being an attack on 'the British way of life.' The phrase as used by him is offensive to me because, on the one hand, yes I am an archetypal Brit, but on the other hand, he and his fellow villains are presiding over a 'Robin Hood in reverse' operation which is not only diametrically opposed to what I believe in but which what the Labour Part was originally founded to promote. I'm sure there are many Americans who feel the same about Bush and his cronies. What Blair cannot deal with is that terrorism in England has a link with the war in Iraq. In writing this, explaining terrorism is a long way away from justifying this. What will doom to failure any attempt to 'win hearts and minds' to deal with terrorism is if no necessary political changes take place which deal with legitimate grievances. This is where the antiwar movement comes in. The reality of the Brit government's conception of democracy is where it has "decided to ban a peaceful march called by the Stop the War Coalition on 8 October 2007. The protest has been called to demand all the troops withdrawn from Iraq immediately. The police have said all protests within one mile of Parliament are now prohibited." The nearest convenient comparison have been the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland where you had two opposing paramilitary organisations on the opposite poles of religious extremism. Largely, the battle was the British Army versus the IRA and the troubles got to the point where both sides realised that neither side could beat the army and a political solution was found to finally take the heat out of the situation. The IRA survived all those decades in Northern Ireland because they operated within a population that gave some kind of tacit support. At one time, the IRA mounted a bombing campaign in England which caused death and destruction but could not be sustained because they did not have that supportive base. In answer to your earlier question, 4us, the problem is that the situation cannot be seen in 'John Wayne' style, the 'good guys in white hats' taking on 'the bad guys in black hats' in the shootout on main street- I am aware that in writing this, I am revealing the influence of TV westerns that I watched in my youth but I am also saying that there are alternative ways of thinking and operating. |
![]() |
|
| 4us | Oct 1 2007, 12:21 AM Post #30 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think I can safely say that we are not happy with the way in which things have been handled politically in all three countries......Howard will soon be up for re-election and it will be interesting to see how the public or if the public hold him accountable........personally I myself think he is no worse than any other candidate as I view them all with little respect....I have to admit to not being highly motivated when it comes to election time and I am aware that some would say I have no right then to voice my opinions on the way the country is run......."whatever" but I am deeply concerned about the issues of human suffering all over the world........ We could keep going around in circles as to find a solution that would satisfy us all and still never find one....I guess we as individuals can only do our best to treat each other with the same kindness, respect and love that we ourselves expect....Tolerance of opinions or views other than our own would be a good start..... It is sad to think that all the beauty our world has on offer is so easily bloodied and tarnished with so many forms of crime against that that God created to be equal.......... |
|
Think it...Say It...Do It WHY ??? BECAUSE I CAN | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The Comfy Sofa · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2










btw.....we have extra kids if you want one...... :rolleyes: .PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well A. maybe you should be.....a politition that is, because your perspective on how these terrorists should be treated is spot on and as it should be........of course they are murderers and if as you say they who committed the crime were hunted down and prosecuted it would be a fair decision.........perhaps it is too logical and simple for our polititions or perhaps there should be more women in power.....

8:49 AM Jul 11