Let's face facts; Outside the Box has probably never been a real discussion forum. It is a place to make the point that you want to make and ignore anyone else's opinion completely.

For quite a while, there were a few America haters who dominated it and said nothing but nasty things about the US and Israel and agreed with each other about everything and then eventually some Americans got sick of it and started refuting what they had to say. I only post here because I want to point out that there are many posters who do not buy their radical agenda.

All in all, it is nothing but pointless bickering, but unless everyone on one side is thrown off, most likely it is going to stay that way. It used to be against the Thai Visa rules to talk about this stuff because it is just a waste of time and that is very unlikely to change.

I do not understand why Outside the Box even exists unless it is to allow posters to get their aggressions out in semi-privacy. There is just no way that anyone is going to listen to each other about most of the divisive issues that are posted here. They are just going to bash each other. Everyone has already made up their minds.

Let's face facts; Outside the Box has probably never been a real discussion forum. It is a place to make the point that you want to make and ignore anyone else's opinion completely.

For quite a while, there were a few America haters who dominated it and said nothing but nasty things about the US and Israel and agreed with each other about everything and then eventually some Americans got sick of it and started refuting what they had to say. I only post here because I want to point out that there are many posters who do not buy their radical agenda.

All in all, it is nothing but pointless bickering, but unless everyone on one side is thrown off, most likely it is going to stay that way. It used to be against the Thai Visa rules to talk about this stuff because it is just a waste of time and that is very unlikely to change.

I do not understand why Outside the Box even exists unless it is to allow posters to get their aggressions out in semi-privacy. There is just no way that anyone is going to listen to each other about most of the divisive issues that are posted here. They are just going to bash each other. Everyone has already made up their minds.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Especially, I only post here because I want to point out that there are many posters who do not buy their radical agenda.

We don't always disagree on everything

The only time I bash is in retaliation. I have not forgiven you for your slanderous and false "liar" accusation, so untill you retract it and apologise, expect retaliation whereever and whenever.

You are not alone in understanding the facts, Alex.

Interestingly, a court in NZ yesterday aquitted 3 guys who sabotaged a spy station that feeds the US Echelon system. The guys admitted the damage they caused, but used the fact that information gleaned by the station was used to assist in the Afghan and Iraq invasions, thus they were acting for the greater good....and the court agreed. (it was a jury trial)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3468...three-walk-free

It says something when a court agrees that people trying to damage the US effort are justified.

I would like to pose the question, under what circumstances would any of us

be willing to act for “the greater good”?

To what extent and how would we justify our actions?

A while back it was reported that the military executed/killed a bunch of students, it has now been reported it was a mistake. Do you believe calling the killing/execution of innocent people a mistake is justifiable?

Have a look at the pictures, and try to convince me that shooting handcuffed (alleged) people in the head was a result of wrong judgment or an accident or something.

Sure you will say that in war mistakes are made, I can understand bombing the wrong target or failing missiles, but shooting people in the head without questioning?

Can you provide a link to this allegation?

This is out of the box and as such there is quite a bit more leeway. But, direct nasty personal insults are counter productive to a reasonable debate and as such, show you incapable of having one without resorting to childish name calling. Might I suggest we drop the tit for tat name calling and behave like adults again?

cheers

Sure Chuck.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7040166.ece

Please also read some of the comments to get a feel of what other people think of all this madness.

Have a nice Sunday!

I saw the same story with other details last month

8 weeks on, Nato admits 'terrorists' it killed were really innocent students

Let's face facts; Outside the Box has probably never been a real discussion forum. It is a place to make the point that you want to make and ignore anyone else's opinion completely.

If an unbiased and independently minded individual were to go through this thread (and that other one about Israel that was popular a couple months ago) and count how many times each side (left & right) either answered each others questions or ignored them, the scorecard would read that posters more likely to be considered from the right have answered FAR MORE questions from the left and the left has refused to answer far more questions posed to them. Using that as a guide, it's clear who is or isn't interested in having a discussion.

Let's face facts; Outside the Box has probably never been a real discussion forum. It is a place to make the point that you want to make and ignore anyone else's opinion completely.

If an unbiased and independently minded individual were to go through this thread (and that other one about Israel that was popular a couple months ago) and count how many times each side (left & right) either answered each others questions or ignored them, the scorecard would read that posters more likely to be considered from the right have answered FAR MORE questions from the left and the left has refused to answer far more questions posed to them. Using that as a guide, it's clear who is or isn't interested in having a discussion.

Interesting, but not surprising, analysis. Realistically, how could one expect a different result? It's a matter of intelligence vs. obstinance.

The truth is that the conservatives have always had more factual posts (not just a constant stream of ancient history and crazy conspiracy theories), but the left ignores logic and keeps going back to whining about what happened to the Indians 200 years ago or tragic mistakes that pale in comparison to what the terrorists do intentionally - which, by the way, never seems to bother them in the least.

After awhile, even the most serious conservative posters stop bothering to answer or just start posting the same kind of nonsense in return.

To the last 3 posts respectively; Unfounded speculation, opinion, and opinion based on unfounded speculation.

When any of you guys can supply an actual fact, not just an opinion....that's when I'll start listening.....and off topic, but high on the list for me, is when UG shows a factual....FACTUAL.... not opinion-based.... proof of his allegation that I lied.

Get your own house in order before you point the finger. There is a difference between percieved truth (opinion) and verifiable truth.

You are not alone in understanding the facts, Alex.

Interestingly, a court in NZ yesterday aquitted 3 guys who sabotaged a spy station that feeds the US Echelon system. The guys admitted the damage they caused, but used the fact that information gleaned by the station was used to assist in the Afghan and Iraq invasions, thus they were acting for the greater good....and the court agreed. (it was a jury trial)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3468...three-walk-free

It says something when a court agrees that people trying to damage the US effort are justified.

What a jury decided in New Zealand has credence only within New Zealand, and actually only within that specific courtroom.  THese three men were acquitted.  In another court, they may have been convicted, or they may have been acquitted once again.  But that does not matter one hill of beans as to this question of the war in Afghanistan being "illegal" or not.  There is no connection.  I can put together a court made up of Maldivians who would probably declare the Three Gorges Dam "illegal."  So what?  And using that Maldivian court's finding to "prove" that the Chinese broke international law by building the dam is just as silly as using verdicts such as this or findings made by the Dutch government to say the war in Afghanistan is illegal.

To the last 3 posts respectively; Unfounded speculation, opinion, and opinion based on unfounded speculation.

When any of you guys can supply an actual fact, not just an opinion....that's when I'll start listening.....and off topic, but high on the list for me, is when UG shows a factual....FACTUAL.... not opinion-based.... proof of his allegation that I lied.

Get your own house in order before you point the finger. There is a difference between percieved truth (opinion) and verifiable truth.

koheesti's post is accurate. And if one were to go through each of the multitude of examples in support of his conclusion, the response from you would again be nonacceptance. So what's the point?

You are not alone in understanding the facts, Alex.

Interestingly, a court in NZ yesterday aquitted 3 guys who sabotaged a spy station that feeds the US Echelon system. The guys admitted the damage they caused, but used the fact that information gleaned by the station was used to assist in the Afghan and Iraq invasions, thus they were acting for the greater good....and the court agreed. (it was a jury trial)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3468...three-walk-free

It says something when a court agrees that people trying to damage the US effort are justified.

I would like to pose the question, under what circumstances would any of us

be willing to act for "the greater good"?

To what extent and how would we justify our actions?

Those guys that got off were prepared to go to jail when they did the act.....they were, I believe, acting sincerely.....and thus they were sacrificing themselves.

A bit simmilar, albeit not nearly as fatal, as suicide bombers.

A narrow example of acting for the greater good would be if I threw myself infront of a speeding bus to save two youngsters.....which I think I would do.

Narrowing it further...if 2 of my children could be saved by me throwing myself into the path of a speeding bus, or donating both my kidneys....Certainly I would.

How broad an example would I act for the greater good?..... I am quite certain that if I was given a chance to save my life, and in doing so allow the massacre of hundreds of people...I would choose to die if it meant they all would live. I could not live with myself knowing that I live because hundreds died.

I have no problem with admitting if it was a choice between me and a stranger...I would choose me. If it was a choice between me and 10 convicted rapists....I would choose me. It's not hard and fast...it's about balance and (personal) value.

I think I have made my point in saying and showing that these wars are illegal and most of them are made for profit.

Some of you are clearly in denial of these facts, is it because you are involved in some way or you just don't want to know the truth?

Admitting that these wars are benefiting a few large corporations and geopolitical interest would undermine your beliefs (If you have any).

Was it not all about finding BL and bring him to justice to justify the invasion of Afghanistan?

No, the reason for invading Afghanistan was to keep further attacks from occurring.  Sure, Bin Laden was a target, and justice was a main goal, but the prime reason was to prevent further attacks, and giving AQ a safe haven in which to train and plan more attacks would have made it much easier for them.  Despite other attempts, how many more major attacks have occurred on US soil since then?

Was he responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks? No, another guy admitted after being WB many times.

Again I ask you what other evidence is there.

Members of the 9/11 commission are saying that they where restricted in their investigation, why?

I just wonder how you pro war people can justify all of this including the dumping of nuclear waste on foreign soil.

Alex

Why throw in nuclear waste into your argument?  WHy not decry acid rain, globalization, McDonalds and the WWE as well?

You are not alone in understanding the facts, Alex.

Interestingly, a court in NZ yesterday aquitted 3 guys who sabotaged a spy station that feeds the US Echelon system. The guys admitted the damage they caused, but used the fact that information gleaned by the station was used to assist in the Afghan and Iraq invasions, thus they were acting for the greater good....and the court agreed. (it was a jury trial)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3468...three-walk-free

It says something when a court agrees that people trying to damage the US effort are justified.

What a jury decided in New Zealand has credence only within New Zealand, and actually only within that specific courtroom. THese three men were acquitted. In another court, they may have been convicted, or they may have been acquitted once again. But that does not matter one hill of beans as to this question of the war in Afghanistan being "illegal" or not. There is no connection. I can put together a court made up of Maldivians who would probably declare the Three Gorges Dam "illegal." So what? And using that Maldivian court's finding to "prove" that the Chinese broke international law by building the dam is just as silly as using verdicts such as this or findings made by the Dutch government to say the war in Afghanistan is illegal.

What a jury decided in NZ has credence; full stop. You'd be a brave and eloquent man to say (and back up) that the NZ coutrs have no credence. If you are talking about relevance....then yes, you are right, to the extent of global legal bearing.

Keep in mind that "legal" ultimately comes down to majority opinion....in a democratic society.

It does matter "a hill of beans" (however large or small that hill is) when a cross section of society, aproved by the prosecution, has that opinion. Keeping in mind that the society in question is a political ally of the US.

Your 3 Gorges dam analogy is not pertinant to the subject in the context of democratic society or political allies and is thus irrelevant to the debate.

To the last 3 posts respectively; Unfounded speculation, opinion, and opinion based on unfounded speculation.

When any of you guys can supply an actual fact, not just an opinion....that's when I'll start listening.....and off topic, but high on the list for me, is when UG shows a factual....FACTUAL.... not opinion-based.... proof of his allegation that I lied.

Get your own house in order before you point the finger. There is a difference between percieved truth (opinion) and verifiable truth.

koheesti's post is accurate. And if one were to go through each of the multitude of examples in support of his conclusion, the response from you would again be nonacceptance. So what's the point?

You state as fact my future response.

That's either extremely clever, or extremely silly.

I hope you are clever....I would love to see how clever you are, thereby showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am....and there is an allegation of me being a liar too....(as yet unsubstantiated)....do you support that allegation also? Do you also predict how I would react to real proof of that?

You are not alone in understanding the facts, Alex.

Interestingly, a court in NZ yesterday aquitted 3 guys who sabotaged a spy station that feeds the US Echelon system. The guys admitted the damage they caused, but used the fact that information gleaned by the station was used to assist in the Afghan and Iraq invasions, thus they were acting for the greater good....and the court agreed. (it was a jury trial)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3468...three-walk-free

It says something when a court agrees that people trying to damage the US effort are justified.

What a jury decided in New Zealand has credence only within New Zealand, and actually only within that specific courtroom. THese three men were acquitted. In another court, they may have been convicted, or they may have been acquitted once again. But that does not matter one hill of beans as to this question of the war in Afghanistan being "illegal" or not. There is no connection. I can put together a court made up of Maldivians who would probably declare the Three Gorges Dam "illegal." So what? And using that Maldivian court's finding to "prove" that the Chinese broke international law by building the dam is just as silly as using verdicts such as this or findings made by the Dutch government to say the war in Afghanistan is illegal.

What a jury decided in NZ has credence; full stop. You'd be a brave and eloquent man to say (and back up) that the NZ coutrs have no credence. If you are talking about relevance....then yes, you are right, to the extent of global legal bearing.

Keep in mind that "legal" ultimately comes down to majority opinion....in a democratic society.

It does matter "a hill of beans" (however large or small that hill is) when a cross section of society, aproved by the prosecution, has that opinion. Keeping in mind that the society in question is a political ally of the US.

Your 3 Gorges dam analogy is not pertinant to the subject in the context of democratic society or political allies and is thus irrelevant to the debate.

 OK, I'll buy "relevance" if that makes you happy.

My Three Gorges Dam analogy is certainly pertinent as I see it.  If you don't see it, fine.  That does not, however,  make you "right" as a fait acompli. 

You are not alone in understanding the facts, Alex.

Interestingly, a court in NZ yesterday aquitted 3 guys who sabotaged a spy station that feeds the US Echelon system. The guys admitted the damage they caused, but used the fact that information gleaned by the station was used to assist in the Afghan and Iraq invasions, thus they were acting for the greater good....and the court agreed. (it was a jury trial)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3468...three-walk-free

It says something when a court agrees that people trying to damage the US effort are justified.

What a jury decided in New Zealand has credence only within New Zealand, and actually only within that specific courtroom. THese three men were acquitted. In another court, they may have been convicted, or they may have been acquitted once again. But that does not matter one hill of beans as to this question of the war in Afghanistan being "illegal" or not. There is no connection. I can put together a court made up of Maldivians who would probably declare the Three Gorges Dam "illegal." So what? And using that Maldivian court's finding to "prove" that the Chinese broke international law by building the dam is just as silly as using verdicts such as this or findings made by the Dutch government to say the war in Afghanistan is illegal.

What a jury decided in NZ has credence; full stop. You'd be a brave and eloquent man to say (and back up) that the NZ coutrs have no credence. If you are talking about relevance....then yes, you are right, to the extent of global legal bearing.

Keep in mind that "legal" ultimately comes down to majority opinion....in a democratic society.

It does matter "a hill of beans" (however large or small that hill is) when a cross section of society, aproved by the prosecution, has that opinion. Keeping in mind that the society in question is a political ally of the US.

Your 3 Gorges dam analogy is not pertinant to the subject in the context of democratic society or political allies and is thus irrelevant to the debate.

OK, I'll buy "relevance" if that makes you happy.

My Three Gorges Dam analogy is certainly pertinent as I see it. If you don't see it, fine. That does not, however, make you "right" as a fait acompli.

No, you don't have to "buy" the word "relevance" to make me happy....either you choose the word "credence" or "relevance" (they are significantly different)....whatever it was that you intended.

I see how you might find an analogy.....but if you think deeper...you will see my point.

Using your own (slightly innappropriate) words.....right back at ya: If you don't see it, fine. That does not, however, make you "right" as a fait acompli.

Yes this is the outside the box corner of TV and I am willing to think extreme but are you saying that these 9/11 Arabs learned how to fly an airplane

in F Ghanistaaaan?

Not sure if they had flight simulators in Tora Bora, will check that one.

Anyway I still do not think that the only reason for the Afghanistan invasion and occupation was for the purpose of finding BL and weed out AQ.

There are some plausible other reasons like the oil pipelines as earlier suggested and the use of DU munitions on a battlefield where it is of no use really. Insisting to claim that there are no other reasons than finding BL and preventing AQ from reorganizing is not so out of the box thinking if you ask me. At least I am asking myself and others some questions and look at history and don't agree on what some of my tax money is spend on.

I threw in the nuclear waste (DU munitions) because I have not found an answer why that stuff is used there in Afghanistan. Would any of you have a problem with it if I come into your back garden (if you have one) or kitchen and sprinkle some of that stuff there?

I will probably be called a conspiracy nutter but that's fine. Just look at our global financial crisis theater to see how much conspiracy is going on there. I was called a nutter when this crisis started but it is getting clearer by the day that the biggest swindle in history have happened before our eyes therefore I do not rule out other interest in Afghanistan and perhaps some other places on this planet. That's why we have outside the box, no?

No, you don't have to "buy" the word "relevance" to make me happy....either you choose the word "credence" or "relevance" (they are significantly different)....whatever it was that you intended.

I see how you might find an analogy.....but if you think deeper...you will see my point.

Using your own (slightly innappropriate) words.....right back at ya: If you don't see it, fine. That does not, however, make you "right" as a fait acompli.

 Thanks for the English lesson!

I meant credence when I wrote it.  Just because a NZ jury found for these guys, that does not mean the owners of the property, mainly the US government, has to find the acquittal to be correct or true.  The jury basically said it was OK for them to damage the property as it was done for the "public good."  The prosecution in New Zealand may have to swallow that as they are subject to NZ laws, but the US government does not have to give credence to that, that the action was in the public good.  I would hazard a guess that the US government would contend just the opposite, that not only was this not a true fact, but that the opposite was the case. Damaging the property was to the detriment of the public.

But if you don't agree with that, but can see how a NZ court finding has no relevance to the US government, well, OK, I can see your point.  Both words are valid, in my opinion.  So despite me taking up five minutes of my day to respond to your post, I really am not going to lose too much sleep over if you agree with me or not.

I tend towards the liberal, and I probably agree with you on more things than not, just as I probably disagree with UG, for example, more often than not.  But in this thread, I think his points are better made and are more pertinent.  And to take it further, even when I am diametrically opposed to his views, as I have been in the past, his arguments tend to follow a certain degree of logic.  

But in this thread in particular, I cannot say the same for the "other camp."  

Just my humble opinion.

[i hope you are clever....I would love to see how clever you are, thereby showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am....and there is an allegation of me being a liar too

It does not matter how much proof your nose is shoved in, you either change the subject, pretend not to understand the obvious or are completely incapable of doing so. Responding logically to your nonsensical posts is a true exercise in futility.

Yes this is the outside the box corner of TV and I am willing to think extreme but are you saying that these 9/11 Arabs learned how to fly an airplane

in F Ghanistaaaan?

Not sure if they had flight simulators in Tora Bora, will check that one.

The planning and basic training was in fact done primarily in Afghanistan.  But as we all know, the flying lessons were taken in the US.  I don't think being facetious about that contributes much to the discussion.

 

I will probably be called a conspiracy nutter but that's fine. Just look at our global financial crisis theater to see how much conspiracy is going on there. I was called a nutter when this crisis started but it is getting clearer by the day that the biggest swindle in history have happened before our eyes therefore I do not rule out other interest in Afghanistan and perhaps some other places on this planet. That's why we have outside the box, no?

Yes, that is why we have Outside the Box.  And you are welcome to any theories you have.  I certainly have no patent on the truth.  I only have my opinions, which I am quite willing to change if someone else shows me a better likelihood.

But for me, if a theory cannot be backed by logic or proof, then I will call the poster out on that--even, gasp, if I might agree with the general premise.

There are always "other interests" or multiple upsides/downsides to everything.

If some oilmen get rich because an oil pipeline comes about after exterminating the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan which in turn helps the country and people enter the 21st centruy with the rest of us, fine by me.

Yes, civilians are getting killed in Afghanistan. Do I like to see civilians getting killed? No. But if Afghanistan had been left alone, many more civilians would have continued to suffer under the Taliban. Collateral damage and civilian deaths are still at an historical low and will probably get lower in the future. It's also worth pointing out that the enemy probably kills more civilians in addition to putting them in mortal danger by hiding among them.

Some people talk about how they would sacrifice their own lives for their children. I wonder if any parents in Iraq or Afghanistan believe that the suffering they have gone through since their wars started will be worth it if their children and future generations have the chance to live happy, healthy lives as a result? Or is caring about your children and their future only a Western ideal? (Sting's Cold War song, "Russians" (Do the Russians love their children too? comes to mind)

Those guys that got off were prepared to go to jail when they did the act.....they were, I believe, acting sincerely.....and thus they were sacrificing themselves.

A bit simmilar, albeit not nearly as fatal, as suicide bombers.

Breaking and entering can hardly be considered anything similar to being a suicide bomber.

The only way the actions of these upstanding citizens might have been considered suicidal would be if they had commited seppuku with their sickles after slashing the plastic domes.

They might have accomplished more if they had gone to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban. They already had the sleazy (sp) appearance required under the Taliban version of Shariah.

Now that would have been sincerity.

An anti-abortion campaigner who murdered a doctor that performed abortions used the same defence. I wonder if that jury with an agenda would have set him free too.

Im reading the classic - "The Grand Chessboard" - 1998; at the moment, by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

(one of Obama's Foreign Policy advisors)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

(and also bugger up Russia's chances of getting back in the game - my great grandfather had shares on the oil wells there back in 1917)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

(also funded by USA - Carter administration - the birth of "the database" - "Al Quaeda")

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

--------------------

personally, I dont think the USA can handle/finance the responsibility of being the sole superpower much longer, If only Russia still had its intellectual power, I think its been raped too badly by now. So, that leaves just China. Here's hoping the leadership situation improves there before the power sharing occurs.

I would prefer the European Union personally.

Im reading the classic - "The Grand Chessboard" - 1998; at the moment, by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

(one of Obama's Foreign Policy advisors)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

(also funded by USA - Carter administration - the birth of "the database" - "Al Quaeda")

Little side note - Brzezinski was also Carter's National Security Advisor.

I would prefer the European Union personally.

Well yes, except that Russia will always be the boss of the EU... or aims to be...

Its either the E.U or Russia joins an Asian bloc... and to be honest, i dont think thats going to happen...

I think the EU will lack power by its very nature. The western europeans HATE taking orders. Its a right old mess in the east.

The French and Germans will never stop vying for top spot. (when we all know it should be the British!.. lol.)- The rest of us dont want to put ourselves in danger -still living memory of the horrrrrrrors , much easier to let the yanks do the fighting bit.