terror in the uk

do you think they’re exagerating the threat of terrorism in order to promote public support for the war in iraq? (which is in no way whatsoever related to oil…)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2635807.stm

I must say that it is easy for America to go around sending inspectors into any country they want so that they disarm when there aren’t any inspectors going into America to check for disarmaments. It’s also easy to just say “We are disarming” without really doing anything. You think that the most powerful country in the world would disarm itself of it’s greatest power? Heck no. Last I heard, USA and RUSSIA were down to some tens of thousands of nuclear war heads. Honestly, I don’t think either one of them will disarm to ‘0’ warheads, which is the whole point of disarming. Even with a thousand nukes left in USA and RUSSIA they have enough power to destroy the planet. This is why I think that countries like IRAQ are not very eager to disarm. They are very well aware of tactics of supposed fairness, peace treaties, etc when the truth is that while IRAQ is disarming, the US is working on bio-weaponry. Heck, I heard that Canada, a few years back had been researching bioweaponry in a Hamilton(city) plant.

I think Blair and Bush are making the threat bigger than it is, they will blow up the issue as big as they can get it for their own interest. The problem is that big for them, both have interests in each other, both depend on each other, and so both will blow up the issue as big as possible in order to secure their interests together. Every country has terrorism, they always have had terrorism. It isn’t a coincidence that such a close look has been put on terrorism only now that the most powerful nation in the world was hit with it, and shown just how weak it is.

Also, there are many problems with Bush’s campaign and his popularity was dropping greatly until Sept. 11th. This is a strategy that many presidents and prime ministers have used to make themselves popular. Instead of focusing on internal issues in their own hen house, they focus on issues that are external to them. They make alot of labels, say alot of big words, make alot of threats, make some policies against potential actions, and then retire cause their term is over.

What’s your take?

Definitely.
Tony Blair had almost no public support whatsoever… and to my opinion, that thing with racin was utter bollocks.
The USA and UK Governments are terrorizing their nations more that the terrorists themselves.

i agree. its all a load a crap. I take it you will all be marching on February 15th Embankment at 12.00!!

Rant I’m sick to the back teeth of you whiney ungrateful bastards who have nothing better to do than to moan about the UK and US governments while enjoying one of the best qualities of life in an affluent society that protects you and supports you. Rant

Sorry about that. The issue of America being allowed nuclear weapons and Iraq not is simply another classic “America is taking over the world” conspiracy theory propogated by ‘rebellious’ university students who think they are really cool by saying ‘FUCK AMERICA’ and being communist or whatever it is they do. What I would love to see is Bush and Blair say to you people, ‘Alright then, fine, we won’t go to war and we’ll get rid of all our nuclear weapons and then we’ll see what happens.’ But of course, as soon as that happens people will say ‘…but…but…but you’ve got to protect us PWEASE big bad saddam man will bomb us to smitherines!’

People will moan whatever the situation is. The fact is, Iraq and the US and UK are different entities. They are run under different regimes and they have different politicial and economical agendas. It has been said time and time again, even if America does have a lot of power over the world, I’m A LOT happier that they than anyone else. The media and the people love supporting the underdog, even if it is the likes of iraq or north korea. America and the UK are havens for a secure and economically stable society yet they are constantly criticised when they try and do some good in the world. Of course, challenge what they are doing but the whole cynical line of, Bush and Blair are doing it for themselves is just so old and so cliche. Stop being contrary just for the sake of it and try and see the real issues involved. Yes there are tensions and yes there are injustices but you would do much better trying to find solutions to these issues and voicing them rather than being ignorant of what is at stake and screaming ‘FUCK THE SYSTEM’ just for the sake of it.

Ben stated:

Well its supposed to be in a rant forum, but I think ‘ungrateful bastards’ is going a little too far even for that. For I and some of the other posters in this thread are against what America is doing, and what you call ‘whiney ungrateful bastards who have nothing better to do than to moan about the UK and the US governments’.
See you crossed the line on your own disclaimer on this one. But I guess your going to argue that you apologized for it in the next paragraph. So you wont mind if I’m sick of ignorant shmucks, whose obtuseness must be rotting the very nerves of the back teeth they have, who have nothing better to do but to mock the zeal of others and their views on political agendas. See, it takes some knowledge for someone to complain about a country’s leader, cause you have to know what it is that they are propogating, you have to explain what you think it means and what you think is behind it. But, it doesn’t take any intelligence to say…

Oh yeah, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

Ben stated:

Are accusations the best you can do? Have you learned nothing from those obtuse highschool mentalities where one just goes around labelling everyone? Your obviously not a university student, otherwise you would not have said “or whatever it is they do”, not being a university student you can’t know what it is they do, yet you claim that they make conspiracy theories, because they think themselves to be cool and rebellious…and I can’t even believe you would say that they are communist.

Ben stated:

It’s a mentality like yours that is the cause for most of the hardships in life. To you, it’s either bomb or surrender. One extreme or another. What would it take for you to tape that beak shut for a few minutes and do some hard thinking? You think that the only way to make a country do what you want is by threatening to bomb it? Do you honestly think that if America and UK do bomb Iraq that Saddam will disassemble all his weapons? The idea of America getting rid of its nuclear weapons has the same likely hood as Ben admitting he’s wrong, apologizing to the posters in this thread, and conceding that university students are not communists. Near nil. Well, to be honest, I think there is a higher hope for Ben admitting these things, but America won’t disarm even if the rest of the countries in the world did. Lastly, Saddam wouldn’t bomb America because a) it’s a super power, b) it is the largest purchaser of oil from…SADDAM, c) Nato would turn an unprecedented wrath on Iraq.

Ben stated:

Safe havens for secure and economically stable society? Maybe if you have blinders on, or if you are situated in downtown Toronto/Ottawa (Canada), New York/Washington (America), Edinburgh/London (UK).
Sure it’s easy to say that America and the UK are doing something good in the world, but that good is for a fraction of a percent of people of the world’s population. Doesn’t mention the homeless and those who struggle in jobs working 60 hours a week. Doesn’t mention the effect America, UK, and Canada are having on the rest of the world.

News
Cazenove, the UK’s oldest independent investment bank, has abandoned its long-awaited flotation, blaming the worst bear market since 1974
source:http://news.ft.com/home/uk/

In the US, the unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.8% - yet in 2003 it’s 6%. Just one of the reasons from my last post (in case you read it Ben) that shrub (George W. Bush) adverts all our attention to Iraq. UK’s unemployment rate is around 5.2%

source:http://www.unemployment-insurance.co.uk/unemployment_rate.htm

News
The US automotive industry issued a stark warning to the Bush administration about the impact of steel tariffs on Monday, saying high steel prices could force parts makers overseas and cause long-term job losses. The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, the main industry body representing automotive suppliers, said parts makers had experienced steel price rises of 20-50 per cent since the government introduced tariffs on imported steel in March last year.

source:http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1042491264390&p=1012571727114

More Tariff warnings? Could it be? What is the world complaining about, but tariffs that America is imposing on the other countries of the world…sucking them dry.

Ben stated:

Whether cliche to you or not, it remains the truth.

Ben stated:

You have yet to show me being contrary. In my most humble opinion I truly think it is you who is blind of the real issues. I think you are missing the whole point of this thread and what it is about, I was simply responding to the thread title. This isn’t about POLITICAL ISSUES (in a general context). If it had been I would have written generally about them. But this is about…

Louise stated:

It appears to be you who is complaining for the sake of complaining, not even being aware of what the thread is about but being the first one in line to label, berate, and rant. Yet carrying the connotation in your words that you know what the real political issues are, what they are about, and how to solve them. I HAVE A THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE, TEACH ME!!! If not, SHUT UP (with your ranting, labelling, and berating)!

Ben stated:

A) I am not ignorant of what is at stake (to a certain degree)
B) YOU haven’t proposed any solutions yourself you arrogant, pretentious maggot
C) This post isn’t about solving the issue of Iraq (make one and you might find some answers…even from me the ignoramous!)
D) I don’t scream FUCK THE SYSTEM just for the sake of it. I scream FUCK THE SYSTEM cause I mean it! You would do much better to ask me why I say fuck the system and getting an answer, instead of assuming as you usually do (regardless of my warnings to you not to) that one does it for the sake of it. See it is you who is ignorant of simple things as assuming things that haven’t been said. How do you expect me to share views with you that require patient understand, critical thinking, and a thorough investigation of the WORDS and not what you assume is behind them.

Magius: “FUCK THE SYSTEM!”

What’s your take?

Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllll. We’re all brothers.

I really could write forever on this issue and you simply wouldn’t read it. I accept all of what Ben wrote. Whilst it is our duty or vocation in life to be critical of our governments and push them in the right direction, we must appreciate that there is absolutely NO point in having any sort of liberty or freedom of speech of thought, if you don’t exploit that freedom. Often settling for a life of comfort and consumerism within our affluent society can be just as bad, as being blind to your freedom by your bitter pursuit against all the things that are wrong in the world. Voltaire: A man is free, when he wishes to be. If that makes no sense, just thik what a man is when he does not wish to be free, be it as a slave or a complacent potato.

My ilp.com contribution to the Iraq debate will only go as far as what I posted in the war on iraq forum in ‘essays and theses’, because I will only exhaust myself otherwise. I am meeting Tony Blair tomorrow with Berlusconi to discuss the matter. If not then in two weeks time.

I will not try to impose opinion on any of you, but will ask you to be informed, to know the arguments, and to not be frightened of the truth. I don’t say this to all of the people on the streets who I encounter, but I do expect all ilp.com users to be free men, and that includes the women.

Here is my contribution: ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=138391

One prediction from someone working in Westminster and for the StopTheWar coalition, that being, me: The current onslaught of terror warnings in the uk are designed to soften public opinion for war. They don’t really seem to be uniting us in fear.

If the Blair administration does actually choose to go to war, without UN backing, and the British public are not united in this pursuit, they will order the British intelligence services (as with the US before 9/11) to take their foot off the breaks and allow a notable terror incident. Watch! If there is no terror incident, they will orchestrate one (as with the US and the anthrax scares). Watch! The media will treat it like a real terror incident. Watch! Alternatively, they will uncover a potential act of terror at the last minute. A terror act sop big, so serious that the very fact trhat it could have happened will be enough to frighten people. Watch!

I actually think that the domestic and international pressure for the multilateral route will see the UN option taken to the death. I think that Russia and France are convincable, as long as the weapons inspectors show enough to allow the US and UK to push the case far enough. War is not inevitable, as some commentators put it. It is avoidable. There is too much opposition.

If war does take place, expect it to be either extremely clean (alllied mililtary technology winning over with the press of a button) or extremely messy (Iraq invading Kuwait again, ‘slaughtering’ as many western agressors as they possibly can). Expect an uprising similar to that in Afghanistan after the removal of the Taliban, or even more similar to Ceachescu’s removal in Romania in 1989.

Ok, so I have no leg to stand on, I accept all the insults and I apologise for the ones I made. Hopefully we can move on now.

Ok let me be more specific:

Do you really mean this? Are Bush and Blair really ‘employing the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments’? I certainly don’t believe this and I can’t see any evidence to suggest that Bush and Blair are terrorising their societies. For both these leaders, the whole world is watching for them to make a mistake, which means they have to be SO careful when making any sort of decision. Saddam on the other side has complete autonomy. It doesn’t matter what decisions he makes with regards to his country because no-one elects him. Of course Bush and Blair have re-elections in the back of their mind but are you really so cynical as to think that they are both more concerned about being re-elected than saving lives of millions of people? If so, then there’s not much point in continuing the debate, we obviously have different views on the corruption of politicians.

Where did I say that I wanted war? I’m anti-war for ideological and selfish reasons. If a war starts, Iraq is likely to bomb Israel which means my life is in danger. My argument is not against those who don’t support the war, it is against those who constantly criticise the US and UK governments and claim that Bush and Blair are only in it for themselves.

I’m not sure what point you are making. No-one was suggesting that US and UK were perfect nations and so pointing out that they both have homeless people is just a skewed statistic. The quality of life in America and UK is far higher than in most places in the world including many south american countries and many middle easterns countries including Iraq. Are you going to argue against that? All countries have problems but it’s all relative. If you’ve got issues with governments, why not attack those who don’t give their citizens freedom of speech, freedom of expression and other basic human rights which the US and UK governments (among others) uphold.

As I say, I am not pro-war and that is not where my problem lies. My answer to the initial question posed is: Whatever degree Bush and Blair are attempting to sway public opinion, I believe it is because they have considered each side and have concluded that the war line of approach would be best for the country, not for themselves, but for the country. I think if you believe that Bush and Blair are only in it for themselves there isn’t much point in arguing against them because they will do what they like. The more realistic situation is that they are intelligent men in a VERY difficult position and have reached a difficult decision based on advice from their peers and from public opinion. Yes, they may be wrong, and no-one is saying you can’t disagree with it, but disagree with it on philosophical and political terms, rather than saying Bush and Blair are wrong because you assume that they have ulterior motives.

Ben…its Faz ! REMEMBER ME ?! Just touching base…hope ur ok…ur talking crap ! :wink: Stay safe !

Pangloss stated:

If we were all brothers, our own despot wouldn’t be making remarks like the ones he made and you wouldn’t back him up but stand up for what is objectively and ethically (netiquette) right. Apparently, politics has penetrated even a simple message board as this one.

Pangloss stated:

Why don’t you stop with the excuses, anty up your forever writings and leave to me what I will and will not read. It’s quite presumptuous of you to suppose you know what I will and will not read.

Pangloss stated:

And my worst nightmare has come true, traces of nepotism appeared long ago, but never as much as now. Accepting all of what Ben wrote means that you agree with breaking the disclaimer, you agree with demeaning others, you agree with jumping to conclusions before you really know what you are talking about, you agree with labelling and insulting others, you agree with berating others for a difference in opinion, you believe in making judgements of people based on no evidence, the list goes on…should you need more reasons I will further analyse Ben’s post and get back to you.

Pangloss stated:

Well I guess all members should know that, you should post it on the front page… [size=150]the administrators of ILP are here to exploit freedoms.[/size] Perfect politician you will be Pangloss. Exploitation of freedom is the taking away of anothers freedom. There are other things to consider, ie. Netiquette, respect, manners, appreciation for others views, consideration of others feelings, etc. The freedom you speak of is no freedom at all, and if you look at any constitution of UK, USA, or CANADA you will find no trace of such words as the ones you propose above.

Pangloss stated:

Wouldn’t you be happy if this was so…A man can wish himself free all he wants when all those around him are taking away his rights there is no freedom but to accept his chains and smile and nod like the slave he is - if thats what you wanna call freedom. So understand that it is those who are against the things that are wrong in the world that are free and not those who go with the flow and do nothing for society but rack up trophies, diplomas, account balances, and huge mansions on a riviera.

Pangloss stated:

Don’t be frightened of the truth? Ask Ben what happened in the Holocaust Industry thread and tell me if Alex and Ben were afraid of the truth or not. Tell me you are not afraid of the truth of the disrespect and naivety that was exhibited by Ben’s post above, your friend, and explain to me that you acceptance of ALL he said is based on rational and logical reasonings and not the friendship between you.

Pangloss stated:

Yes, we are free men, and I will help you be politically correct by adding ‘and women’, as long as we follow by the disclaimer and all views purported by those in association with Ben. For those that aren’t they will be demeaned and berated based upon difference of opinion and no one will actually come out and say anything of any worth. Why didn’t Ben come out and give reasons for why he thought I was wrong, why didn’t you give reasons why you thought Ben was right?

Pangloss stated:

I would love to hear you rational reasoning behind your belief that Russia and France are in any way convincable. Please enlighten me.

Pangloss stated:

Care to provide any reasoning behind this?

What’s your take?

Ben stated:

Don’t need an apology, nor do I want one, just don’t do what you did. Then we can move on.

Ben responded:

Pay a little more attention and you will find that the post about the USA and UK governments was made by CLEMENTINE and not ME.

Ben stated:

What gives you this idea that the whole world is watching for them to make a mistake, they aren’t watching to see them make a mistake, their watching to see the activities of the world because it affects them. I don’t watch Saddam Hussein telling myself “Oh, I gotta pay attention hoping he makes a mistake”, this is ludicrous. Yes ofcourse if one of them does make a mistake it will stick in history for the rest of time, but people aren’t watching to see a mistake. If there is anything that is going on it is a lack of being careful in making decisions. Iraq doesn’t have nuclear capability. You know anything about Mr. Khadduri? If your interested, let me know and I’ll tell you about him. Let’s just say that Iraq has neither the technological level nor the funds to even build an a-bomb.

Ben stated:

So what? You really gotta start explaining your points, cause confusion will start if we start assuming things behind what we are saying. I disagree with the above quote as being relevant but mean to understand exactly what point you are driving home before you I critique it.

Ben stated:

I disagree with you on this debate not having a point in continuing, but hey, your the despot. Apparently we both agree that there is corruption in politics, thats a start. Yes Bush and Blair are concerned with being re-elected and that’s why there will most likely be a war. This is not to assume that they don’t care about saving lives, but all politicians are convinced that the lives they are risking of their own men are always worth it in the long run and if they didn’t risk these mens lives than more would be lost later due to their lack of action. So it doesn’t matter how you put it, their going to risk the lives of many people one way or another. Trying to put me in an irrational corner as believing that politicians would have millions killed in return for being re-elected is low, but hey, I’m getting use to that with you.

Ben stated:

You honestly believe that Bush and Blair are president and prime-minister because they weren’t in it for themselves? That’s not how presidents and prime-ministers are made, their made ONLY by being in it for themselves.

Ben stated:

How brilliantly you stand behind them, just one question, "if you add up the population of the US and the UK and then figure out the cost to the rest of the world for the society which US and UK citizens piddle away, what result do you think you will find?

Ben stated:

I truly hope you are not a religious person Ben because you are heading into a huge contradiction. Never is the war line the best approach for the rest of the country. Though it is almost always the first one thought of. We might as well go back to punching each other out when we disagree with each other because we lack intelligence and patience, and when anyone criticizes us for the scene we caused, we will simply say that we considered each side and have concluded that punching each other out was the best for the argument, by then we probably won’t even remember the argument. Thousands of years of Zen Buddhism, Ancient Greek Philosophy, prolific writers and scholars, myriad religions from all ranges of time - all stating that violence is never the answer, and yet here you are defending two captains at the seats of powerful nations who are deciding to go bomb another country.

Ben stated:

What a good little citizen you are believing in your captain and the words provided to him by his advisors who represent the companies of the country in context. What else do you expect them to tell you? You think a Prime Minister is going to come out and say “Well we have an easy position here which we want to solve quickly because we really don’t need the headache and I truly don’t care what my peers say to me so we are going to war so that I will get re-elected”? I’m not saying that’s the way it is, but you gotta find a way to cut away what is real and what is fake. I agree with your above quote, except for applying the word ‘intelligence’ to Bush, but your above quote has nothing to do with the issue.

Ben stated:

Oh Ben, again committing a Straw Man Fallacy. I didn’t say Bush and Blair were wrong about anything, I don’t assume they have alterior motives - I said I think they have alterior motives - which leaves it open to criticism. See, I choose my words wisely, I don’t come out saying “Yeah, that idiot Bush, he’s in it for himself”. Reread my original post for the words that are there and not for what you think I mean in them (as in assuming more than what the words actually say).

What’s your take?

I often encounter people who attempt to win debates by ignoring the good points their opponent makes, failing to engage with their ideas, or by twisting what the opponent has said, misinterpreting all of what has been said, and even putting words into their mouths, ending up attacking points that were never made. Usually, I ignore such people, and dismiss them cranks and a not worth the effort, but as Magius is such an esteemed and respected member of the ilp community, he will receive a full reply, despite his paranoid anality.

I did not fail to give reasons why I agreed with Ben’s central point. Unfortunately, you missed my reasons because you chose to misinterpret them. The point we shared was that an individual’s freedom, despite all that is wrong and changeable in the world, should be exploited. Extraordinarily, you saw my saying that an individual should exploit their own freedom, as saying that we should be free to exploit others.

I work for a Liberal Democrat MP in Britain and for the StopTheWar campaign, and have had my phones tapped emails shed and have been followed down Whitehall. Telling me what freedom I believe in is not only embarrassing, but quite insulting. Freedom means nothing without some sort of harm principle accompanying it. This is why the state exists, why ‘freedom’ is preached so loudly by so many, why we as a species have transcended the simple state of nature.

Your strange twist on my comments on the Voltaire quote was actually supporting what I wrote. A slave is not free when he chooses to accept his chains, in much the same way as the master is not free when settling for an orderly life of comfort consumerism and complacency. I was, in fact, supporting the activism you extol. If this contradicts my agreement with Ben, that would only because I the nature of my work. I agreed with Ben’s central point Do forgive my use of the word ‘all’. It was being rattled off after a long and hard day of abuse praise and stress. I was using ilp.com in the knowledge that the people here and rational and peaceful. People who try to take what is written at face value. There is nothing hidden in between the lines.

Your understanding of the word nepotism is false. Your reply to Ben was adversarial and personal in its abuse, and my reply to yours was trying to water down the sour taste you put into the thread, by carrying on the debate, which, whether you noticed or not, was about terror warnings in the UK. However, you chose to use the content of what I said as worth distorting so as to fit some warped and incorrect picture of what happens behind the scenes of this forum. You are seeing ulterior motives in benign actions. You may be amused to know that I have never met Ben. That I will probably meet you before I meet him.

The administrators of ILP are not here to exploit freedoms. The opposite is true. The website was set up promoted and developed to give people around the world a forum for discussion for the same benign reasons you put so eloquently in the philosophy forum on the 28th, and for the same reasons I put in a reply to a new user earlier today. I suppose you think they are called ‘users’ because we ‘use’ you all for our own debauch benefit? If people don’t adhere to the values in discussion that we have broadly agreed on, then remind them, whilst keeping to those values yourself, rather than handing out personal abuse which doesn’t endear anyone to anyone. Ben apologised. And it should have been left there. The reason we don’t ask for new moderators any more, is because the ilp users are usually very polite and intelligent in their discussions. There is rarely any need to ‘moderate’, as people assume universal equality. There is no hierarchy here.

Of course a constitution doesn’t tell its citizens that it must exploit their freedom in this or that way. Constitutions only define where power lies and where decisions are made, and what rights are guaranteed. They are almost always written under the premise that the citizens are to live in a free society, as free individuals. Laws guarantee this freedom, though they can also limit it. I’m sure you have written many things in these forums which have not been included in the constitutions of Canada and the USA. I have not brought your attention to this fact though, as I do not think it relevant. Incidentally, the UK has no constitution.

The sources behind my assertions regarding the Russian and French positions on the Iraq crisis were two cabinet ministers in the British government, three Labour backbench members of the UK parliament, five French MEPs, a Russian diplomat at their London embassy, plus the former chief of the British intelligence services. I consider these sources quite reliable, though I concede, it is by word of mouth. Buth then again, few documents are made of confidential information. I was using the ideas I am exposed to every day working at Westminster to enrich the discussion. I also drew on my own political analysis, which is outlined in my case against war document which I provided a link to. I will send it by email, if you want.

Knowledge of what any war would be like was based on the contradictory evidence we receive from the US government, US central command, Scott Ritter, current weapons inspectors, Amnesty international and the UK government as to what Iraq’s weapons capability is, and what plans they have in response to Allied forces invading. The current assessment is that much of the Republican guard will join the Allied forces in a war, and that most of the Special Republican guard will adopt a strategy of guerrilla warfare, leading to a protracted and messy war, which will see more innocent people killed than any of us are willing to accept. I say that Iraq may invade Kuwait again as well as attempt to kill all western troops (though I doubt they will succeed in both) because Saddam Hussein said he would. He has also ordered and distributed special masks for his supporters and the SPG near the southern and eastern borders which protect against chemical weapons. Tariq Aziz, his Deputy has said that this is to protect from American chemical weapons. Many commentators say it is to protect from Iraqi chemical weapons which they plan to use.

You seemed surprised at my writing ‘not to be frightened of the truth’, because of something Ben and Alex had written in another thread which I have not seen. I don’t know why you assume that all moderators have to agree on everything. They don’t… We are thinkers independent of each other as well, and we are not a government, though we do attempt to find a consensus on issues regarding to welfare of the website.

Lecturing like this should not be necessary any more. We set up the ‘Help and Suggestions’ forum so we could all have a say about how the website is run. If you smell conspiracy, please put it there, instead of interrupting and diverting from the discussion at hand. If you want something changed, then, within reason, we will change it. Those who moderate forums are those usually those who’ve asked to do so.

PPL…relax ! Now listen…since the anti-Terrorism laws introduced after Sept 11 there have been well over 200 arrests…and…wait for it…NOT A SINGLE CHARGE AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL…within the UK ! (I think !) Those arrested by the Americans…don’t even get a hearing ! The media splash the headlines with all sorts of rubbish as soon as their is any raid on ‘suspected Al-Qaeeda operatives’ but fail to mention the next day that most of the men arrested have been released with the exception of one…whose visa has expired !!
Are the Americans hyping up this war on terror and the threat it poses…DAMN RIGHT…and as a loyal foreign minister of the Bush admin (Nelson Mandela himself said so !) Tony Blair has an obligation to follow.

Pangloss stated:

Yes, I agree, but that’s not what you said. You said you agreed with ALL of what Ben said, now you are saying that I should forgive your use of the word all, but then go on to contradict yourself by saying

I took your words at face value, there obviously was something hidden behind your words, as you said yourself…

So behind your words was you rattling off your long and hard day of abuse praise and stress. But for the record, I understand, I just hope you understand the nature of Ben’s argument and why I think it wrong for you to agree with ALL of what he said. I too agree with Ben’s major point in his post, this was never an issue, his presentation, his labelling, his vulgarity, and pretentiousness is what the issue was for me - and I couldn’t believe you would agree with that.
Ben apologize, so it ends there - but I feel it is in vain - and hence why I wrote that I don’t want an apology, cause I really don’t, and that the important thing is that he should not do it again, in my opinion.

Pangloss stated:

I’m still not sure if I understand exactly what you mean by the above. Exactly what do you mean by someone having their freedom exploited? The definition of exploitation has the following two most relevant meanings to our topic:

  1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage
  2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes

As you can see, it depends heavily on what you mean by exploitation. So if you could elaborate, it would be great.

Pangloss stated:

Very chivalrous and magnanimous of you, and I do feel bad for you having to experience your freedom hanging by a thin string. But I must humbly express my disagreeance with your principle of “Freedom means nothing without some sort of harm principle accompanying it” - as long as I think I know what you mean by it. This belief is very popular and is used too often as an excuse to attack before the situation is truly understood. Personally, and maybe I’m naive, I don’t believe freedom must sit on the harm principle foundation in order to work.

Pangloss stated:

Huh? “because I the nature of my work”? I don’t get it. I think maybe you forgot a word in your sentence or you just need to reword your sentence.

Pangloss stated:

Funny, you never said a thing about Ben’s post being adversarial. But you are quite correct about my response to him being adversarial. Yes I did notice you were trying to water it down, which is worse, adverting attention from something that needs to be addressed. Not to mean that the Iraq and terror themes don’t need addressing, but that they shouldn’t be used to cover up other’s indiscretions. I admire you benign act of watering down the argument, but sometimes those arguments lead to something good, an understanding. I wasn’t referring to you and Ben meeting, I was referring to your friendship with Ben. I have a friendship with two people from this board, neither of them have been present before my eyes.

Pangloss stated:

This is what I don’t get, few paragraphs above you say that freedoms need to be exploited, here you are saying that you are not here to exploit freedoms. So if you not here to exploit freedoms than why do you think that freedom should be exploited? Catch the paradox? I mean, unless you are using the word with a different meaning here as you did in the paragraph above, I guess I will just ask you to explain and continue then. Furthermore, I didn’t and don’t believe that you are here to exploit freedoms, but that is what you and Ben wrote (or so I appeared to have mistaken and still await a vivid explanation), so that is why I referred to it.

Pangloss stated:

Come on, that’s going a little far. Now it’s like your trying to show that I will use words to try purposefully to change peoples meaning into something to argue about for the sake of arguing. Not at all, if I misunderstand someone to mean something other than what they mean, it is exactly for that reason, I misunderstood. I only seek to understand people, which appears to be a crime sometimes. People don’t like me taking apart their statements and really delving into the depths of what they mean and the repurcussions their logics have.

Pangloss stated:

You are right and I try to do that as often as possible, but yes I do sometimes slip up and a nerve begins to protrude and my keyboard gets the worst of it.

Pangloss stated:

My own personal issue is the result of my not leaving the discussion there, see my whole life people are either too quick to apologize or don’t apologize at all. Both ways it is a selfish thing to do to advert attention away from what is the issue. I have developed a policy that I need not get an apology from anyone, if someone is truly sorry for what they did than they will simply not do it anymore. How many times do we experience someone doing something, apologizing for it, doing it again, apologizing for it, doing it again…and on and on. One need not take responsibility once they apologize for something, so it is a band-aid solution.

Pangloss stated:

I agree with much of what you say here, but what Ben wrote and I berated is something that definitely needed to be moderated. What is one to assume if the very person that started ilp and set the rules, goes into the ‘Politics and Economics’ forum and give a rant? When he knows only too well that vulgarities and ranting is prohibited and belongs to the rant forum? Taking into account everything else he said about university students thinking their cool, and once again, I can’t believe he would say they are communists. It’s so obtuse and naive of him that it made me see him in a completely different light. As though he is jealous and would mock that which he does not understand and has labelled all university students because he had some bad experiences with university students. Sorry, but that was really uncalled for from him. But ofcourse, he has apologized, so lets leave it there.

Pangloss stated:

Law doesn’t guarantee the freedom of anyone. It simply attempts to protect it. But let’s not forget that the force of law is not in law itself but the police enforcing it. Let’s also try to remember that the police are owned by the mob. So where are we left?

The UK has no consitution? I did not know that. How weird, is there a major doctrine housing the major principles the country stands for?

Pangloss stated:

I will set aside some time and read your political analysis in the essay forum. I will get back to you on it.

Pangloss stated:

Okay, but what is this evidence? Who or what analysis says what about Iraq’s weapons capability? I’m on a need to know basis here, I need to know.

Pangloss stated:

If what is said here is true, not that you would lie but that you may be mistaken or that your sources may have been mistake or they may have lied to you, but if it is true I must say that I am under the impression that your commentators are correct.

Pangloss stated:

Understood.

What’s your take?

War will not get Tony Blair re-elected, if anything it will cost him the next election. As for Bush, well, Bush has had lots of problems with the economy and fraud, things like Enron and WorldCom. 9/11 has caused a lack of confidence in the market, which was then increase by the on going threat of war. I do believe that a war, long term, will help the US market recover. But as for re-election who can tell, not to be racist or anti-Semitic but Bush against Lieberman will be interesting. As there are a lot of Americans who don’t like the idea of a Jewish President.

This war is not about Oil, or Democracy for the Iraqi people. It’s about American national security. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to have a secure state, as everybody wishes to live in one. Oil is only of concern because it can buy you weapons. Yes America uses lots of oil, and yes OPEC hasn’t been producing enough. But I still think oil is only really a concern because of its ability to buy weapons. To say Saddam is a dictator is true, but it’s America that gave him that power, like they gave many other dictators theirs. So America has no problem doing business with dictators so long as it doesn’t affect their own security. I would agree with America that there is a strong possibility that Saddam has links with Al-Qaeeda. If Saddam was to give away some of his weapons to such a group it could spell a lot of trouble for the US or even Israel. I wouldn’t be surprised if some Palestinian group had a chemical weapon and were waiting for the right time to use it. Of course this is only speculation. I also don’t see Saddam trying to invade Kuwait; at most I think he would try to maybe burn their oil fields again, in a German style blitzkrieg attack with a small number of fast moving mobile units. I reckon he will use guerrilla style warfare, with so-called sleeper units in neighbouring countries, which have American and British troops posted there. Attacking with chemical weapons if he can mobilize them in such a way, as he needs to keep them busy trying to secure there own bases before they can go after him.

My biggest worry about this war is that North Korea might have some small nuclear weapons, which they have given to Saddam for oil. And that Saddam will try to play the holy war card to get all of the Muslims to fight with him against the “evil westerners.” Or that China might see this as a good time to take Taiwan back. While people don’t call China a superpower, I can see it becoming one soon. It’s also the only country that is even a contender for that title.

Pax Vitae