The "protesters"

[rajak73]

Don't try and confuse these people with facts.

 

[megashark]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------------------------

Perhaps instead of responding with a post that makes absolutely no sense, you could answer the question that I posed to you way back when:

Actually, this is why I "abandoned" the previous argument. If you don't have an answer, you claim that the point is unintelligible.

Whether this is a matter of intellectual dishonesty or intellectual inadequacy, I have no way of knowing.

But it's a childish way around recognizing that they other person has a point, a tactic I've found common in your posts.



Regarding your claim that a person is not required to be in control of their cars, I must admit I've only held licenses in four states, and I know that in each, there are laws against tailgating, and that you are required to maintain control of your car. Maybe the other 46 states are less enlightened, but I doubt it.

As regards your case to disprove my point, the case you cited did not tranfer the responsibility for the accident to a third party.

It claimed that someone going through an intersection from a complete stop arbitrarily stopped with no reason.

This is a different case from someone stopping for a reason, whether for a reason you like, for example stopping because a child ran in the street, or for one that you don't like, for example, a protestor in the street. This case in no way supports the concept that either the child or the protestor would be held liable for damages.

I hope you are never rear-ended because the person behind was traveling too closely to stop when you did, but I think most people would expect that the person who hit you would pay for the damages.

I guess you instead you could start by suing the squirrel or child that ran in front of you, the sudden blinding sunset as you go over a rise in the road, the puddle that you don't know about until you're on it, the debris you want to avoid, etc.

I hope that to prove your point, you don't just go ahead and run over whatever it is.

As to most people thinking that when protesters lie down in the road people thinking that there's a real possibilty they might get run over? No I don't think so. The protesters are not being subtle, they are not hiding, and they are not trying to commit suicide. They're actually being as visible as they can.

I think most people are thinking "what a pain in the neck". Or a few less delicate thoughts. But no, I don't think people are thinking "Oh my goodness, those people might get run over".

 

[glo]

First and last warning here...treat eachother with respect, or this post will be closed.

 

[Galahad]

Libertarian/First Amendment "Activist" Nat Hentoff (often on NPR) wrote this in the Village Voice of all places:

Nat Hentoff
Why I Didn't March This Time
Their Tongues Were Cut Out for Slandering Hussein
March 28th, 2003 3:30 PM

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein. —John F. Burns, "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?" The New York Times, January 26, 2003



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


I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience—though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:

"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

I did not cite "weapons of mass destruction." Nor do I believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to this country, any more than the creators of the mass graves in the Balkans were, or the Taliban. And as has been evident for a long time, I am no admirer of George W. Bush.

The United Nations? Did the inspectors go into the prisons and the torture chambers? Would they have, if given more time? Did they interview the Mukhabarat, Saddam's dreaded secret police?

An Iraqi in Detroit wanted to send a message to the anti-war protesters: "If you want to protest that it's not OK to send your kids to fight, that's OK. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis."

In The Guardian, a British paper that can hardly be characterized as conservative, there was a dispatch from Safwan, Iraq, liberated in the first days of the war: "Ajami Saadoun Khilis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of The Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming. 'You just arrived,' he said. 'You're late. What took you so long?' "

The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

Bill Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved.

The United Nations? Where Libya, Syria, and Sudan are on the Human Rights Commission? The UN is crucial for feeding people and trying to deal with such plagues as AIDS; but if you had been in a Hussein torture chamber, would you, even in a state of delirium, hope for rescue from the UN Security Council?

From Amnesty International, for whom human rights are not just a slogan, on Iraq: "Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out fingernails, rape. . . . Two men, Zaher al-Zuhairi and Fares Kadhem Akia, reportedly had their tongues cut out for slandering the president by members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994. The amputations took place in a public square in Diwaniya City, south of Baghdad."

As John Burns of The New York Times wrote in January: "History may judge that the stronger case [for an American-led invasion] . . . was the one that needed no [forbidden arms] inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

When it appeared that Tony Blair's political career was near extinction, he gave a speech in the House of the Commons, as quoted in the March 18 issue of The Guardian:

"We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means—let us be clear—that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

"And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means—what then?

"What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that?. . . Who will celebrate and who will weep?"

The letters section of The New York Times is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"

And, in the March 23 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff, a longtime human rights investigator, wrote of "14,000 'writers, academics, and other intellectuals'—many of them my friends—[who] published a petition against the war . . . condemning the Iraqi regime for its human rights violations and supporting 'efforts by the Iraqi opposition to create a democratic, multi-ethnic, and multireligious Iraq.' " But they say, he adds, that waging war at this time is "morally unacceptable."

"I wonder," Ignatieff wrote—as I also wonder—"what their support for the Iraqi opposition amounts to."

 

[Geoff_M]

An Iraqi in Detroit wanted to send a message to the anti-war protesters: "If you want to protest that it's not OK to send your kids to fight, that's OK. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis."

A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"

These are probably the two most salient points of the piece. The "anti-war" protesters have no claim to speak "for" the citizens of Iraq. And based on the general comments of Iraqi refugees, they appear to be speaking against the wishes of the people of Iraq.

Also so what if the worst that the "anti-war" crowd can throw at Bush is correct (it's "about oil", or "about Daddy", or "it was planned all along", etc.).... so what?!?!?! Then end result is the same for the people of Iraq... they get an honest shot at freedom and democracy and likelyhood that they won't be drug off and shot in the town square for simple dissent. Doing the "right" thing for all the "wrong" reasons still has the same result.

 

[megashark]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
These are probably the two most salient points of the piece. The "anti-war" protesters have no claim to speak "for" the citizens of Iraq. And based on the general comments of Iraqi refugees, they appear to be speaking against the wishes of the people of Iraq.

Also so what if the worst that the "anti-war" crowd can throw at Bush is correct (it's "about oil", or "about Daddy", or "it was planned all along", etc.).... so what?!?!?! Then end result is the same for the people of Iraq... they get an honest shot at freedom and democracy and likelyhood that they won't be drug off and shot in the town square for simple dissent. Doing the "right" thing for all the "wrong" reasons still has the same result.

I'm confused. Is the point that although there is no threat to the US, the actions are justified because of human rights issues?

If this is the case, why wasn't that what we were told?

 

[Geoff_M]

You missed the point. No one in the administration has claimed that the prime objective of the operation is for humanitarian relief. What Borok states is that from the human rights standpoint alone, based on what international human rights groups have reported, it is the right thing to do.

 

[megashark]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
You missed the point. No one in the administration has claimed that the prime objective of the operation is for humanitarian relief.

Thanks. I thought I had missed something there.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by megashark
Actually, this is why I "abandoned" the previous argument. If you don't have an answer, you claim that the point is unintelligible.

Whether this is a matter of intellectual dishonesty or intellectual inadequacy, I have no way of knowing.

But it's a childish way around recognizing that they other person has a point, a tactic I've found common in your posts.



Regarding your claim that a person is not required to be in control of their cars, I must admit I've only held licenses in four states, and I know that in each, there are laws against tailgating, and that you are required to maintain control of your car. Maybe the other 46 states are less enlightened, but I doubt it.

As regards your case to disprove my point, the case you cited did not tranfer the responsibility for the accident to a third party.

It claimed that someone going through an intersection from a complete stop arbitrarily stopped with no reason.

This is a different case from someone stopping for a reason, whether for a reason you like, for example stopping because a child ran in the street, or for one that you don't like, for example, a protestor in the street. This case in no way supports the concept that either the child or the protestor would be held liable for damages.

I hope you are never rear-ended because the person behind was traveling too closely to stop when you did, but I think most people would expect that the person who hit you would pay for the damages.

I guess you instead you could start by suing the squirrel or child that ran in front of you, the sudden blinding sunset as you go over a rise in the road, the puddle that you don't know about until you're on it, the debris you want to avoid, etc.

I hope that to prove your point, you don't just go ahead and run over whatever it is.

As to most people thinking that when protesters lie down in the road people thinking that there's a real possibilty they might get run over? No I don't think so. The protesters are not being subtle, they are not hiding, and they are not trying to commit suicide. They're actually being as visible as they can.

I think most people are thinking "what a pain in the neck". Or a few less delicate thoughts. But no, I don't think people are thinking "Oh my goodness, those people might get run over".

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

If you would like to return to the thread regarding the responsibility of rear-end collisions, I would be more than happy to continue this discussion with you and examine any facts you can provide that indicate the lead driver is ALWAYS 100% responsible..

In terms of this thread, I will repeat the suggestion I posted before:

"Better yet, perhaps you could post a poll: "If you saw a person (or persons) laying in the middle of the road, would the thought ever cross your mind that they might get run over?"..."

Unless of course you're fearful of what the results would be.......

 

[megashark]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-----------------------

If you would like to return to the thread regarding the responsibility of rear-end collisions, I would be more than happy to continue this discussion with you and examine any facts you can provide that indicate the lead driver is ALWAYS 100% responsible..

In terms of this thread, I will repeat the suggestion I posted before:

"Better yet, perhaps you could post a poll: "If you saw a person (or persons) laying in the middle of the road, would the thought ever cross your mind that they might get run over?"..."

Unless of course you're fearful of what the results would be.......

Um, the last thing that you would ever inspire in me is cowardice.



But since I don't agree with you as to what is worthwhile or not, I will choose my own topics, thank you.

Feel free to start your suggested thread on your own.

 

[glo]

I am going to ask that people refrain from being rude to eachother. I have already warned once...next time closed.

 

[C.Ann]

"The End".............