Rumsfeld Defends Secretly Holding Suspect

[moghrabi]

I do not need to support my arguments with any references. It is all clear to me and a lot more people out there that the US Adminstration must be held accountable for its human rights abuses no matter how big or small. No one is above the law. And the US have been crossing the red lines for too many years.

Oppression, aggression and humiliation results in terrorism. I am not defending terrorism as it is the ugliest form of revenge but I am trying to define to you what causes terrorism. We see now the hatred around the world towards the US. And it is not coming only from Arab and Islamic countries. Look at the demonstrations in Norway, France, England and Italy. Last week Bush went to Italy. Did you like the welcome he got there. Is this a nice way to welcome a president of the most powerful country into Italy. It is shameful.

So lets not go into the comparison game (as you always like to do) and lets not go into the internet trying to find links that will convince you of what is going on. It takes only a little common sense to see. :idea:

You may ask the Reverend to give you some links if you are interested. He seems to be more fluent in this subject.

 

[moghrabi]

Researchok:

Check some of the posts of some members in this forum:

http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1078

 

[researchok]

I'll explain it to you so we'll both be on the same page.

Argument requires fact-- not emotional, declarative statements.

Just because YOU believe something to be true doersn't make it so. As a matter of fact, even if a lot of people believe something to be true, doesn't make it so, either.

People used to think the whole world was flat. Didn't make it so. People used to think all kinds of things that aren't so. There are people today who don't believe man went to the moon. Doesn't make them right.

To be taken seriously in any argument, a set of verifiable facts must be presented. It is also true that there can be opposing sets of facts, or differences in their interpretation. Nothing wrong with that.

To be taken seriousy, you must support yor arguments. That is fundamental in any intelligent conversation or argument.

Simple, declarative statements are never taken seriously.

That is real common sense.

 

[moghrabi]

The your common sense says the the Bush administration is innocent of any wrong doing and should not answer to anybody?

I am not speaking from an emotional standpoint. I read more than you think. I analyze what I read and try to make sense of it.

And you said even if a lot of people think the same as me, you are still right. You seem to me that you want to impose your opinion on everybody who disagrees with you. You gave links to some websites written by pro-Buch bunch of thugs. Go back and read what the American Administration did and still doing in the world. Do not try to make them innocent.

Today, GWB said we sent our best men to Iraq to give them democracy and we will not leave there until they get it. What a bunch of horse shit. Are these the men he sent to liberate Iraq and abuse POW. And of course he will not leave there until the OIL is dry. This is what he meant.

 

[researchok]

Thats not what I said.

I said give me evidence.

This isn't a hard concept, validating what you're saying.

It's fundamental to any serious argument.

As for reading more than I do, I doubt it.

Lastly, I don't want to impose my opinion on anyone. I don't care what people who don't know what they're talking about think. Nor do I wish to stifle debate with people who do know what they're talking about. The key is in the quality of their argument, the reference of facts in evidence.

By the way, the oil argument has no legs and never really did. If it were only about oil, then the US would have voted to lift sanctions and saved themselves hundreds of billions of dollars.

If you want to read some serious critique of the US administration, read the commentary on this site, "What History Taught, America Forgot."

I wrote the article.

FYI, I'm a political analyst. A PAID political analyst.

 

[moghrabi]

Well, all I can say maybe you should change your job. The reason is that a political analyst should not be one sided as you are. You are not very tolerant of different opinions and try to evade the truth when it's pointed out to you.

Now you wanrt me to read an article written by you to agree with you. This is a bit funny.

As for the OIL, even a grade 1 student knows the intentions of the US in the Middle East.

Doesn't really matter if you are a PA or not, your points are not valid to most people.

 

[researchok]

Well, all I can say maybe you should change your job. The reason is that a political analyst should not be one sided as you are. You are not very tolerant of different opinions and try to evade the truth when it's pointed out to you.

Now you wanrt me to read an article written by you to agree with you. This is a bit funny.

As for the OIL, even a grade 1 student knows the intentions of the US in the Middle East.

Doesn't really matter if you are a PA or not, your points are not valid to most people.

As I said earlier, I don't CARE if you agree with me.

The oil argument isn't really being made anymore-- save by a few periphary voices-- as I said, it has no legs. It got a bit of play in the early days pre war in the UN, but since then, it's a red herring.

As for being tolerant of opinion, I most certainly am. Opinion however, doesn't make for argument. Unsupported opinion, is just that- a pleasant diversion with no serious consequence or relevance.

Again, you've made lots of unsubstantiated statements. In terms of argument, that qualifies them as irrelevant.

Now, I certainly believe that you believe them-- more power to you. They may or may not be true. But until you substantiate and support those declarative statements, they are irrelevant. No doubt you view my views as irrelevant, which is your perogative, of course. The difference is, I can substantiate and support my arguments with facts. Perhaps n the future, you'll do the same. Until then, they are barely opinion, nothing more.

Lastly, whether or not most people agree with me or not is irrelevant. I'm not paid to agree with 'most' people. I'm paid to provide facts and subsequent analysis for those who need facts to make decisions. [/quote]

 

[moghrabi]

All the power to you. I definetly do not agree with you as you know by now and I know you do not agree with me. That's all fine and dandy. However, you are asking me to provide proof. Why don't you give me some good proof of your own. Well written material not weblinks.

As for the oil, Why doesn't the US have an interest in introducing democracy in Africa. Is it because the land is dry. So they turned into the middle East to give them democracy since they land is wet. this is common sense based on intution. We are born to make decisions based on what make sense. Not what we are told.

I read your article. You are saying that the west does not share any values with the middle east. Are you comparing the US history of few hundred years to the land of history and trying to push the western value. The middle east will always be ruled by dictators and familial people. This is the history of it. This is the culture. Why not the west learn from the East? Why not learn from each other instead of shoving western ideas into everybody's mind. I am pro-democaracy, but that doesnot change the facts on the ground in the middel east.

The people there truly believe that the US is only there for their oil. Not democracy. I was just reading an article in Arabic about the killing of 50 children and the rape of 35 women in front of their husbands. Is this the democracy you are talking about. Cultures evolve. Can not change overnight by sending troops and planes. By putting puppet governments picked by the white house to see a democratic Iraq. People do not buy into this.

I hope I am making myself clear about how the US is seen on the other side. It is seen as an aggressor not as a liberator.

 

[researchok]

Firstly, the US does have an interest in introducing democracy to Africa.

The problem has been the OAS, and former Eiropean colonial powers that still have significant business inetrests there.

The US is bt far the largest aid source for Africa, though as of late, the bulk of that aid has gone to immediate concerns, e.g., AIDS, health, etc. Should you need it, I can provide reference sources for this info, though it's fairly easy to find.

Also, there are souces (yes, web links to appropriate info sources are legitimite) that I have that can substantiate my claims. I will happily provide them-- but understand, I expect the same. Simple declarative statements, as mentioned, are argumenatively worthless.

Also, post WW1 Iraq had a democracy that was fully functional. That fact negates your statement that "The middle east will always be ruled by dictators and familial people. This is the history of it. This is the culture." I submit that the region has yet to emerge from the past. Arabs are perfecrly capable of democracy and freedom. They have yet to get experience it. Given the chance, I'm sure they'd flourish. However, until they let go of 'cafeteria colonialism' ( the blaming of historical colonialism for whatever is the problem du jour.)

Now, let's be real. Arab newspapers have a long history of 'creativity', to put it one way. While the events you read may be true, until there is concrete evidence the story remains suspect. Could you please reference the article you are referring to? I do have translation services at my disposal.

Also, on what basis do you make the statement that the Americans are not viewed as 'liberators' by most Iraqis? Can you reference credible scientific poll evidence to that effect? I will attempt to find recent polls suggesting the opposite of your assertion, as I do believe that I have seen them. I will verify, however.

Lastly, given the politics and economies of the region, I'm a bit puzzled by your statement, "Why not the west learn from the East? Why not learn from each other instead of shoving western ideas into everybody's mind" I think I addressed that issue in the article. It doesn't matter what shape a government takes, only that freedoms are respected.

 

[moghrabi]

Now, let's be real. Arab newspapers have a long history of 'creativity', to put it one way. While the events you read may be true, until there is concrete evidence the story remains suspect. Could you please reference the article you are referring to? I do have translation services at my disposal.

I am going to debate with you one point at a time. First the above statement.

CNN is not Biased? Fox news is not pro-Bush? Do you believe in everything the western media says?

The link to the rape abuse is:

http://www.alarabiya.net/Article.aspx?v=3828

It is in Arabic. Once we clear this issue we go to the next. As you can tell by now that I am not the kind to give up easily. I will debate. The least I get is I might learn something new.

 

[researchok]

Now, let's be real. Arab newspapers have a long history of 'creativity', to put it one way. While the events you read may be true, until there is concrete evidence the story remains suspect. Could you please reference the article you are referring to? I do have translation services at my disposal.

I am going to debate with you one point at a time. First the above statement.

CNN is not Biased? Fox news is not pro-Bush? Do you believe in everything the western media says?

The link to the rape abuse is:

http://www.alarabiya.net/Article.aspx?v=3828

It is in Arabic. Once we clear this issue we go to the next. As you can tell by now that I am not the kind to give up easily. I will debate. The least I get is I might learn something new.

What on earth would lead you to believe Al Arabiya???

What evidence do you have that CNN, Fox, et al, are biased-- are you stating opinon as fact again?

In your defense, I do agree that all news media are biased. It is after all, less news than entertainment. Al Arabiya, Al Jazerra and the rest are no more 'newsworthy'.

That said, lets discuss facts, not mindless news coverage.

A simple realization of stories not covered illustrates the point.

Far more significant stories are ignored because the 'average joe' isn't informed, for a myriad of reasons.

 

[moghrabi]

No matter what I give you, you say it is my opinion. Isn't your opinion stated above that Alarabiya is biased. Why not believe AlArabiya. Give me a reason. Is this fact or just your opinion about them.

 

[researchok]

No matter what I give you, you say it is my opinion. Isn't your opinion stated above that Alarabiya is biased. Why not believe AlArabiya. Give me a reason. Is this fact or just your opinion about them.

Actually, its fact, based on the same criteria I mentioned earlier.

Unless you think Al Arabiya is somehow the single bastion of honest journalism in the world.

For one thing, citing the prisoner abuse scandal as a basis for declaring the war in Iraq 'wrong' is not a relevant discussion. One has nothing to do with the other, for starters. Abuses ocured in WW2-- does that mean that war was wrong as well?

 

[moghrabi]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0406/S00167.htm

 

[moghrabi]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0406/S00113.htm

 

[moghrabi]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0405/S00067.htm

 

[researchok]

Whats your point?

Those involved will be punished, as they should be, as the evidence warrants.

Facts, not opinion.

 

[moghrabi]

I really have nothing else to say. I'll keep posting articles, maybe the light will turn on.

 

[researchok]

I really have nothing else to say. I'll keep posting articles, maybe the light will turn on.

Tell you what.

Start posting FACTS instead of articles.

I thought by now you'd understand the difference.

Apparently not.

By the way, you never answered my point-- are you saying the prison scandal is an indicator that the war was wrong?

 

[moghrabi]

If these facts do not convince you, nothing will. I have nothing else to answer. These articles are written by PRO'sPeople who know what is going on. These are facts. To you, everything seems to be opinion.

I think we not made to be a match in heaven. I have more important work to do than just try to convince you while you are brainwashed.