US list of terrorists around the world

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
But he also didn't liek the fact that China, one of the biggest violators of the environment, was not being called on to an hardly anything.

And how does rejecting Kyoto do anything to solve that problem?

But he's the President of the USA, for crying out loud. Not the president of The United Nations. His job is to look out for the people of the country he represents. Not France, not Russia. The USA. That is and should be his first and foremost consideration. If our economy really tanks, we are in dire straits.

It is every country's responsibility to carry their part of the load in protecting the environment. If we carry on the way we are now, we're all going to be in much more dire straits than even the worst economical situation could cause. What good is a booming economy if you don't have clean air to breathe? This selfishness cannot go on! What the US is doing amounts to the same as declaring a nuclear-free zone in your back yard - the world around you doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 02-15-2002).]

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
Again..
The USA sets a benchmark and standard for the rest of the world.
Most other countries thru out the world BUILD WALLS to keep their people from ESCAPING.
The USA is the only country that has to build walls to KEEP PEOPLE OUT.
People DIE everyday trying to reach OUR BORDERS and OUR SHORES.

Firstly, I don't wish to start a flame war, but I do find it offensive that anyone could be so arrogant as to claim their country sets a standard for the rest of the world. No country has the right to assume its beliefs should be the standard everyone else should aspire to. I'll echo everyone else who has said that the US has both good and bad aspects - just as every other country in the world.

Secondly, it's inaccurate to claim the US is the only country which "builds walls to keep people out." Most of the countries of Western Europe have a significant number of asylum seekers entering their countries. (although nowhere near as significant as many governments would have us believe). Maybe you've noticed the recent controversy in Australia regarding their treatment of asylum seekers and attempts to prevent them remaining in the country. Or the incident yesterday in the UK where a detention centre for asylum seekers was set on fire, allegedly in protest at the appalling treatment asylum seekers had received there.

And please, let's note that a tiny tiny percentage of all the refugees in the world will ever make it to Western Europe, the US or Australia. The vast majority stay much closer to home where it is a huge struggle for very poor countries to provide for them.

If people are so desperate to reach the US, or to reach the other countries I just listed, perhaps the people and governments of those countries should give more consideration to this when passing legislation about asylum seekers. If someone is so desperate to reach a country that they're literally willing to risk their life in the process, doesn't that tell you something about where they've come from? And doesn't it mean you should have some compassion and respect for them?

Lastly the same 'rhectoric' that Osama has attempted to teach of hate and evil towards the USA and wealthier countries to his impressionable uneducated minons some here are echoing this sediment.
I ve heard Bono along w/the rest of the free world slam and denounce Bin Ladin for this cowardly practice several times.

I'll join in that condemnation of bin Laden and AlQuada. If they were responsible for the September 11th attacks then it was an utterly disgusting thing to do and there can never, never be any justification for such an act of violence.

However, I think it's wrong to compare anyone who criticises the US to bin Laden. I'm not 'uneducated' nor 'impressionable' and I don't hate America. I do, however, have some reservations about America's behaviour both during the current war and in the past. I think it's ridiculous to compare anyone who doesn't give 100% support to all US policies to a terrorist organisation. Surely it's more appropriate to describe as 'impressionable' those who will blindly accept whatever they are told by their government?

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Fizzing-
For the record-
I always examine all sides of an issue BEFORE I make a decision.
Living in America,- a free society, affords me this me this privlige.

Secondly-
For you to compare the immagration problems of the USA to other countries is ludicrous.
Please.

When and if your country is ever ransacked by terrorists who are you gonna call for support?

Diamond
Db9

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:

For you to compare the immagration problems of the USA to other countries is ludicrous.
Please.

Could you explain why you think it's ludicrous?

[This message has been edited by FizzingWhizzbees (edited 02-16-2002).]

[Gem]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
Fizzing-
For the record-
I always examine all sides of an issue BEFORE I make a decision.
Living in America,- a free society, affords me this me this privlige.

Db9

Here, we have american channels on television, even though we don't live in the USA. In a way, I approve having American channels here (CNN-ABC and a couple of others). I read, over the internet, american newspapers as well as newspapers from all over the world (in languages I can understand of course).

But when you say that you look both parts of a problem or a question, it raises questions I'd like you to answer. Again, because I remarked this forum likes to think its always offensed or bashed, I'm not bashing you, I'm asking a question.

The question is : where can you look both sides ? You are an american and despite my opinions on a lot of the american politics, etc, I agree that the United States offers more freedom than, lets say, Botswana. But all the american channels we have here (CNN-ABC-Mountain Lake [??]), all have the same opinion (or relatively the same). Last week, I decided to see what they were saying on CNN and there was a debate on the Taliban and Afghan prisonners in the american base of Guantanamo in Cuba. "Ah, lets see what the americans thinks of it". I thought "Woaw, they have two positions on it". Once man said "We must respect the Geneva Convention" and started to talk on the reasons why. The presenter of the programm, I don't recall the name, without any objectivity, started to "under-bash" the man for the Geneva Convention. It was clearly not objective questions, but direct attacks.

With all this apparent conscencus, that I also read in the newspaper editorials, where do you get both sides or other opinions than the great majority that you have in your country, currently ?

See you


------------------
Le peuple uni, jamais ne sera vaincu
The people united, will never be defeated
El pueblo unido, nunca se derrote