featherhead comments

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

Besides, since when does the right give a squat about legal precedents? You supported Bush, and he was breaking laws right and left.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

I don't see that you've made any arguments at all. Let's be very clear. What do you think should be done?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

I don't need to. You are the one whining. There is no debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

victimcrat

"The Nazis had trails"featherhead

Where did I say this? That being said, if I did say this, it was surely correct. No doubt the Nazis left trails. They were a huge government with all the usual incriminating paperwork. U.S. is one of the best countries about keeping paper so that people can find out what THEIR government, remember, the people who work for THEM, are doing with THEIR money. It's one of the good things about the U.S. Unfortunately, it just so happens that we don't find out until years later (not by accident either) about what was happening. Too late to prosecute any criminal actions. But periodically, with the hard work of good Americans, the truth eventually seeps out. And sometimes, when we're very lucky, folks like Robert MacNamara come out and admit what illegalities they were participating in. ((See 'Fog of War' DVD where he admits that the bombing of Japan was a war crime. It's good to see when such obvious, basic, facts happen to come out)) Anyway, YES, they had some sort of paper trail.

"I take it you mean we gave them trials."

Why would you take this? They had paper trails because they kept papers. Of course WE may be mentioned from time to time in the paper, of course. So?

"Yes, but the US gov't did not impanel a jury at Nuremberg with ordinary American citizens."

Nor should they have. And?

"Surely even Noam Chomsky has told you high-ranking Nazis were tried in military tribunals, in accord with legal custom stretching back to George Washington's first term."

Chomsky doesn't tell me anything. If you wish to know what he says I recommend breaking ranks with 99.9999999% of the right and actually read his writings, instead of just frothing out nonsense with you mistakenly think he thinks. Besides, who said anything about thinking that a military tribunal wasn't an option. I haven't even hinted at anything such as this. I said this would be fine as long as the U.S. plays no role in running the trial. Sort of the same reasons we don't allow the accused rape victims, nor their family members, to be in the jury. Okay?

"Can you provide a legal precedent for what this administration is doing in this case?"

No. But if we are considering them to be criminals, we should do what folks usually do when criminals from another country commits a crime in their country. If they are war criminals, even though this isn't really logically possible given that they don't qualify under the criteria already discussed e.g., they have no state, country, military, etc...,we should send them to a military tribunal somewhere else. No problem from where I stand. I'm not against prosecuting criminals, regardless of which country they're from.

"Eric Holder couldn't. Our affirmative action president can't either."

Racist statement again.

"And yes, his grades - the ones the public has been allowed access to - indicate Obama got into Columbia and Harvard as a charity case."

You guys are really desparate to get Obama on something, aren't you? It's embarrassing and makes you appear even more desparate than we know you already are.

"Why should it bother you?"

It doesn't bother me at all if you make racist comments. You are the one who should be embarrassed. But then again you're perhaps not even aware that what you're doing is making racist statements. This is common among many racists. I much prefer the honest racists who just say what they really think about black folks, Arabs, etc...instead of beating around the bush.

"you yourself say he is not radical enough"

"Radical enough"? He's not remotely radical at all. The word radical wouldn't even enter the radar regarding Obama. Just a middle of the road American. Not even leftist.

"which to a leftist is the same as saying he is not as intelligent and perceptive as moi."

I don't know what you're saying. You mean hat I think radical are more intelligent than leftists. I don't think these terms mean awfully much. They're often too watery. I consider Chomsky to be conservative in many ways. I also consider many on the right to be radical in many ways.

"Just search [ Obama “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” ] and you'll see a personal admission from our president, one the media is still uninterested in."

What on earth would be wrong, or even an issue, had he benefitted from such a moral legal action? That he may have benefitted isn't the issue. The issue is your saying that he had as if this means something. Almost as bad as the "reverse racism" nonsense.

"and they [the Nazis] were FAAAAAAR worse, killed FAAAAAR more, etc...But then again we supported both, so we should probably just sort of not get too over righteous."featherhead

"You speak for yourself on that one."

I usually speak for myself.

"I really enjoy your stuff though."

Thanks!

"You demonstrate a feature about the left that can never be underestimated"

Literacy? That we read? That we know history more than the right? That we're not racist? What? (Perhaps below? I can't wait)

"and that must be thoroughly understood by anyone dealing with leftists -"

You say this as if you know what "leftists" are, and yet you have yet to get as much as a single assertion correct. First, you should know who you're talking about, and you cannot do this unless you read them, talk to them, study them, etc...The left DOES do this with the right, and this is a given part of what it means to be from "the left" much of the time. The right don't even bother. This is why I VERY rarely have anyone from the right to even read ANYTHING which is supposedly from the left. They 'think' they already know, just as you evidentally believe you already know Chomsky, but, in reality, you don't. Not at all. So, please try and be a little humble, pick up a few books, read them, come back and make arguments based on something more than what Rush says, or the National Enquirer.

"most of them loathe their own country and western civilization in general."

My point has EXACTLY been proven by this ignorant statement. I have not said a single word which even hints at loathing anything about western civilization. On the other hand, I have repeatedly demonstrated the exact opposite. You right wing pseudo-patriots do not by ANY far stretch of the imagination have a monopoly on patriotism. As a matter of fact, much of what Ihave said has proved exactly this. Bush's criminality itself demonstrates a disdain for the U.S. But I'll give you a chance to redeem your empty charge with a nice long list of where you have "seen" this in any of my statements. I'm waiting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

sailwind:

"I think your saying they didn't a war crime...could you clarify please?"

Who do you think I think didn't commit a war crime? As usual, there have been crimes committed on all sides. If we wish to call what al Qaeda did a war crime, fine, we can call it that, though it doesn't really fit the usual definition given that they are not nor have been a government or state. Usually war crimes are committed by states. They do not qualify as a state in any way, shape, or form. They're just a band of criminals carrying out crimes. The U.S. on the other hand, does have a state and government. It DOES order actions via the state to be carried out. There ARE laws which states are subject to, and where if broken WILL be considered war crimes. So, we need to ask ourselves, are we no better than they are? Because they commit crime does it necessarily follow that we muct as well? And what is the responsibility of those who have supported in the building of these forces in the first place? I have not hinted a word that they have not committed a crime. I've simply said that if they have, then we should prove it, and they should be punished accordingly. Never hinted at anything else. And anyone else having committed war crimes should be held accountable as well. Is this so radical?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

WilliB

"It is a safe prediction that you will see some of these jihadists walk away as free men from this trial... the lawyers have already started laying the groundwork."

They won't walk away unless there's no evidence to keep them. And if they confess to having participated in 9/11 then they won't be going anywhere. Now, my question is should we expect the same to happen to U.S. military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, presidents included, when they participate in, or order, war crimes? If not, why not? It's a very simple question. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal and was a war crime. Period. For that matter, in th elegal definition of terrorism, even the threat of invasion qualifies as terrorism. So, basically, every time the U.S., or anyone IN positions of power who may be able to cause such events, are already guilty of terrorism. The hypocrisy is SO glaringly loud. Almost every day we hear pontification as to whether or not we might, should, etc....invade Iran, and this just passes off as normal discussion over dinner, on TV, etc...Now, something tells me that if the Iranian government, etc...were pontificating every noght on thre tube whether or not they should or should not invade the U.S., we'd probably bomb them the next day insisting that they were on their way to bomb us, that we reserve the right to proactively protect ourselves, and on and on....That such basics, and I mean THIS is about as basic as you can get, aren't even discussed in the media at all is rather pathetic. It's a damning statement about the media in general, and about the public which doesn't confront the media as well.

victimcrat "If the likes of KSM walk, Obama goes down." Why would Obama go down? Why would they walk? We have enough evidence to prove that they are guilty, don't we? If not, then whoever ordered them to be held for so long should go to prison instead. But I'm confident that we would NEVER hold anyone without evidence. "But our affirmative action president" Racist statement. "whose ridiculous media-driven hagiography also includes the oft-repeated half-truth that he was a professor of constitutional law, has declared, pre-trial, that KSM will hang." Explain. I don't understand. What's the point of having a trial if it's already been determined that they will hang. That, too, is criminal according to the law. Once again, it's quite simple. We either have evidence that they are guilty and punish them if are found to be guilty. or we don't have any evidence and do what any civil country would obviously do. Why do I hear fear in your voices? "Brilliant. Should they lose, KSM's lawyers will have grounds for declaring a mistrial, a gift given them before the whole farcical show trial even began." Again, I hear fear. Why? "What kind of elected official, let alone a president, would imperil the lives of ordinary Americans with something like this?" By following the law? Yeah, I guess after Bush's criminality almost became normalized among some of the citizenry, law and order just sort of don't matter. "Given the cold-blooded fanaticism Al Qaeda murderers are known for who in their right mind would let a spouse, relative, friend, neighbor or coworker sit on a jury in a case like this?" The Nazis had trails and they were FAAAAAAR worse, killed FAAAAAR more, etc...But then again we supported both, so we should probably just sort of not get too over righteous. It makes it too obvious that we're trying to make up for these past blunders and idiotic decisions. "The federal gov't only last month convicted the DC sniper. How long will this obscene charade drag on, and at what cost in tax dollars or even innocent lives?" If they confess to being guilty, or we have the evidence we surely have, then it shouldn't be too long. I mean, you wouldn't want anyone innocent getting the death penalty would you? I mean, if we just kill an innocent person then I don't really see how it would be any different that the terrorists killing innocent people. But I'm sure we have evidence. "What traitorous, ignorant morons these Democrats are. FDR, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey - among the past generations of Democrats - would be shocked to see what has become of their party." REALLY? The democrats have moved so far to the right that it's shameful. Obama is FAR too conservative, and Clinton was a Republican. Of course not a REAL Republican of the sort which would have despised the charlatans who have the audacity to call themselves Republican now, but a newer Republican notheless. Ron Paul was about the closest to an actual Republican there has been for decades, though he was too conservative as well, though infinitely better than the war criminals like Bush, Cheney, etc...

Blue_Tiger

"I say keep them in Gitmo. Better yet, send them to a frozen military camp in Northern Alaska, above the circle. That's even better than they deserve...."

Why not have a trial? What are all of you folks afraid of? ANd then after they have had their day in court, then Bush and crew can get in line. However, NOT in a U.S. court. A REAL court which would be willing to look at the case without any interference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

Thanks!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

Sailwind,

Here's what a two minute research project looks like:

1)Saidwind offers an article written by a guy who works at the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terroism in order to preach to me about terrorism

2)On this institutions very own page the following information is offered: "Until 31 March 2008 MIPT housed the Terrorism Knowledge Base which was developed in conjunction with the Rand Corporation"

3)The RAND corporation (a conservative "think tank")came out with the following article which I'm not sure will satisfy sailwind

The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida." This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, "counterterrorism" instead.

And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rand-corp----war-on-terro_b_116107.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

By the way, sailwind, can you find me any studies by the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) which deals with the U.S.'s relationship to terrorist organizations, support for terrorists, and things like this. I mean, if they're a serious organiztion, and they're really committed to fighting terrorism, the FIRST place to start is at home. I mean, after all, they were founded after the Oklahoma city bombing. A domestic criminal act. We can call it terrorism if you like. It does fit some of the descriptions. More importantly, we should make sure we're not doing anything which helps to cause the very thing we're supposed to be fighting. But then again, compared to much of the world, even quite close to the U.S., we've been fortunate to have suffered MUCH less. Probably a good idea to keep it that way, eh? Also probably a good idea NOT to unwittingly help to cause it in the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

sailwind

featherhead "The main thing is that we get to hear in first person their reasons. THIS is the most important thing, and this is the thing which some are trying to surpress as much as possible. Wonder why?"FH

Yeah! I agree!

"And the mass-murdering jihadis who took out a large part of Manhattan get their fancy civilian lawers, Miranda rights and all that?" ((I didn't say this. Read more carefully))

"What? You don't trust the U.S. legal system? I thought you were a patriot of sorts? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're on the right." FH

"Bizarre."((The other guy))

"The entire thing is not really all that bizzare at all. We supported group X for years, training them, funding them, etc....After the Soviets left, we stayed, and they wanted us out, but we didn't go. The questions people should be talking about MUCH more, but aren't, for the predictable reasons, is why on earth do we need to be anywhere near that part of the world in the first place? Do they have a right to be in the U.S.? If the vast majority of the population of the U.S. wanted them to leave, and there were a few criminals in power who wished for them to stay, would it be okay with you?"FH

"Here is a little intellectual clarity for you as a terrorist apologist who wants to hear their reasons."

Well, you've already demonstrated you have no game by making an idiotic charge that I'm a "terrorist apologist", and I haven't even hinted at anything which wold indicate such. Nor are any of the sources I refer to even remotely "terrorist apologists". Not a word. Oh, I don't doubt you "think" you see such. That's pretty much a given. But then again you probably think Michael Moore is a "communist". Were I a terrorist apologist I'd be talking more about George Bush and making excuses for his war crimes. You should check before projecting your own pathologies onto me. Perhaps you can pay me to do therapy with you. Say, $1,000 per minute?

"Terrorists are different from revolutionaries and freedom fighters because terrorists target the innocent."

Who said they didn't? That being said, when people start dropping bombs on civilian populations such as the U.S. has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other countries, well, all of THOSE civilian deaths were just collateral damage. So, really, it's not our fault. Those folks shouldn't have been there. You know, in THEIR country. How about when a country fights against the freedom fighters, as the U.S. has repeatedly done? What happens when the U.S. supports the terrorists?

"Terrorists select women, children, airline passengers, office workers, worshipers and others uninvolved in combat and, generally speaking, incapable of defending themselves."

Yeah? And? Why are you telling me this? I'm well aware of what terrorists do. I'm well aware of what MY country does as well. Why are you avoiding ALL comments and criticisms of the U.S.? Even the basics, such as the U.S. installing Saddam in the first place. You know, back when he was an assassin? If you wish to see REAL numbers of casualties carried out by terrorist actions, go youtube John Stockwell Third World Wars. CIA agent 25 years. Involved in it all. But what would HE know? I'm sure you are MUCH more informed than he. By the way, have you read a single word of any of the links I've left for you guys yet, or is reading still a sin on the right?

"There are many definitions of terrorism, some of which are extremely convoluted, but there is a single question, the answer to which can separate terrorists from guerrilla fighters:"

Yes. I know what they are.

"Would the act, if undertaken by a uniformed soldier in time of war, constitute a war crime?"

Depends on the act. There is a LONG list of acts which constitutes war crimes. Bush's actions qualified for several. And, as I've already mentioned, Reagan's were many as well. Open and brazen. Well, at least to those not thoroughly indoctrinated.

"Some cases are hard to judge, but nine times out of 10, answering this question clears away intellectual fog. It makes you realize that terrorism is a war crime committed by someone not a soldier."

Not in any way, shape, or form. If I go into any country and just start shooting everyone and say it's because my religion told me to not a single person, not a single rational person that is, would say that it was a war crime. They would say that I was an insane religious fanatic who hated country X or whatever. The notion of war crime wouldn't even come into the conversation. Sorry.

"This intellectual clarity is important"

It's neither clear, nor important.

"important not just to those of us who have lost family members or friends. Intellectual clarity is important to civilization itself."

I agree 100%. So, why are you fighting against it? I've been quite clear with my comments, and as of yet haven't had a single one demonstrated to be incorrect, or for the most part, not even challenged. Not a single reference I've used has been commented on. Nothing. Just more whining from pseudo-patriots who need to read a little more about the subject. Oh, that reminds me of another thing. Where are all of the sources I've asked you folks from? Not a peep?

"When we fail to recognize the distinction between warfare and terrorism, we strip soldierly dignity from those who protect us from barbarism and award it to murderers."

Why are you telling me this? I haven't said a word to demonstrate that I thought otherwise. Not a single word.

"This injustice doubly punishes terrorism's victims."

Which victims? You mean ours or theirs? Oh, you weren't aware that that anyone else had victims other than the U.S. That's not even close to being surprising.

"First, the terrorist turns the victim into an instrument of his armed propaganda. He transforms a human being into a bloody wall poster. Then, the terrorist or his intellectual apologist converts the victim into a legitimate target for military action, telling us there is no difference between an airliner and a military base, that a religious procession is no different from a column of soldiers."

And? Nothing new. Why are you telling me this? Haven't said a word which would indicate that I'm unaware of this. But if you think you can find ONE, feel free to produce it.

"He forces us to suffer the intellectual insult of being told that Carlos the Jackal is the legitimate heir of Simon Bolivar"

They are not remotely the same, nor have I said a word which would indicate that I thought they were. Why all the focus on THEM though. I haven't see you say a word about U.S. actions. And speaking of Bolivar, the U.S. has a long history of supporting the exact people who wish to kill folks like him.

"that President Lincoln and Presidente Gonzalo were politically and morally equivalent."

They weren't? Or Reagan and Castro? Reagan having killed MANY time more than Castro even hinted at. Hundreds of times more in fact.

Why send this link? Nothing there that I'm unaware of.

"Read the whole thing and take your blinders off."

You haven't written a single word to indicate I've had blinders on. On the other hand, you and the other pseudos here have done most everything you can NOT to respond to anything. Shall I go back and compile a list?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

WilliB

featherhead:

" And whether they are at war, or are simply criminals, (not that there's much difference in most cases) "

"You can repeat this ad nauseam, but no, they are not "simply criminals"."

Uhh...Yes, they are. They belong to no state. They represent no government. Few people in the country where they come from support them. They're nothing BUT criminals, who happen to have quite a bit of money, or they did, and happen to despise the U.S. for what they consider to being an occupying force in their country, and this was LONG before 9/11. The U.S. has military bases in Saudi Arabia and they don't want them there. Sort of like if the Saudis had bases in the U.S. and some folks from the U.S. didn't think they should be there. But I'm SURE this would be no problem at all for anyone in the U.S. Right? I mean, YOU wouldn'T care if the Saudis, Japanese, Koreans, Iraqis, etc....had bases in the U.S. Right? Sort of getting that feeling again that occurs when one's hypocrisy starts becoming apparent? The guys have been saying for YEARS that if the U.S. would simply leave THEIR country, they would do nothing. They may be involved in Israel somehow, but that's not going to end any time soon, especially given Israel's ongoing aggression and crimiality. But I forgot. Crimes are only things OTHER folks do to us. We NEVER do anything to them. I mean, by definition that is.

"There is no personal gain on their side"

Oh, so you think they're just fighting because they like to fight? No reason? Must be those Arab genes, or that Islamic desire for terror, huh? Perhaps the gain for them is, say, having their lands unoccupied by an external power? But I guess if someone moved into your house, you'd just let them stay, offer them a coke, and allow them to do whatever they wished, huh? I mean, what would you gain by asking them to leave? More space?

"they are fighting (and sacrificing their lives) to win in a holy war."

Yeah, and? What does that have to do with their criminality? Whether the flew planes into buildings because their particular take on religion dictates it, or a purple elephant told them to do it, or they were just bored one day and thought a good day to die is irrelevant to the criminality of the action. May be of some use in knowing their reasons so as to try and prevent it from happening again in the future though. A good start would be not to support them in the first place. I'm surprised you don't know this (not really). The CIA itself has a term for it. It's called "blowback". They're quite well aware of this as a possibility and factor it into their assessments. "Is it worth risking blowback from group X so as to have access to cheap oil, or not?" Answer: "Yes."

"For the record, the German saboteurs who were landed by U-boat in NY with the task to cause as much damage as possible were not tried as "simple criminals" either."

Reagan wasn't tried as a war criminal at all even though the World Court declared the U.S. terror against Nicaragua to be illegal. The U.S. simply said that they didn't recognize the court. So much for international law. Of course OTHERS have to follow the laws. But the U.S. doesn't have to. It's as if bin Laden and his supporters, assuming they had an actual country or state, committed 9/11, were found guilty of the crimes by the highest international legal body in the world, and simply said they didn't recognize it. You would be okay with this?

"They got a military tribunal."

You mean the Germans? Yeah? And? Give these guys a military tribunal somwhere then. Makes little difference to me. The main thing is that we get to hear in first person their reasons. THIS is the most important thing, and this is the thing which some are trying to surpress as much as possible. Wonder why?

"And the mass-murdering jihadis who took out a large part of Manhattan get their fancy civilian lawers, Miranda rights and all that?"

What? You don't trust the U.S. legal system? I thought you were a patriot of sorts? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're on the right.

"Bizarre."

The entire thing is not really all that bizzare at all. We supported group X for years, training them, funding them, etc....After the Soviets left, we stayed, and they wanted us out, but we didn't go. The questions people should be talking about MUCH more, but aren't, for the predictable reasons, is why on earth do we need to be anywhere near that part of the world in the first place? Do they have a right to be in the U.S.? If the vast majority of the population of the U.S. wanted them to leave, and there were a few criminals in power who wished for them to stay, would it be okay with you?

victimcrat "And for some folks, say, Bush's grandfather, it spoiled some good business which was taling place. However, being the lawless creature he was, and it must run in the family quite deeply, he kept trading with the Nazis even AFTER the U.S. had created the Trading with Enemies Act which made it illegal to do so."featherhead "For someone who claims to be so much more discerning than the average MSM reader featherhead sure looks credulous here." Uhhh...This was nothing controversial at all. This was simply reporting a basic, easily verifiable fact, for anyone caring to look. But the problem is, is that of you DO decide to look, and then you find the facts, for once, you won't be able to any longer keep denying them and sticking to your nonsense. It's better to stay disinformed and just keep screaming, huh? "Can you provide us with provenance for you source on that one??" Of course. Probably won't do any good though because I doubt you'll read anything. And then when you do, rather than checking to see how factual it is or isn't, you'll simply start trying to attack the source. That being said, I'm a few (dozen) steps ahead of allowing this possibility, so save your breath. On the other hand, if I just spoonfeed you the information it will be doing the work you should be doing yourself. I think YOU should try and do a little research yourself. It's not like you can't Google, is it? Okay, I'll do a one minute search for you.... THERE! 10 seconds to be exact. The first one listed on the page. 4 million more. I believe I even saw a FOX one, though I didn't read it. My hunch is that it was probably an apologetic take given their support for many criminals on the right. Perhaps they got one right. I'll look after this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar "You know, reading about this spectral 'White Aryan Resistance' you speak of was kind of humorous, the first time." In what sense? Because they're blockheads? "Having to read about it again, on a thread about 9-11 mass murderers, just makes you look like a crank." Yeah, but accurate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

victimcrat

From featherhead "The White Arian Resistance would call theirs a holy war as well. "

"This is just too flaky. White Americans born between March 21 and April 20 (most years...) have formed a homegrown terrorist movement?"

Uhhh...Huh? Is this, like, some inside joke or something? I don't understand.

WilliB featherhead: " That being said, it was a criminal act. An act of war is usually where one state's government declares war on another. The 9/11 goons represented no one but themselves " "What you mean by "usual"?" I already explained. Most states declare a war on another country. When WWII was taking place, the U.S. didn't get involved until Germany declared war on the U.S. Didn't have any desire to either. And for some folks, say, Bush's grandfather, it spoiled some good business which was taling place. However, being the lawless creature he was, and it must run in the family quite deeply, he kept trading with the Nazis even AFTER the U.S. had created the Trading with Enemies Act which made it illegal to do so. But, hey, when you're making money, little things like Hitler and the Nazis, Saddam, Suharto, Marcos, etc.......can be overlooked, and the higher moral ground of supporting murdering dictators for a profit accepted. You should really know things things. These are some of the basics of your country. I would have thought that you would have opposed supporting folks like Hitler, bin Laden, Suharto, etc.....I guess it was only the "anti-American left" who protested against these criminals before, during, and after most all of their crimes had taken place. We should have been patriotic and supported them with you. "Jihad is holy war, and in their mind the jihadists are at war." I don't doubt for a moment that in their minds they think they're at war, just as I don't doubt that the White Aryan Resistance do, nor any of the other anti-democratic folks, primarily from the right, who are always whining about their government "controlling" everything. And whether they are at war, or are simply criminals, (not that there's much difference in most cases) the reasons for actions taken should still be examined, and everything done to prevent them from happening again. "And again, attacking the center of a nation in order to bring it down goes well beyond the scope of a "crime" for civil court." Uhh....Will you apply this same standard to the U.S. as well? Are you REALLY SURE you wish to go down this path? That being said, hey, I'm all for them going to an international court instead. I mean, if as you say, they think they are at war, and we wish to consider whatever they have as some sort of army, then I'd be most happy to send them to an international tribunal. The problem is, is that if the U.S. wishes to consider them enemy combatants with an army, then they are required to send them to international tribunals, unless, of course, we wish to demonstrate our own lawlessness, again. On the other hand, if they're simply criminals, it poses the problem that we will, once again, be in the hypocritical position where when U.S. civilians commit crimes, the demand that the country send them back to the U.S. for punishment (military crimes that is), and say WE will deal with them. If we follow our own rules, then, we should send them back to their own country to be punished, or whatever. Which do you prefer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

WilliB

featherhead: " Perhaps their just your typical run of the mill religious fanatics who happen to carry out criminal acts from time to time. "

"I don´t know how often I have to point this out to you, but killing yourself while trying to take out the government, the military command, and a large part of downtown NY is not a "criminal act"."

You don't have to keep pointing anything out. If you've said something wrong once, repeating it any number of times isn't going to suddenly chage its truth value. That being said, it was a criminal act. An act of war is usually where one state's government declares war on another. The 9/11 goons represented no one but themselves. I know that you REALLY want to consider it a war so as to give you the excuse of doing anything you want, regardless of whether or not it's illegal, but that's just too bad. Once again, if the White Arian Resistance went to, say, Russia, and flew a few plans into a few buildings, and Russia responded by saying that because the culprits were from the U.S., and therefore the U.S. has declared war on Russia, I'm not sure you'd still be supporting your own policy or criteria for what war consists of. However, this example isn't quite correct in that the White Arian Resistance would have come from an actually country, one with a functioning government and society, various institutions, and the like.

"It is an act of war; a holy war for the religious zealots."

They can call it whatever they want. The White Arian Resistance would call theirs a holy war as well. Some homegrown terrorists, white, have declared war on the U.S. government as well, and have done so for a long time. Perhaps another country should invade the U.S. to take out these terrorists since the government isn't doing a very good job. But then again they're not all that far from people in high places anyway. I have a novel idea. Why doesn't the U.S. just stay the hell out of other countries, especially countries who don't want them there, and see if it helps reduce the hatred towards itself which may eventually lead to actions such as 9/11? Wow! That's deep. Let's see....Now, if WE don't invade THEIR countries, then THEY would have little or no reason to hate US, and the THEY would probably not do anything to US. And if they did, we could defend ourselves, as we should, of course. I mean, this IS the ONLY reason for their to be a military anyway. That's supposed to be its only job i.e., to protect the country. Invading other countries doesn't quite fit the defintion of defense. There were even overt calls for terrorism by many on the right. They called it "preventive war". Remember? If we "think" country X was "considering" doing something to us, rather than waiting, we should just go ahead and bomb them. Now, this really IS deviant behavior at its worst. Of course any other country could do the same to the U.S., but I guess since we would never think of doing any such thing, as one can easily tell by spending 30 seconds studying history, there would really be no reason for them to want to.

""Criminals" do things for their own benefit; they do not commit mass murder in order to go to paradise."

So, you're the "expert" on the criminal mind? That being said, you should be careful before saying things which will lead to yet another extrication of your foot from your mouth. Ever consider the possibility that committing mass murder in order to go to paradise WAS for their own benefit? I mean, all those vigins they're supposed to get and all.....

Anyway, speaking of terrorists, have you seen the youtube video of Billy Connolly talking about suicide bombers? It's quite funny. Give it a watch and tell me what you think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

victim said:

"Chomsky has worked decades for MIT, no small player in the 'military-industrial complex' people like you constantly preach about."

I haven't mentioned the military-industrial complex once. But there's really no need to as this, too, is a given. Chomsky talks about his work there quite often, and has joked about his using their facilities to contact his daughter who was living in Nicaragua at the time when Reagan was committing his war crimes there.

"I've heard podcasts of his where, to his credit, he displayed admirable candor in basically admitting that he is a sell-out."

I've read every book he's written, minus a few of the liguistic books, have probably 50 lecture recordings, etc....and have been keeping up with his work for 25 years. He's a "sell out" in what sense? That he makes money in the system where he lives? Your statement makes no sense. But before we go off into discussions about Chomsky, please, whatever you do, do NOT simply go seeking for anti-Chomsky sites. Done it already for years. Haven't found a one where anyone is remotely informed. Read for yourself if you wish to discuss his work. Then we can talk. I have mounds of references of you are actually willing to read a little. Actually, I have mounds of the anti-Chomsky sites as well if you wish to dis-inform yourself. I mean, you CAN do this if you wish, and then I'll just have to go down the list deconstructing everything that pours out. Been doing it for years. I'd be infinitely more inpressed were you to actually read somethings for yourself, and make your arguments. Besides, if you DO use others as sources I'll probably be able to tell within about a sentence where you visited.

"And besides, Chomsky tends to comment after the fact, after playing fast and loose with them."

Here we go already. This is not true and you will NOT find a single example of this anywhere, except, at one of the sites I'm well aware of. When YOU read his work yourself, and YOU find the statements, tell me which page and paragraph you're referring to, and all the other things educated people do, then we may have something to discuss. But given the statement you just made, which of his books have you read. I mean, you MUST have read them to know this, yes?

"Forget the MSM, 'centrists' like Michael Moore and intellectual frauds like Noam Chomsky."

Don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about people whose works I've read, who I've heard speak repeatedly, whose detractors I've watched fumble around not knowing what they're talking about, and know something about the subject. You see, I don't mind you thinking either Moore or Chomsky to be frauds, but you're simply saying so means squat. May as well call them cheese and cornbread. Means nothing. Nothing to back up your statements. I'd almost bet a car that you've read nothing by either. If you have, feel free to tell me. Otherwise, you should probably just go back to kindergarten and call kids names, and run, of course.

"What political philosophers do you read in the abstract?"

I read them in the book myself. Right now I'm reading Moseley's A Philosophy of War, Rawls, Walzer, Nozick, several ex-C.I.A agents, say, Ralph McGehee, John Stockwell, Raymond Garthoff, and others. Oh, and I've already read Clausewitz, so you don't need to ask. And you?

"I get the distinct impression you're just itching to tell us"

You asked!

"as the five 9-11 defendants will, that it's 'the whole system' which needs replacing."

Which system?

"So get to your point - what would you replace our republic with?"

Don't know what you're talking about. Never said a word about replacing anything. Always room for improvements though. Most democratically-minded folks take this for a given. Of course this is one of the major faults of the right. They understand virtually nothing about democracy ot the way it works. Much more in line with totalitarian socities most of the time. Only most of history demonstrates this. But why would we be discussing history. Surely this has no relevance. Did you read the P.I.P.A. article yet? It's quite basic and easy. We'll work up to Robert McChesney and Robert Parry later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

OopS! Forgot Bill up there.

"Firstly, the jihadists are not "criminals""

Uhhh...They're sure not a soccer team. But perhaps you're correct. Perhaps their just your typical run of the mill religious fanatics who happen to carry out criminal acts from time to time. You know, sort of like the right-wing Christian Talibangelist criminals who carry out crimes from time to time. God knows the U.S. never does anything criminal. I mean, by definition that is. A well indoctrinated person wouldn't even understand those two terms in the same sentence; "U.S. and criminal? Huh? (scratches head) Uhhh....huh? Anyway, We're No.1!" Ahhhhh.....Utter perfection!

"and secondly, if by now you have not heard the arguments of the jihadis against the Western world in general and the US in particular, you must have been living in a cave."

Uhhh...I have said nothing which would indicate that I haven't heard the arguments. I've been listening to the arguments since WAY back when Chomsky was writing about them 25 years ago. Probably longer ago than your age. The entire "terrorist" paradigm was written and discussed in great detail years ago. LOOOONG before 9/11 happened. Years. As a matter of fact, folks like Chomsky were supporting anti-Saddam resistance groups LONG before the U.S. even remotely started to come around. Actually, he was even supporting them when it was illegal to do so because of U.S. law which prohibited it. Why? Because Saddam was our friend. He was our buddy. And what makes this especially ironic is that the right was calling folks like Chomsky "anti-American" then because he was supporting the folks fighting against Saddam. You see, if you depend on the right for ANYTHING in the way of media, you WILL end up making unwitting and embarrassing blunders like this all over the place without knowing. Of course when the predictable cognitive dissonance kicks in, as it always does, you can just come to places like this whining, demonstrating that you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, and be happy in your ignorant bliss. Read any Chomsky lately?

"Bin Ladin has hardly been lazy in distributing his sermons to Al Jazeera, has he now."

How many of his speeches have you ever heard? I mean, from beginning to end? How many? On this site, or any site, western newspaper, book, or anything. Sort of odd, once again, that know one really knows what he says, and that the media doesn't let you. Ever wonder why? Can't find a translator, perhaps? I don't think so. They do NOT want you hearing for a very pecific reason. You are NOT to know certain information regarding your own government. This is nothing even close to being remotely new either. Personally, I think they should have been playing all of his speeches from WAY back so that we'd have a better idea of what was going on, who we were supposedly up against, their ideas (from THEM and NOT from U.S. traslations of them), and on and on....Just the simple basics which everyone should be demanding. And this is especially so if MY government is planning to send folks to die for some reason, using MY money to do so, etc....Once again, the ODD thing is that folks from the right fight to stay un/dis-informed. It's like a dictators dream citizen. Scary. And then, when someone as centrist as Michael Moore has even a small clip of bin Laden's cousin on Larry King telling how Osama had thanked the U.S. for their support, the right starts whining at Moore, as if he has done something wrong by passing on basic facts. Once again, it's a very good sign of indoctrination when you can have the citizens fighting to stay clueless. Makes the govenrments job much easier. Don't have to spend as much time propagandizing you. You're willing participants. (snore)

"How do his teachings become different when they are broadcast from New York??"

Uhhh...Well, first of all, people may actually hear them for the first time. Secondly, there are most definiely some folks who do NOT want the guys giving their reasons. Why? What's there to be afraid of? Once again, it's as basic as the elementary school child example I gave yesterday, which, of course, neither you or victim responded to. Waiting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

WilliB

Firstly, the jihadists are not "criminals", and secondly, if by now you have not heard the arguments of the jihadis against the Western world in general and the US in particular, you must have been living in a cave.

Bin Ladin has hardly been lazy in distributing his sermons to Al Jazeera, has he now. How do his teachings become different when they are broadcast from New York??

"Sorry to disappoint, I don't watch Fox." victimcrat Yeah, I thought you might say that. I wouldn'T admit to it either. This is good. It demonstrates that you have at least enough upstairs to know on some level, albeit quite minimal, that what they produce is anti-information for the most part. It would be rather dense to admit this. One half point for you. That being said, where do you get your "information"? "Why can't leftists (the non-Americans in particular)" What is a "leftist"? I'm an American. "...argue without bringing out the same old imaginary culprits, FOX or Rush Limbaugh" Uhhh....Perhaps because the right usually offers no other source of information. Perhaps the National Enquirer from time to time. And I hardly see in what way either are imaginary. There are thousands of poor uniformed souls swallowing the garbage Rush spews day in a day out who know no better. FOX is no different. That being said, being that ALL MSM are hugh corporate entities, existing for a profit, owned and controlled by big business from top to bottom, and having interlinking relations with all sorts of other huge industries which absolutely DO effect what comes out of them, I should pick on FOX alone. ALL are this way, and this includes PBS, though to a slightly lesser degree. Perhaps rather than trying to inform you of data and information you will likely never come across via the media, and especially the corporate-controlled media e.g. ALL MSM that is, I should just leave links, book titles, etc...then you can read, come back afterwards and make something resembling an arguement. So, let's just begin with the P.I.P.A study. Did you read it yet? ((Now, I've been spoon-feeding information to the right for years, and I'd say that about .00000000001% have actually read the information and responded in an intelligent way. Almost as hard as trying to get a right-winger to read ONE Chomsky book, virtually impossible. Let's see)) http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf , Fox or Rush Limbaugh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: More than 1,000 cheer Palin in Michigan for book tour See in context

She can write? Those cheering can't read. What's she doing????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

@featherhead

"Personally, I want to know exactly their reasons. I want to know their complaints. I want to know why they think what they do. I want to know if there's any legitimacy to their complaints."

victimcrat "And I'll wager you're the type that thinks Charles Manson had a case against the US gov't."

You probably shouldn't wager. That being said, yes, if he presented compelling evidence that the government had done something, then I'd like to hear it. In the case of Manson, there was nothing to my knowledge. I mean, at least that's what Vincent Bugliosi said when he visited my university and talked about Manson. On the other hand, there are truck fulls of evidence that the U.S. has been involved with Bin Laden-type characters for years. This is nothing even remotely new, at least to those who have been keeping up on such things for 25-35 years. But I guess if one hasn't, they'd simply be unaware of such basics. And the U.S. media is sure not going to inform you. That's for sure. For a good example of how well informed folks are see the article at P.I.P.A entitled something like Misperceptions of the Iraqi War. They had a breakdown of all the major U.S. news outlets, tabulated the percentage of folks who had misperceptions about the basic facts of the war correlated with which news outlet they watched most. Needless to say, those who watched PBS had the least amount of misperceptions. (And even THIS is quite amusing given that they're not remotely "left") It went down the list until FOX (And I'll wager that you probably watch FOX, or would if you could), which had the most folks with misperceptions. But what made it especially great was that those folks who listed FOX as their primary source, and who watched more hours per day, had more misperceptions than those who has FOX as their primary source, but watched less. The lesson: The more FOX you watch, the less you know. But then who could possibly be unaware of this? Don't really need many studies to confirm the obvious.

If, if, if, if only the cops in LA had been more understanding...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

Anthony39,

Great to hear another voice of reason! Perhaps we should provide some basic, easy to understand, examples:

Let's say Bob, an elementary school boy, walked into the classroom every day, walked past a boy named George, and punched him in the head. Now, personally, I'd find it extremely odd were the teacher, and all the other students, to simply start yelling for Bob to be punished, completely ignoring what possible reasons he may have had for punching George. Perhaps some folks went to schools where this happened. I sure never did. The absolute FIRST thing which the teacher would have done is to ask Bob why he had done this. And if George actually did everything he could so as not to let Bob answer the question, I'd also find it extremely odd. The ONLY reason I can think of as to why George wouldn't want to have Bob give his reason is that perhaps he may say something which may incriminate George, say, before class every day George kicked Bob on the bus, and were this known it may add a little color to why events took place. It's also quite odd that there are actually adults who have evidentally not passed even this stage of elementary development. Doesn't everyone know this by about furst grade? Geez!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

featherhead: "They do NOT belong to a state.

"You are completely ignorant of the radical brand of Islam that terrorists like KSM follow."

Uhh...No, I'm not. But if you wish to demonstrate how, please feel free.

"How can they 'belong to a state' when it is the institution of the secular state that they seek to destroy???"

Great! So you agree with my statement that they don't belong to a state. You should be careful before unwittingly calling yourself ignorant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

Anyone who is even remotely serious about trying to prevent such actions in the future should absolutely be demanding that the criminals be heard. Can't ask for a better source of information than a thorough hearing about the reasons WHY someone carried out such actions. This isn't even an issue, is it? This is, and should be, the very first step. I can't imagine why anyone would desire NOT to know. Of course, it's possible that they simply won't like what they hear. But that is also important information. Why on earth would someone desire not to hear? This tells a lot about the mentality of a small, yet dangerous, percentage of folks, primarily on the right. Personally, I want to know exactly their reasons. I want to know their complaints. I want to know why they think what they do. I want to know if there's any legitimacy to their complaints. I want to know things, things which my own government usually won't tell us, and hold then accountable if they're true. In fact, as a citizen of the U.S. this is exactly my duty. Anyone doing anything less is neglecting their duty as a citizen and should probably just not comment on anything. So, when I find out things, like, the U.S. supported bin Laden for years, I want to know why. I can give a list a mile long of other basic and uncontroversila facts which it seems that many folks are unaware of, again, mainly on the right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

featherhead: "Petty criminals causing trouble."

sailwind: "Nuff said on your reasoning sir."

Care to expand, sailwind? But perhaps I should have been clearer. It wouldn't matter whether they were petty or not. They committed a crime. They do NOT belong to a state. They just happen to have, or at least bin Laden does, more money than most petty criminals. This is the primary difference and is irrelevant to the points being made. Care to try and challenge something in what I've asserted? Something more relevant? Say the hypocrisy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

"Once again there was never a declaration of war."

"I thought the morning of 9/11 could easily be construed as just that."

Once again, if the White Arian Resistance declares war on country X, should that country start bombing the U.S.? It's odd how many in the U.S. would never even come close to expecting the same rules apply to them. Most rational people would say that of course we shouldn't be bombed for the crimes of a few criminals. On the other hand, if the same happens in the U.S., that we shouldn't assign ourselves that right seems almost absurd. How many folks here would have no problem with country X, after there having been a crime committed by some rogue criminals from the U.S., would accept that it was proper for the country attacked to start bombing the U.S.? I doubt very many. The hypocrisy is deafening.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views See in context

Responses to several comments:

"Simple, A Military Tribunal acts as Judge and Jury"

Perhaps this would be fine as long as the same rules apply to the U.S., which, as everyone knows, they will not at all. Perhaps you mean something like a war crimes tribunal which is carried out by the U.N. or something? For the U.S. carry out it's own military tribunals would amount to a crime as well. Is this what we want? This is how most of the rest of the planet would see it, and, according to the U.S.'s own laws this would be criminal.

Also, the notion that the entire country should be found guilty and punished has already been one of the biggest mistakes in recent history. First of all, when a few criminals from a country commit a crime in another country, the proper response isn't to start bombing them into ruin. It's as if a few Arian Resistance goons went into another country, set off some bombs, and then the entire U.S. was held accountable. Is this what we want? This is basically what happened with 9/11. These guys were in no way, shape, or form acting out of some sort of government action, nor could they have been given there was no government. Petty criminals causing trouble. Catch them, dish out whatever punishment a tribunal of some sort, perhaps the U.N., Hague, etc...decides, try and make sure their reasons are VERY well publicized, so that everyone, including ourselves will know exactly what's up. Assuming we've been as saintly as everyone believes (in the U.S. anyway) then there should be no problem. Their statements should support us. And, just to make sure that all if fair and that the U.S. can start weening itself off of the Bush tragedy years, we should make sure that all rules which are imposed on others apply to ourselves as well, as most of the planet thinks. Unless we've decided to continue with our rogue status in the world, the notion that anything will get better is a fairy tale.

Thanks!

"I don't care why they did it, they did it."

You should most definitely care why they did it so that you can take steps to prevent it from happening again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Iran to 'blow up the heart of Israel' if attacked See in context

Okay, Kinniku, perhaps I owe you an apology. So, rather than dwell on this, I'll just wait for someone to comment on the content rather than whom it may have been accidentally directed at. That now out of the way, Jason6, I have a question or two for you. Why do you assume that the bully is Iraq (though Iran is actually the focus here)? Israel has demonstrated much more aggressive behavior towards Iran, breaking U.N. resolutions time and again, and on and on....They've already demonstrated themselves to be the bully. No need to wait to see who may use power at will. I believe your analogy needs some correction. Also, I'm not really sure if your not so subtle call for "preventive war" is such a good idea. If we accept this as an option, it will pretty much allow anyone to invade anywhere and make the claim that "they thought" or had "good reason to believe" that the other country was going to do something, and so "we", whoever it happens to be, had the right to invade to stop them in advance. Basically, this means that 9-11, nor any other similar attacks could be counted as anything other that "a first strike in self-defense". However, if one of the countries were on their way to attack someone, arguments could be made that the country about to be attacked had the right to defend itself. I doubt anyone would be against this idea. So, I'd be careful about the notion which you considered as an option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Iran to 'blow up the heart of Israel' if attacked See in context

Oh, and kinniku, you have some sort of evidence that Democracy Now is a propaganda news service? And as compared to what? FOX or something? I've never seen a line from anyone, anyone serious anyway, demonstrating this to be the case, and I've been watching and actively searching for 20+ years. It's quite interesting that when exposed to such basic and uncontroversial truths as that which DN has the audacity to present some can respond so irrationally. But it's to be expected from much of the indoctrinated public. (For a well done study demonstrating how far off some folks perceptions are from what happen in the real world, I direct everyone here to a P.I.P.A. study which had a breakdown of the top news services in the U.S. with regards to their viewers perceptions and the Iraq war (first time around). Basically, it showed that those who watched Public TV had the least misperceptions, which should be of no surprise ((even though they pale in comparison to even better services like DN or Pacifica)). And it went down the list, of course listing FOX viewers as having the most misperceptions. Now, this was of course of no surprise at all to ANYONE who's even semi-informed. But what made the study especially interesting was that it showed that of the FOX viewers, those who watch more hours per week had even worse perceptions i.e., The more FOX News you watch, the less you know.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Iran to 'blow up the heart of Israel' if attacked See in context

First of all, neither Israel nor the U.S. is in any position whatsoever to demand anything from Iran. They are both nuclear powers, have a long history of attacking other countries and using violence when they so desire. The list goes on. Let's just look at the title of this article and it's propagandistic implications. Iran to 'blow up the heart of Israel' if attacked . Now, this gives the illusion, a very common illusion in fact, that Iran is the aggressive state, regardless of the fact that they've been on the receiving end the vast majority of the time. (Orwell would have loved this blatant propaganda). Secondly, let's just switch the title a little. Let's say 'Israel to blow up the heart of Tehran if attacked'. Now, I doubt VERY seriously that this would even cause a stir at all to many of the well indoctrinated in the west. "Well of course if Iran attacked Israel they should have a right to blow them off the map". Most any elementary school child would easily observe the hypocrisy. It's just interested that so many supposedly "well-educated" westerners can't make such elementary observations. It's rather pathetic, in fact. That a country may not wish to continue to be so weak as to not leave itself open for Israeli or U.S. aggression, is, well, just appauling. Were the U.S. or Israel even remotely interested in their "security", as if THEY are the ones who need to be worried and not those subject to their aggression, they should probably grow up and start acting like countries which deserve some sort of respect. Unfortunately, they do NOT for the most part. Perhaps they can demonstrate how they are not such rogue states by, perhaps, getting rid of some, or all, of their own WMD instead of telling others they can't have them, too. As I said, most any elementary child would be perplexed at the obvious hypocrisy. That educated westeners don't seem to even understand such obvious facts is an indication of the severity of the indoctrination they are experiencing. However, it does show that both the U.S. and Israel sure are polished in propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: American arrested in Fukuoka for kidnapping own kids from ex-wife See in context

Hello All!

I, too, am a U.S. citizen living in Japan who has divorced, lost custody of my child, and have no power whatsoever to do anything about, well, anything. And, yes, I am basically blackmailed to either pay the child's mother whatever she insists, or she can just not allow for me to see him. Prior to the divorce there were many promises made by her which were immediately broken after the divorce, such as the number of visitation days which went from "You can see him any time you want"(discussing that this may be 3-4 days per week. Immediately after the divorce she attempted to change this to twice a month. I sought legal help and nothing was done. (3 different lawyers in fact) She married about 7 months after our divorce (legally unable to for at least 6 months), which most definitely caused problems for my son.(Not to mention the obviousness that she was involved with the man prior to the divorce). There's a long list of similar such things. Now, on top of this, she said MANY times during our relationship that she knew she was a bad mother and a bad wife. She repeatedly made such statemnts, and was NOT joking. In fact, her own mother repeatedly told me that I should scold her for this very fact (coming in at 3 and 4 a.m. every night, etc...) Bottom line, as has been mentioned here already, foreigners have exactly ZERO rights when it comes to such matters. None. I feel for the man who now sits in jail and were I him I'd do WHATEVER I needed to to get them back, legal or otherwise. The selfishness of the mother in that she is obvious unaware what sort of effect this may have on the children itself demonstrates that she is unworthy to have the children. Also, my child's name was changed without my being told. This bothered me a great deal at first, but I've decided that I would continue to call him by his English name, and will do so in all matters where he's involved. As you may be able to tell, this is personal for me, and has most definitely affected my life. That being said, does anyone know of any cases where the opposite has happened i.e. An American parent taking their child to the U.S. against the wishes of the Japanese spouse who maintained custody? Does the Japanese spouse have any rights here?

Also, and perhaps this has been dealt with already, if the father and mother were not technically divorced in Japan, as I've heard, then this would seem to indicate that he was NOT kidnapping his children. There's nothing saying he can't see them to my knowledge if he's still married to the mother. Thanks! FH

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.