Courageous journalist Salah Choudhury may face death sentence

10/11/2006

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000526.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 06:54 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 9 comments

You know, there is absolutely no effective way to pressure a government into not acting like a hoard of retards. Even if another government such as the US were to treaten sanctions for human rights violations (btw I always laugh about that one...the US being a huge human rights violator themselves) it would only hurt the citizens of the nation in question as their government would most likely compensate for losses by stealing from their people, such as Saddam did in Iraq. No, the only solution for a retard government is to empower the people and incite them to revolt, this was a common policy durring Regan's administration , of course he usually empowered war lords rather than freedom loving people. Though in this case, the majority of people in Bangladesh may agree with their government's actions. And their is no quick cure for indoctination, outside of tossing a thermo on their heads. The situation looks a bit grim for Mr. Choudhury.

Posted by OMFG @ 10/17/2006 10:42 PM CST

Hey Ami, how do you feel about the extremism of Iran versus the extremism of Saudi Arabia? And why is it that the United States and Israel pander to the Saudi's, when they are the most religously extreme nation in the region?

Posted by OMFG @ 10/20/2006 01:58 AM CST

OMFG,
The sarcastic answer to your question, is that Saudi Arabia are our FRIENDS (LOL THEY PROVIDE OIL AND SUBMIT TO OUR COMMANDS, PASSIVE FREINDS).
IRAN DECIDES TO FIGHT THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IS ALSO EXTREMEMLY STUPID. There is no real answer here based on what is right and wrong, it is based on what each country wants for itself. BUT, AMI WILL NEVER ADMIT TO THIS.

Posted by john @ 10/20/2006 03:44 PM CST

LMAO Friends...The Suadis like Pakistan only find it more beneficial to them economically as well as militarily to do the bidding of the United States. We have many "friends" in the middle east that fit the same description. Which is why Amhadjeea.whats.his.name and the Syrians call their neighbors infidels. They are right, these nations stand for nothing, they are worms licking the boots of their master for a few pence. Friends that are bought and paid for are always looking for the next highest bidder. Freinds for sell are enemies who know your weaknesses and when the money runs dry will cut your achiles. We should not have a military presence in these nations nor should we allow them to be privy to our domestic or foreign policy making. They should be treated as hostile business partners and no more. Our intrusian into the region has made us a target. Israel may enjoy slighty better protection with our presence, but the facts remains the same.

1.All nations will eventually obtain nuclear weapons, we cannot prevent this.

2.Prevention of global extermination can only be achived through diplomatic means, military action will only escalate into the use of more destructive weaponry as well as result in the abandonment of adherance to international law, such as we see transpiring in the US.

The US must adopt a foreign policy based on compromise rather than testosterone. We can be an understanding nation and still be strong. Currently we don not allow the opprotunity to be understanding, as our first response is military action or abidding by old diplomatic policies that resulted from the actions of long dead regimes (Iran, American embassy hostage crisis.). Only when we have exhausted all other options should we implement a military response. North Korea is leaning in the direction of the former.

Israel on the other hand is in a situation that is without much hope for a resolution. If they cannot reach a compromise with their neighbors they will eventually cease to exist or become tyrants who will commit atrocities the likes of Hitler's Germany in a bid to defend their existance and their right to a resonable quality of living level. The US must let this scenario resolve itself instead of involving ourselves in the ever mounting path to war in the middle east. Ultimately our involvement will not sway the outcome unless we resorted to the anihilation of over half the region, a task that we are not capable of.

Posted by OMFG @ 10/20/2006 07:11 PM CST

Just had a few questions that should be asked.

1. Would the US have any intrest in the middle east if there were no oil there?

2. Would the US have any intrest in Israel if there were no oil in the middle east?

3. If your answer to number 2 is no, is it in the best intrest of the United States that Israel co-exists peacfully with it's neighbors?

4. If the United States were to switch to an alternative fuel source and help promote alternative fuels in other countries, would OPEC become bank-rupt?

5. The US could have used the funds spent on the IRAQ war for alternate fuel devlopement and implementation, why did they choose to squander these funds in an unprofitable and futile venture like removing Saddam? The bank ruptcy of OPEC by ensurring oli is obsolete would end any sway that the oil producing nations has over other nations (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, sadly Venezuela). Almost all of the so called enemies of the United States and Israel are Oil producers, the US could cripple them all by draining their bank through developement and implementation of alternate, non-petro derivative fuels. This method worked well in the USSR by training and supporting Al-Quida, who bled the Russians of not only blood but their national treasury. We also put other econmic pressures that help tip the scale and lead to the colapse. Though there are negative side-effects of the USSR colapse (proliferation of enriched uranium from rouge states and unattended facilities) The positives have out-weighed the negatives. Could it be that our government is selling us out to whomever lines their pockets with the most peices of silver? We have no reason to continue buying oil from our enemies. It is endangering our existance.

6. What do we do about it?

Posted by OMFG @ 10/20/2006 10:29 PM CST

To OMFG

"1.All nations will eventually obtain nuclear weapons, we cannot prevent this."

True, unless we nuke them, lol. Or, what I think, is to completely eradicate nuclear weapons slowly with negotiations.

"2.Prevention of global extermination can only be achived through diplomatic means, military action will only escalate into the use of more destructive weaponry as well as result in the abandonment of adherance to international law, such as we see transpiring in the US."

110% AGREED!!!

"1. Would the US have any intrest in the middle east if there were no oil there?"

HELL NO.

"2. Would the US have any intrest in Israel if there were no oil in the middle east?"

HELL NO AGAIN.

"3. If your answer to number 2 is no, is it in the best intrest of the United States that Israel co-exists peacfully with it's neighbors?"

YES

"4. If the United States were to switch to an alternative fuel source and help promote alternative fuels in other countries, would OPEC become bank-rupt?"

MAYBE NOT FOR A LONG TIME, BUT EVENTUALLY YES.

"5. The US could have used the funds spent on the IRAQ war for alternate fuel devlopement and implementation, why did they choose to squander these funds in an unprofitable and futile venture like removing Saddam? "

I HATE TO BE BLUNT, BUT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SELFISH, AND STUPID.

"6. What do we do about it?"

WELL, WE CAN FIND OUT WHERE WE COME FROM, LOL. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE IS NOT ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY ON MORALITY, THEN WHERE IS THE MOTIVE FOR THESE SELFISH POLITICIANS TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE THEIR BEST INTERESTS IF THERE IS NOT OTHER REASON TO BE NONSELFISH.

Posted by john @ 10/21/2006 03:51 PM CST

"True, unless we nuke them, lol. Or, what I think, is to completely eradicate nuclear weapons slowly with negotiations"

The reason this did not happen with the United States and Russia even though we had an agreement to do just that was the knowledge of nuclear grade weaponry is still known. We cannot erase this from the minds of all humans and thus it will continue to exist. We cannot be naive and trust that another nuclear nation will abide by an agreement even with inspections. For inspections to be sucessfull the inspectors must be aware of every nuclear weapons location, this can be obscured with relative ease. Once mankind conceived the first weapon we entered a new era, and the clock cannot be turned back. Our only course of action, our only hope is M.A.D.. It is sad that the only security we have in this world relys on mutual fear of anihilation. It is also an unavoidable reality.

Posted by OMFG @ 10/21/2006 05:07 PM CST

OMFG,
Also, one more point, to try to resolve this problem without using morals, can be done, but ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO DROP THEIR BULLLSHIT. That is to let go of the "hocus pocus" that you had mentioned, and to serve the interests of all humanity.

Posted by john @ 10/21/2006 05:12 PM CST

OMFG

You are correct, I thought about it a little longer.

"For inspections to be sucessfull the inspectors must be aware of every nuclear weapons location, this can be obscured with relative ease."

AGREED.

Posted by john @ 10/21/2006 05:17 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.