BF2S Forums Islamocaust Lite

David.P wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

David.P wrote:

I wonder how the Libs will defend this? I mean fuck us hardliners have our dirty laundry for everyone to see and we've gotten used to the comments. But this this is something we all know and now that it's being hung out to dry in front of everyone i wonder what excuses we'll get?

what the hell are you talking about?  Why would liberals have to defend this?

/confused?

Because they always talk about how great our "Enemies" are (In a sense) It pisses me off. They can say "China is the worlds leader in Exports!" But i cant say "Also they treat their workers like slaves" But i'm not allowed because of some fucked up rules in my school(Which i graduated yay!) That say you cant make a negative Image of Any race/nation/group. Fuck i wish i could have killed the fucker who made that decision in Albany.(Ya hear that Spitzer? Undo Pataki's Politically Correct BS!) It's really personal to me when Iran/China/North Korea/Venezuela/Any nation that pisses me off get trashed. I always loved hearing the Group Therapist try to make up a quick excuse as to why they did it.(You should of heard what he said after i told him Chavez shut down a tv station! Lol it was fucken hilarious "Well Maybe it was not fulfilling it's public duty" What public duty? We can criticize all politicians freely and openly on our media but they cant say they disagree with the way he leads the country? Fuck if it was like that in the US there would be riots!)

See, the reason people rarely agree with you is because you have absolutely no diplomacy. You don't have the grace of saying something without crossing the line, it seems. We "liberals", although I would hardly call myself a liberal, as I'm not very familiar with American politics, like to defend what we think is worth defending, and point out some things that would not have happened had other people not interfered first. We try to understand the people and why they're doing wrong, and depending on the case, choose to defend them sometimes.
This, however, does not mean we agree. I do not agree with this, and I very much doubt any of my 'liberal friends' do.
I'd like to point out that the reason we have to defend America's "Enemies" all the time, is because they are the ones being bashed the most by 'conservatives' on these forums.

-konfusion

Of course its a democracy, just one set a thousand years in the past

sergeriver wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Do democracies execute children?  I didn't know that.

Democracies do what the people want.

People want kids executed?

Just 3 years ago such a case made it to the US Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/06/colb. … index.html

Basically, Missouri high courts questioned the legality of executing a minor on 8th Amendment grounds and somehow it made it to the Supreme Court bench.  Previous rulings set the precedent of 16 years old as the minimum age for execution.  The offender in this case was 15 at the time of offense.

Apparently, enough people want kids executed that the ruling wasn't tossed out of court outright.

The youngest executed was a 14 year old kid back in 1944, convicted by a kangaroo court in South Carolina for killing two white girls after a 3 hour trial and 10 minutes deliberation.

The U.S. leads the world in killing kids:

Since 1990, only six countries have executed people for crimes they committed as children: Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and the United States. The U.S. has executed more children than any of the other countries.
Every major international human rights treaty expressly prohibits execution for crimes committed before the age of 18.
At least 160 children have been sentenced to death in the U.S. since 1973.
Government electrocution, gassing and lethal injection of kids doubled in the last decade.

There’s no limit to how low we can go:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the execution of children as young as sixteen is not “cruel and unusual” punishment. It has yet to make a definitive statement about children under sixteen.
Of the thirty-eight states with the death penalty, fifteen have set the minimum age for death at 18, five set the minimum at seventeen, and seventeen have a minimum age of sixteen. The Federal Government sets the minimum age at eighteen.
In 1996, Mississippi prosecutors sought the death penalty for juveniles thirteen years of age.

Most often the U.S. kills children of color:

Two out of three children sent to death row are people of color.
Historically, two out of three people executed for crimes they committed as children have been African-American. During this century, the ratio has jumped to three out of four.
Of the nine girls executed in U.S. history, eight were Black and one was American Indian.
The youngest person executed in the U.S. since WWII was George Stinney, a fourteen year old black boy who was so small his mask fell off while he was being electrocuted by the state of South Carolina.
The Federal Government has imposed the death penalty against American Indian children for crimes they committed as young as ten years old.

Oh the outrage...oh the humanity!  Those Iranian bastards!

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-07-25 06:18:28)

Bubbalo wrote:

ATG wrote:

Did you also happen to know thatIran Leads the World in Executing Children?

Whereas the US gets around it by waiting until they're 18 to kill them....................

Lizzard, that is uninformed.

Bubbalo wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Umm....maybe North Korea is getting diplomacy because it is finally doing what the INTERNATIONAL community has asked for? Mainly shutting down its nuclear tech and getting it verified by INTERNATIONAL monitors.

After they launched experimental weapons.

sergeriver wrote:

I agree with ATG this time.  Iran is executing kids?  That's way over the limit IMO.  And they call themselves a democracy?

Whether they execute children has nothing to do with whether they're a democracy.

Further, on of the reasons they can get away with it is the convention on child's rights lacks a key signature.  Whose?  The US'.  Why?  The US won't sign away their right to execute minors for crimes.

I also feel it should be pointed out that in terms of requiring dress codes and the like, Saudi Arabia is far worse.  Yet, strangely, ATG has yet to make a thread about that.

I do not feel like the Sauds are as dangerous as the Iranians.

ATG wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Umm....maybe North Korea is getting diplomacy because it is finally doing what the INTERNATIONAL community has asked for? Mainly shutting down its nuclear tech and getting it verified by INTERNATIONAL monitors.

After they launched experimental weapons.

sergeriver wrote:

I agree with ATG this time.  Iran is executing kids?  That's way over the limit IMO.  And they call themselves a democracy?

Whether they execute children has nothing to do with whether they're a democracy.

Further, on of the reasons they can get away with it is the convention on child's rights lacks a key signature.  Whose?  The US'.  Why?  The US won't sign away their right to execute minors for crimes.

I also feel it should be pointed out that in terms of requiring dress codes and the like, Saudi Arabia is far worse.  Yet, strangely, ATG has yet to make a thread about that.

I do not feel like the Sauds are as dangerous as the Iranians.

Sorry, I misread that................

You do know that Osama is Saudi?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-07-25 06:50:23)

Talking points!!!   Everyone loves good talking points...

http://www.ncadp.org/html/juvenile_talking_points.html

Since 1990, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all other countries combined.

Over the past decade, four countries that previously allowed juvenile offenders to be sentenced to death—Yemen, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and China—officially outlawed the practice.

International human rights treaties to which the United States is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, expressly prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders.

Of the 22 states that permit juvenile offenders to be sentenced to death, 15 states currently have juvenile offenders on death row.  Only 7 states have carried out the execution of a juvenile offender since 1973.

The juvenile death penalty is geographically and racially biased—4 out of 5 juvenile offenders were sentenced to death in the South, and 2 out of 3 juvenile offenders are persons of color.

The last six executions of juvenile offenders, each of whom was an African American male, took place in Texas.

In recent years, there has been considerable legislative activity within states to increase the minimum age of execution—legislation banning juvenile executions has been enacted in two states (Indiana and Montana), has progressed at least partway to adoption in three states (Arkansas, Florida and Texas) and has been introduced in at least six states.

Recent medical research demonstrates that the portion of the brain responsible for impulse control and judgment does not fully develop until a person is between 18 and 22 years old. Compounding this is the fact that most of the juvenile offenders executed in the United States since 1990 have been affected by serious emotional or mental impairment, including organic brain damage.

The execution of juvenile offenders is inconsistent with a multitude of laws regarding the age at which children are recognized and treated as responsible adults—a person cannot vote, sit on a jury, join the military, enter into a contract or purchase cigarettes before the age of 18.

69% of Americans oppose the execution of juvenile offenders, according to a Gallup poll conducted in May 2002.

69%...31% of Americans think killing kids is ok.  Its probably the same 31% that would vote Bush and picket an abortion clinic.

I guess if we're only talking about worthless Americans and not some poor Iranian kids, then its ok.  LIBERATE IRAN WITH BOMBS!

Bernadictus wrote:

I have no problem with the country of Iran.
I have no problem with the people of the country of Iran.
I have no problem with the religion of the people of the country of Iran.

I have a huge problem with the 5th century way of thinking, that are enforced upon the people.

Bingo.

Maybe the title should be changed....

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Umm....maybe North Korea is getting diplomacy because it is finally doing what the INTERNATIONAL community has asked for? Mainly shutting down its nuclear tech and getting it verified by INTERNATIONAL monitors.

It developed nuclear weapons and missiles capable of hitting Japan. Now it gets fuel and concessions in exchange for disarming. Correct me if I'm wrong but is that not REWARDING their endeavours in the nuclear armaments sector?

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

What is Iran doing? Threatening Israel (whether it be ambiguous or not, still threatening), continuing its enrichment in the face of INTERNATIONAL condemnation and now selling nuclear and chemical weapons technology to Syria in exchange for a promise to not have peace with Israel.

Iran-Israel - none of our business: local issue for people in the middle east.

How can a country that has not yet developed nuclear weapons supply a country with nuclear weapons? I'd be interested to hear your view on this. Also, where is the evidence for your 'chemical weapon' charge? You seem so vehemently anti-Iran that it is clouding your rational judgement.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

The problem is that you can't have it both ways. You cry about the Palestinian people being oppressed by Israel and how horrid it is, even comparing Israel to the Nazi occupation of WW2. But when people are being oppressed within a country border...its "none of our business"?????????WTF you smoking.

We in the west, through the UN, are partly responsible for imposing Israel on that region of the world and overlooking their crimes since 1967. It is in our best interests that justice be served in order to clear our conscience and mend fences with those in the middle east we have treated unfairly, such as Iran.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Oppression is oppression no matter if it's within a country's border or not. It is ignorant to separate the two and say "oh well" to one and make post after post against another? That my friend is two faced to fit what you want to believe. So recently, when two teenage boys, 17 and 19, were hung in Iran for being............gay............your attitude is that it's nobody's business....BULLSHIT! If you are going to post as much as you do about the oppression of Palestinians, then how are the lives of two young men rather meaningless to you.

There is an important distinction you need to realise here:

a) The Palestinian situation is an international issue.

b) This 'gay-hanging' issue is a domestic issue within a sovereign nation.

It's not so long ago that gays got sent to prison in the west you know.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I have been on these forums for a relatively short time but I have noticed that when someone brings up something legitimate that you don't agree with, you usually respond in a very "who cares" attitude. But, OMG, everyone is an idiot if they don't get upset about the things you are upset about. This is what pisses me off, people who basically see only one side and only fight for wrongs they attach themselves to, instead of seeing the bigger picture and condemning every injustice where it lives and breathes.

I haven't seen you make one single solitary post in sympathy with the Palestinians. Not one. You have some cheeck calling me mono-vision on the issue: me being someone who believes in a two-state solution. I think it might be you who has bias issues. I'm not saying I'm not biased but I certainly think yours is clouding your reading of my posts.

PS I couldn't care less about individuals on this forum disagreeing with me. If everyone on the forum agreed with each other it would be pretty fucking boring.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

It is totally ignorant, uncaring and obnoxious to just say "oh well" let them deal with it. If the world took that attitude of "sitting on hands" because its none of the world's business what happens within a country's border then you, my friend, and every other European would be a German Nazi. If people stood by and did nothing in Bosnia...the Muslim population would have been wiped out. We have learned lessons, hopefully, by seeing what happens when the international community sits still and does nothing...does Rwanda ring a bell. Does Pol Pot and Cambodia ring a bell? It is a joke to say for even one moment that the actions ATG has put forth here is acceptable to you....BULLSHIT!

That is the problem with you DBY - you are stuck in the 'Team America: World Police' dream. The Nazi analogy is so tired. Germany declared war and made the first move, Europe declared war on Germany and fought back. Even if Germany had won it would have collapsed under the strain of a prolonged and concerted insurgency and the fact it would have become an international paraia. It's quite easy to cause chaos and bring down a tryant through guerrilla warfare and less savoury tactics. The ridiculousness of the Versailles Treaty HAD TO explode into violent confrontation in some way, shape and form.

You can't go around fixing the world DBY, it just ain't on. Many countries are many evolutionary steps behind the west on the political front. By subverting the natural development of these countries you only serve to stunt their development in the long run with ethnic and ideological tensions simmering under a fraudulent 'peace'. Rwanda was a direct result of Belgian colonial tactics, creating class divisions to 'divide and conquer'. If anyone other than Rwandans should have intervened it should have been them and them alone. I'm sure Tutsi and Hutu tensions exist to this day, ready to explode at the next opportunity. You can't suppress that kind of hatred for long. It must out at some point, international intervention rarely significantly changes peoples core beliefs. If the west had intervened in Cambodia it would have backfired on us completely - none of our fucking business. Cambodians should have organised themselves to oust Pot through blood and sweat. Tinpot dictators are the meat and potatoes of the developing world - are you gonna address the internal political flaws (as you might see them) of Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tibet, the Phillipines, etc. ad infinitum? Who deserves your attention first? Are you gonna deal with all of them? Is it going to be on the basis of need or strategic benefit? Why is Iran more deserving of attention in your eyes than any of the rest? Why don't you post threads decrying Saudi Arabia, where crimes equal to if not worse than those of Iran occur on a daily basis with their horrid endorsement of the Wahabi sect of Islam? Why don't you post about the plight of the Burmese and the near 30 year house imprisonment of the democratically elected leader of the country? It is YOU who is full of contradications, bias and double standards here.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Whether its the oppression of the Palestinians or regular people within Iran...wrong is wrong....and to sit back and not condemn one or the other is a serious character flaw. Actually, this attitude towards one type of human pain and the lack of passion for another type of human pain disturbs me. Very two faced in my book. Actually...you should take your own advice. Since the Palestinian issue has NOTHING to do with Ireland, then it is NONE of your business. So shut up and only speak up when the Irish are oppressed. Otherwise your "none of our business" philosophy doesn't hold any weight. You are not Palestinian, you are not Israeli, you do not live there and since the oppression of the Palestinian people doesn't happen within the Irish borders, then it's "none of your business" So going by your logic....STFU!!!!

I don't disagree with the fact that the Iranian legal system is horribly wrong on this matter. I just realise that it is none of my business. Is the US government going to buckle under international pressure for legalising what many around the world would consider barbaric and murderous: abortion? No and nor should they. That is a matter for Americans and Americans alone.

DeathBecomesYu - bear these two words in mind when posting:

INTERNATIONAL

DOMESTIC

Thank you, come again.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

This thread was put out by ATG to show what is going on in Iran and if you read the OP at the bottom you will see his point of how Iran is not only a problem at home but is a problem and threat to many outside its borders.

A point which has been proven a relative fallacy previously.

Ottomania wrote:

you entered IRaq to liberate, but you fucked up everything.

idiot.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

you entered IRaq to liberate, but you fucked up everything.

idiot.

dont you have different things to say? or exploding bombs in crowds are the first steps of liberation?