Thread: повесили С. Хусейна

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Winners do dictate the rules, but it doesn't mean the winners are always wrong. You tell me that Goering was not guilty just because the Allies won the war?

What's truth? It's not an absolute term by any means. It's relative. There's no absolute truth. I should rephrase my saying - the truth is defined by the winners. Millions of _ Germans were beguiled by what Dr. Joseph Goebbels had said to them. They were sincerely believing that massacring the Jews was necessary and that all the crimes committed by Hitler were not defined as such. By the way - those who study public relations and advertising business study Goebbels' experience of mass consciousness manipulation. If you're interested - familiarize yourself with Propaganda by Edward L. Bernays or as people call him "the father of spin"

I don't think you believe yourself what you are saying. If you hold a gun to a child's head and pull the trigger, I don't care what you think, whether in your mind it seems so natural, you are a murderer and should be punished for your crime. If everybody is innocent just because their truth allows for it, then we end up with anarchy and genocide.

The Nuremburg trials didn't pass judgement on every German, didn't sentence every German. Many of the accused were even acquitted, since they were only following orders.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I have seen pictures, yes. Unlike the USSR media, the western media (and we've discussed this elsewhere) is not dictated by what the US government says.

There is _ censorship in US. They don't usually use it widely but yes - they can "recommend" or "not recommend" something to be said in the news blocks. The model use monetary levers to influence on the publishers for nearly all mass media in US is owned (or controlled) by several dozens of people who can be controlled personally.

Well, obviously the system doesn't work then. The Western media (American too) is highly critical of the current US government. Even if one media might be biased (like Fox, if you know american media) other media is totally the opposite (like CNN). If you think that these dozen people are being controlled by "goverenment agencies" then you are paranoid. The owners don't create the reports, they don't write the stories, they don't even decide what to show on TV that day. They are simply owners. yes, they can fire the directors and reporters, but this happens very rarely.

Originally Posted by Ramil

How can you tell everybody is not lying to you? Might as well become a hermit!

Everybody IS lying to us. Everything said on TV - is only one version of "the truth" Weather forecasts are the only thing I could trust watching TV

Obviously you are only get one side to the story, but that is not the same as a "lie". Just because this version does not agree with a different version, which you might believe, doesn't mean this version is a lie. If you can't put your trust in your chosen media, then you might as well become ignorant to the world, becuse it is only through media you learn about it!

Originally Posted by Ramil

Who gave anybody the right to murder their fellow human beings?

I'll ask a different question: who would deny them doing so? Killing someone was not so big a crime back in Medieval times even in Europe. Middle East is still in feudalism so they use a correspondent moral model. That's only natural. I am talking about killing their fellow muslims. Killing an infidel like you and me is regarded as a virtue there.

That is entirely ignorance. It might be true in fundamentalism, but you'll find that most muslims are not fundamentalists, and do not kill any non-muslim they see. This notion about muslims is really only a couple of years old, people have traveled to the middle east for centuries with their head in the same place.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I doubt the torture was a government condoned action though. And Bush didn't order the deaths of civilians. There is a moral difference.

You can't order to bomb a city not knowing that at least some bombs will miss their targets and kill civilians. There's even a military term (something like "tolerable civilian casualties") - civilian deaths are the statistics today. And Saddam too could have said that he didn't order tortures or executions personally, so what?

You are too black and white. Saddam knew very well what was going on in his country and what his sons were doing. He did nothing. That is just as bad as the superiors in the prisons knowing what was going on and not doing anything. I highly doubt Bush knew anything about Abu Grahib before the pictures came out, he couldn't even pronounce it for 3 months!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I don't think you believe yourself what you are saying. If you hold a gun to a child's head and pull the trigger, I don't care what you think, whether in your mind it seems so natural, you are a murderer and should be punished for your crime. If everybody is innocent just because their truth allows for it, then we end up with anarchy and genocide.

That's because you and I were brought up in a society that is repugnant to such things. (the rules) Imagine a society that accepts the practice of child sacrifice, for example (a really large number of men believing that this is tolerable) and people won't even understand you saying that this is a crime.

Such moral principles laying in the core of every society mold our views on this world into some shape which dominates our thinking.

What are you going to do next? Declare a whole vile race infidels and begin righting wrongs killing thousands in the process? Or just adjust your thinking... Maybe you will try to persuade them that butchering children is immoral but I doubt your whole lifespan will be enough for that. As a result - you'll just try to live with that.

Should the Nazis have won - there would have been different moral principles dominating the minds of people. And many things we call crimes today wouldn't have been called so.

I'll give you an example - try to find any Turkish publication about the Armenian Genocide of 1915. You won't find one. Ask any Turk about it and he will say that there had been no genocide of the Armenians. They learn that at schools so there's really no surprise that they don't know anything about it.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Well, obviously the system doesn't work then. The Western media (American too) is highly critical of the current US government. Even if one media might be biased (like Fox, if you know american media) other media is totally the opposite (like CNN). If you think that these dozen people are being controlled by "goverenment agencies" then you are paranoid. The owners don't create the reports, they don't write the stories, they don't even decide what to show on TV that day. They are simply owners. yes, they can fire the directors and reporters, but this happens very rarely.

No, the censorship is more subtle. US State Department just throws in its own version of the events and media just picks it up. There are also some guidelines about how this or that event should be covered in press. Some untrustworthy reporters or journalists may just end up with the "we are very sorry but we can't prolong your contract for the next year" notice on their desks. The pluralism and even criticism helps to form an image they want for they're helping to convince people in their candour. If every newspaper says the same the reader might become suspicious but when there's a criticism he just swallows the whole story. Modern press can persuade people in almost anything. (I again advise you to refer to the book "Propaganda" I wrote about to illustrate the principles involved in forming the public opinion).

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Obviously you are only get one side to the story, but that is not the same as a "lie". Just because this version does not agree with a different version, which you might believe, doesn't mean this version is a lie. If you can't put your trust in your chosen media, then you might as well become ignorant to the world, becuse it is only through media you learn about it!

Same old example: "Rebels liberated the village"/"Bandits assaulted the village" - the news titles about the same event. Which one is a lie?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

That is entirely ignorance. It might be true in fundamentalism, but you'll find that most muslims are not fundamentalists, and do not kill any non-muslim they see. This notion about muslims is really only a couple of years old, people have traveled to the middle east for centuries with their head in the same place.

They don't kill infidels but they don't consider us worthy living. They wouldn't grieve much if someone had us butchered. Of course they will do business with us but we will always remain alien to them and nothing can change that.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I highly doubt Bush knew anything about Abu Grahib before the pictures came out, he couldn't even pronounce it for 3 months!

I wonder how much time it took him to memorize the general location of Iraq itself.
Fortunately or unfortunately it's not Mr. Bush who rules America.

Ramil, stop being a (Edited. L.).

Сводного брата Саддама Хусейна казнили дважды

Казнь сводного брата Саддама Хусейна Барзана аль-Тикрити, состоявшаяся утром 15 января, прошла в два этапа. Бывшего главу иракской тайной полиции сначала повесили, а затем, уже мертвому, ему отрезали голову. По словам представителя иракских властей, такой способ лишения жизни "не является ненормальным".
lenta.ru

Ну что, очевидно, можно считать что поддерживаемое американцами правительство наглядно демонстриует результаты победы американского представления о цивилизации.

Да распространим по свету демократию обезглавливания повешенных правителей! (С) Дж. Буш (хотя он этого и не сказал)

Originally Posted by mishau_

Сводного брата Саддама Хусейна казнили дважды

Казнь сводного брата Саддама Хусейна Барзана аль-Тикрити, состоявшаяся утром 15 января, прошла в два этапа. Бывшего главу иракской тайной полиции сначала повесили, а затем, уже мертвому, ему отрезали голову. По словам представителя иракских властей, такой способ лишения жизни "не является ненормальным".
lenta.ru

Они, наверное, имеют в виду, что сначала отрезать голову, а потом повесить было б затруднительно, по техническим причинам.

Впрочем, если без черного юмора, то все это просто запредельно мерзко. В мире еще поискать надо таких ублюдков, как этот амерский коллаборационисткий режим.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Ну что, очевидно, можно считать что поддерживаемое американцами правительство наглядно демонстриует результаты победы американского представления о цивилизации.

Вот именно.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Да распространим по свету демократию обезглавливания повешенных правителей! (С) Дж. Буш (хотя он этого и не сказал)

Хорошо б эту демократию на него самого распространить.