bangla2000 Home • b2k Interactive  Home • all   bulletins New Members Sign Up b2k Members Sign In
Monday, October 23, 2017 BD

Groups
Bangladesh Group


Bulletins Participate in the Bulletin
Enter Your Opinion
Click to add Emoticons.
blush confused cool cry eek frown biggrin
evilgrin supergrin kiss lol smile love mad
redface rolleyes sweat tongue trippy winky alien
devil happy indifferent nerd ohwell sick tired


Bulletins Bulletin : Published and Discussed
Date: Sunday, September 28, 2003
From: ima
Subject:
Sb/ Cluster
Description:


sorry i tried to respond to clusters posting but for some reason it was not working..hence the new bulletin.....Sb very good points indeed. Cluster/ Sb ur comments were very enlightening and enjoyable…!! Here are few of my own thoughts…. In my opinion Tony B and G.B among many other leaders (including Saddam Hussein) fall in the same league as serial killers. The only difference betw them is S.K **pathologically kill innocent victims without any motives** and they (the leaders) kill innocent ppl for political reason, be it personal or for national security. The bottom line is **innocent ppl are killed** S.K may kill 10/20 ppl where as our leaders are responsible for killing thousands and millions not only that but also for putting innocent people through mental and the physical torture of war. YET the irony is that we regard them as **normal human being** and the serial killers as mad, or mentally disturbed.

Cluster just to clarify another point from your previous response (Spet 26th)I think u misunderstood my point. I myself am a product of western culture (also the education system), I do not have anything against western culture per se. What I was trying to say is that faced with **hypocrisy** (the double standard nature of our leaders) we need to regulate our behaviour so u don’t go to the extreme (eg supporting terrorist groups, or other extremist), which will most certainly lead to our downfall . What we are taught at school or fed through the media can easily manipulate our thoughts and understanding, hence we need to be open-minded and questions these things and learn to think for ourselves. As for the media whether it be western or global they do have a reputation of creating their own reality, hence we need to be cautious and should not take everything we read at face value. I think those are the two main points I was trying put across.

Regarding the reasons for going to war with IRAQ, I think particularly for America oil was a big issue. After all Iraq has a huge potential, maybe it will take a very long time to capture that but even than I am sure America will benefit from it hugely. Perhaps in 10/20 years time this will become more prevalent. Totally agree with ur comment that Iraq was **strategically important and politically expendable**.

Is it not amazing how when our own lives are at risk, we can so easily support killing thousands of innocent people!!!! Indeed something to ponder on….!!!


People Discussion
Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

ima, there is a limitation on the number of characters placed in the respond field.

So if u want to put a large response, u have to break it down into pieces and post in 2/3 parts.

Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

btw, ima r u enrolled in Sociology or Psychology courses this semseter?

ima
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Sb thank u, i did not know that...i did take sociology at A level...and considering doing Psychology next semister but not sure whether i would be able to because my econ courses needs to be given priority...

Rony Salman
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Thanks a lot ima, so unbiased and neutral criticism that is, putting Bush, Blair and Hussain in the same slot for killing innocent people for obvious political gains! They just adopted different strategies in doing that starting from Hussain's attacking Kuwait and using chemical weapon on his own people, Bush's preemptive attack on Iraq overriding and going against United Nations search-work of weapon in Iraq and intention of strong denial against waging any war and Blair’s following Bush for the sake of common interest, gaining control of oil!! Note that now, even non-muslim people in USA and UK are accusing Bush for eye-washing and gaining the support of majority in USA with 'sexed-up' documents on the existence of Hussain's mass-destruction weapon!!

Rony Salman
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Read in the second sentence in above as '..... and intention of strong denial reagrding waging any war ......'Thanks

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

ima, I strongly disagree with your labelling George Bush and Tony Blair with Saddam Hossain. No the bottom line is NOT "innocent ppl are killed" when you try to define serila killer. Followign your logic ppl who are involved in car accident where death occured would also be serial killers (because innocent ppl died). So I need to hear a clear justification from you on how you label George W. Bush as serial killer.

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

About your point on the motive on U.S. attack on Iraq as going after oil I have already posted a long one in BB discussign the original motives. But I want to touch upon that again. If oil is the ultimate motive for United States to attack Iraq they had a much easier justification to do so in 1991 than now. In fact, if oil grabbing was the driving force for America's action in the middle east then U.S. would not be reducing troops and eventually closing base in Saudi Arabia which produces 3 times more oil than Iraq!

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

The more interesting point you raised is that of restrain from violent action for political motives. Lets consider that - in the late 1930s the then British Prime Minister and other key heads of state took a "restrained" approach against Hitler and only after Chamberlein was booted out of power could England show its real striking force. According to your logic Harry Truman is a serila killer for the A-bomb. Not acting soon enough with a violent response to Hitler's aggression caused million of innocent lives lost. Now according to your definition then those who didnt want to decimate german or japanese bases back then, rather wanted to engage in dialogues cud also be termed serial killers. Becasue there pacifist attitude caused millions of lives. If you are really willing to open this can of worms on whats right in world politics be my guest.

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

correction - I meant German and Japanese cities, and yes, full of civilian ppl. Not bases. An eye or more for an eye is the perfect response against ppl who do not value lives of otehrs or their own. History has shown that.

ima
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

1) I did not label B&B serial killers simply because u happen to be against the war, how preposterous is that?
2) Ppl involved in a car accident do not drive with the motive to kill….**accident** happen purely by chance and usually regarded as unforeseeable event**
3) I did not say oil was the ultimate reason, but it was one of the main reasons…
4) When I said *the bottom line is innocent ppl are killed** I was making a comparison btw B&B and S.killers** was not talking about every incident where innocent ppl are killed.


ima
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

5) Can’t compare the 2nd world war with the Iraqi war...
6) If *****An eye or more for an eye is the perfect response against ppl who do not value lives of others or their own*** than B&B also fall into the same category.. particularly in terms of not respecting the lives of others….i have clearly explained why in MY OPINION they are considered as S.killers..so don’t see any point of repeating myself again..


Sb
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

Why blame poor Hitler? He had his own 'popular representation' in invading countries of Europe, disregarding world opinion !!!

Wasnt he right on his own way?

cluster11
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

1) I did not label B&B serial killers simply because u happen to be against the war, how preposterous is that?
>> No. You said it is GOOD that I am against the war. I dont see any relevance on my position regarding the war ot labelling George Bush a serial killer.

2) Ppl involved in a car accident do not drive with the motive to kill….**accident** happen purely by chance and usually regarded as unforeseeable event**
>> You DID NOT explain that in your earlier post. You simply said "bottom line is innocent ppl are killed". I cannot read minds so needed clarification.


cluster11
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

3) I did not say oil was the ultimate reason, but it was one of the main reasons…
>> Oil is definitely a beneficial by-product for the U.S. in the war against iraq. The only reason you cited in your post is Oil and labelled it a big issue. I disagree as i explained in the earlier post.

4) When I said *the bottom line is innocent ppl are killed** I was making a comparison btw B&B and S.killers** was not talking about every incident where innocent ppl are killed.
- what comparison?? If you are calling them serial killers then you need to show why they are serial killers. A good approach would be show us the definition of a serial killer and then show how George W. Bush foit that description. I am still awaiting your justificaiton on that.

cluster11
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

5) Can’t compare the 2nd world war with the Iraqi war...
>> Who says so?? Both are wars and the question you raised was about Bush's action that led to death of innocent civilians. Both wars did that. Your argument is about innocent civilians being killed and that makes head of state serila killer. So definitely other wars are relevant.

6) If *****An eye or more for an eye is the perfect response against ppl who do not value lives of others or their own*** than B&B also fall into the same category.. particularly in terms of not respecting the lives of others….
>> I do hope you understand what 'eye for an eye' means. Which is equal or more amount of 'revenge'. That means an action has to precede the revenge. Since you said Bush & Blair falls in the same category please explain when in Bush's presidency before 9-11 did he followed his current Bush Doctrine.


cluster11
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

The key point on my argument wirh ima was on the 'serial killer' labelling. Looks like that has been resolved in another thread. I just want to refer it here to avoid any misunderstanding:-
>>ima said:
"cluster take it easy, my god it was a JOKE, u should not take everything so seriously, take a chill pill. I don't expect everyone to share my view, far from it. I think u are just upset that i am putting bush into the same leage as serial killers, hence the major blow up..seriously if i have offended with my petty joke ,,,than i am sicerely sorry ..that was not my intention at all..!!! "
>>my response:
Apology accepted. If your view is agaist the Iraq war and Bush's foreign policy I welcome any good discussion. But you labelled them serial killers and opined slitting others' throats when they disagree with you. That was wrong to say and shows who was upset. I am glad you see that.



Copyright © Bangla2000. All Rights Reserved.
About Us  |  Legal Notices  |  Contact for Advertisement