Amnesty International

[jordanisonfire]

So, I looked up a Bebo page of Amnesty International and found it's quite interesting what we don't know about the war. Who agrees? If you want info, click here (http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=4538534684).

[Shaun]

Well, my first inclination is to laugh when people talk about human rights in the middle of a war. They complain when innocent people are killed, they bitch and moan about every little thing rather than trying to find viable solutions. First, it is inevitable that innocent people will be killed in a war. Sorry, it's true, and it sucks, but that's just the way it is. Should we stop the war? Of course. Can we? Kinda. But there's nothing we can do about innocent people being killed. First, more people are dying from insurgents than U.S. forces now. It's not the U.S. that's killing innocent people anymore, and when we were killing innocents it was more often than not unintentionally. A bomb missed, or a target wasn't researched enough, etc. But insurgents are intentionally attacking schools, colleges, universities, churches (or whatever they are called), refugee camps, etc. That should tell us all something about the people we're fighting. Can you tell me what sort of people are just and moral who kill innocents knowing full well that is what they are doing? I don't agree with the war, and never will, but I can see the difference between misguided evil (the US), and pure evil (insurgents and terrorists).
On the other side, they do seem to address human rights in a lot of areas where intentional atrocities are happening and in a lot of ways I agree. I don't like the name though--"Amnesty Int.". That has a lot to do with the immigration issue right now.

But, I also have no intention of researching the site more, so...maybe present some specific points? Give their mission statement here...etc. I dunno, give me more to argue about :P.

[jordanisonfire]

Well, it wasn't really the Iraqis and such who struck the first blow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, the war started because Bush wouldn't relinquish his control on the Middle East. And Osama Bin Laden was actually allied with the US at one point, but the US betrayed him somehow and now he's being forced to terrorise because Bush won't grant them liberty. A lot of people think it's them who struck the first blow, but it's really the US.

[Shaun]

Umm, yeah a lot of wrong stuff there. I'll have to address it tomorrow. Remind me in a PM or something. It'll be a long message :S It's not your fault though, it's a product of the crappy media.

[jordanisonfire]

Then my history teacher is wrong. We should have you for a teacher, Shaun. :P Thanks for promising to correct me.

[Shaun]

Well, it wasn't really the Iraqis and such who struck the first blow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, the war started because Bush wouldn't relinquish his control on the Middle East. And Osama Bin Laden was actually allied with the US at one point, but the US betrayed him somehow and now he's being forced to terrorise because Bush won't grant them liberty. A lot of people think it's them who struck the first blow, but it's really the US.

You're only about half wrong really...:P

Okay, first things. The Iraqis were not involved in 9/11, never were either. Second, the U.S. has never HAD control on the Middle East. No foreign occupation in the Middle East has ever worked. The Russians failed miserably in Afghanistan--thanks to America--and we failed during Desert Storm and will fail again now. I hate saying we'll fail, but we will.
Now, the war started for reasons none of us will ever be sure unless Bush admits to it. It did not start because Iraq was involved in 9/11 in any way. They weren't intentionally harboring terrorists, although certainly there were terrorists there and we've found a few old camps there, but Saddam Hussein, as much of a tyrant that he is, was staunchly against terrorism, so much so that he actually executed his own people when he suspected someone of being one. Now, the war could be that we wanted to help the Iraqis, which certainly is a noble ideal considering the oppressive, violent regime they were originally under. But that's not how it was portrayed to us. We were told that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No connection to this day has been found. Then we were told there were WMDs in Iraq, and we all jumped thinking it was true, trusting Bush. When none could be found--they found chemical weapons, but nothing substantial--the Republican party changed the reasoning to something else (it was either that Saddam was evil, or something else, I can't remember exactly and it's mostly irrelevant). The war in Iraq was basically started by a lie that never had substantial proof in the first place. There were no WMDs, and probably never were, and nothing has been found to suggest they even had the ability to make them or even put them together. The most we found was old missile shells which could have been used to launch WMDs, or could have been used to launch ice cream sandwiches.
As for Bin Laden, yes, the U.S. originally funded him when Russia was in Afghanistan, and essentially we helped him form Al'Qaeda (though it probably wasn't called that back then). The difference is that we created them as actual freedom fighters--an insurgent army designed and trained to fight off an invading force to protect land and family. So, we funded him. The reason for the split and why he started attacking us is probably another of those unknown things. It likely had more to do with the U.S. being jerks and Osama overreacting and being a worse of a jerk. The thing about extremists is that they don't see rationally.
But as for why he does what he does. He's a terrorist, and always was. He never started off as anything short of a terrorist. His actions have gotten him exiled from Saudi Arabia (his home) and from his family, which happens to be the royal family of SA. He's not well liked by many of the countries that generally are trying to foster monetary relations with the U.S., although the fact still remains that said countries will likely never have a good relation with us because they are overly oppressive, violent, and often murderous fascist regimes with no care for human decency. He started out doing what would be called terrorist actions, even if his actions had a cause, and became a radical. He's been responsible for organizing bombings of embassies and has been a reason for the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

If you want an example of how bad Wikipedia is, and the complete idiocy of people in this country, do a search on "Osama Bin Laden and U.S.A." and start reading about how Osama is such a wonderful guy, etc. The Wikipedia article is particularly humorous because it's packed full of lies. I'm actually kind of sick of people spinning history and claiming it as truth...it happens with WW2 a lot too, which pisses me off beyond reason.