Cat Stevens
Posted by: Chris Metcalfe on 22 September 2004
As no one else has started this thread... Yusef Islam has just been refused entry to the USA. For why? Perhaps he was giving a rendition on the plane of his 1967 hit 'I'm gonna get me a gun'...
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Mick P
Matthew
The only people responsible for the death of the hostages is the killers themselves.
There is no justification for it what so ever.
Regards
Mick
The only people responsible for the death of the hostages is the killers themselves.
There is no justification for it what so ever.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by JonR
Mick,
I do not recall anyone here justifying the killing of the two US hostages in any way.
Neither do I recall anyone here holding any sympathies for Cat Stevens for being turned away by the US. As 7V said, which of us have been pontificating about (his) human rights here?
Mick please try and read threads thoroughly before jumping to such moronic conclusions.
Oh, and whilst we're about it, I take Matthew's point about the far less sympathy for the number of Iraquis who suffer and indeed die every day. A salient point often lost on us 'pontificating' westerners.
JonR
I do not recall anyone here justifying the killing of the two US hostages in any way.
Neither do I recall anyone here holding any sympathies for Cat Stevens for being turned away by the US. As 7V said, which of us have been pontificating about (his) human rights here?
Mick please try and read threads thoroughly before jumping to such moronic conclusions.
Oh, and whilst we're about it, I take Matthew's point about the far less sympathy for the number of Iraquis who suffer and indeed die every day. A salient point often lost on us 'pontificating' westerners.
JonR
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Jon
It is a question of priorities.
Cat Steven's case appears to attract sympathy and yet the two hostages who died in an horrific manner within the last few days, receive hardly a mention.
It is typical of the pinko attitude that the civil liberties of some dubious man is more important than the death of two decent, ordinary living men.
Regards
Mick
Well, No suprises there then !
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Mick P
Jon
I did not even remotely suggest that anyone had supported or sympathised with the Iraqi killers, that is strictly an unfair charge.
What I complained about is the apparent hierachy of sympathy. Cat Stevens gets some sympathy (goodness knows why) and no one even gives a mention to the death of two decent men.
The deaths of iraqi citizens is unfortunate but at the end of the day, the war was justified.
The American people will soon have their chance to vote Bush in or out and that is a far more effective judgement on the invasion than whatever we say here.
Regards
Mick
I did not even remotely suggest that anyone had supported or sympathised with the Iraqi killers, that is strictly an unfair charge.
What I complained about is the apparent hierachy of sympathy. Cat Stevens gets some sympathy (goodness knows why) and no one even gives a mention to the death of two decent men.
The deaths of iraqi citizens is unfortunate but at the end of the day, the war was justified.
The American people will soon have their chance to vote Bush in or out and that is a far more effective judgement on the invasion than whatever we say here.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
I thought Mick was pontificating that you were all whinging Pinko liberals but maybe it's just his wierd sense of humour
Sheeeesh....if you're right Tom then I have royally fallen for it hook, line and sinker
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Stop the illegal occupation of other countries that directly leads to the death of many, many innocent people including (but far from restricted to) the two US engineers murdered this week?
Matthew,
Even if the occupation of Iraq is illegal, it does not 'directly lead to the death of many, many innocent people including (but far from restricted to) the two US engineers murdered this week'. Such murder is no more than terrorism and, as such, is absolutely indefensible. Valid targets may be (in my opinion) US or UK military installations or personnel or government officials.
Steve
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by JonR
Mick,
Earlier you said the following:-
I took that second sentence as an implication that some of us here had somehow expressed support for the killings, and in retrospect, I can see how you might consider my charge unfair, so I apologise.
However, from where do you get the impression that Cat Stevens is getting any sympathy? As far as I can see this is a thread about him and the fact that he was turned away by the United States. Apart from a couple of us admitting to liking one or two of his songs, I fail to see where you are getting this 'sympathy' line from.
JonR
Earlier you said the following:-
quote:
Matthew
The only people responsible for the death of the hostages is the killers themselves.
There is no justification for it what so ever.
I took that second sentence as an implication that some of us here had somehow expressed support for the killings, and in retrospect, I can see how you might consider my charge unfair, so I apologise.
However, from where do you get the impression that Cat Stevens is getting any sympathy? As far as I can see this is a thread about him and the fact that he was turned away by the United States. Apart from a couple of us admitting to liking one or two of his songs, I fail to see where you are getting this 'sympathy' line from.
JonR
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Mick P
Jon
There is a marked element of sympathy for Cat Steven's predicament in the early stages of this posting.
Under normal circumstances, there is nothing wrong with that, but to raise it as an issue in the wake of two barbaric deaths is crass to say the least.
Just imagine the uproar if Bush suggested that he would shoot one of his prisoners as a retaliation (and I don't support that idea for one second). We just need to get our priorities right.
Regards
Mick
There is a marked element of sympathy for Cat Steven's predicament in the early stages of this posting.
Under normal circumstances, there is nothing wrong with that, but to raise it as an issue in the wake of two barbaric deaths is crass to say the least.
Just imagine the uproar if Bush suggested that he would shoot one of his prisoners as a retaliation (and I don't support that idea for one second). We just need to get our priorities right.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
... Valid targets may be (in my opinion) US or UK military installations or personnel or government officials.
Incidentally, please don't take this as my condoning such actions. I believe that they destroy much and achieve nothing.
What's done is done; the situation in Iraq is as it is. I don't believe that the actions against the US/UK forces accelerate their departure from Iraq, quite the contrary. Moreover, actions against the infrastructure of the country are totally negative and achieve nothing for the people of Iraq.
What are the real goals of those taking such action?
Steve
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by matthewr
7V -- If you cannot see how our interference in Iraq directly leads to lots of death then, well, frankly I don't know what say.
"Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told."
See http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080204E.shtml
Matthew
"Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told."
See http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080204E.shtml
Matthew
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Bob Edwards
All--
To get back on point, Stevens was refused admission to the US. As he is not a US citizen, and as any sovereign nation-state can permit or deny aliens entry to their territory, I don't see there being a legal issue at all.
On the other hand, if the US really is a bastion of free speech, tolerance, and so on (and yes, I know all that is debatable, to say the least), then perhaps Stevens is a person holding precisely the views we in the US should be encouraging and discussing. Allowing him entry would certainly promote the "marketplace of ideas" explicated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Best,
Bob
To get back on point, Stevens was refused admission to the US. As he is not a US citizen, and as any sovereign nation-state can permit or deny aliens entry to their territory, I don't see there being a legal issue at all.
On the other hand, if the US really is a bastion of free speech, tolerance, and so on (and yes, I know all that is debatable, to say the least), then perhaps Stevens is a person holding precisely the views we in the US should be encouraging and discussing. Allowing him entry would certainly promote the "marketplace of ideas" explicated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
7V -- If you cannot see how our interference in Iraq directly leads to lots of death then, well, frankly I don't know what say.
Matthew, perhaps I could have made my point more clearly but I thought you understood what I was saying. Our interference in Iraq does not 'lead to' terrorist acts such as the kidnapping and murder of civilians. I repeat, there is no justification whatsoever for such acts.
Terrorism is irrational and indefensible.
Steve
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Mick P
Tom
I have just picked up your posting at the end of page 2.
There is nothing wrong in arguing / moaning / discussing things that are going to happen. My whinge is that most often, people whinge after the event on hopeless cases.
I support hunting, but I have not moaned about the ban because the decision was democratically made and no amount of moaning will change anything on that issue.
Likewise with the invasion. It was done, nothing can undo it. More thought should be put into how to improve the situation rather than whinging about what happened ages ago.
I do have the occassional moan myself.
Regards
Mick
I have just picked up your posting at the end of page 2.
There is nothing wrong in arguing / moaning / discussing things that are going to happen. My whinge is that most often, people whinge after the event on hopeless cases.
I support hunting, but I have not moaned about the ban because the decision was democratically made and no amount of moaning will change anything on that issue.
Likewise with the invasion. It was done, nothing can undo it. More thought should be put into how to improve the situation rather than whinging about what happened ages ago.
I do have the occassional moan myself.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by matthewr
7v,
I agree there is no justification for the murder of the two contractors. However, they would not have been murdered if:
-- We had not started a war.
-- We had not created such a dangerous post-invasion situation in the country we are meant to be "re-building".
-- We did not encourage poeple to go and work there.
To say it's all down to the terrorists and not us is to deny the obvious fact that we are *hugely* to blame for the situation and the death of some 11,000 or so entirely innocent people since we *started* a war.
Matthew
I agree there is no justification for the murder of the two contractors. However, they would not have been murdered if:
-- We had not started a war.
-- We had not created such a dangerous post-invasion situation in the country we are meant to be "re-building".
-- We did not encourage poeple to go and work there.
To say it's all down to the terrorists and not us is to deny the obvious fact that we are *hugely* to blame for the situation and the death of some 11,000 or so entirely innocent people since we *started* a war.
Matthew
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
but our actions have led to an excuse for more acts of terrorism that may appear justified to a greater number of their supporters.
The attacks on the World Trade Centre were made before Bush took the US into Afghanistan or Iraq.
The terrorists and their supporters don't need any excuses for their attrocities. Nor do they seek to justify them.
Steve
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Bob Edwards
Matthew--
While I'm certainly empathetic with where you're coming from, I think to baldly state your assertions as facts (which is my impression of what you're doing) does you a disservice.
There is undoubtedly a substantial measure of truth in what you're asserting, but it is hardly a complete picture. Would you not agree?
Best,
Bob
While I'm certainly empathetic with where you're coming from, I think to baldly state your assertions as facts (which is my impression of what you're doing) does you a disservice.
There is undoubtedly a substantial measure of truth in what you're asserting, but it is hardly a complete picture. Would you not agree?
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by matthewr
Bob,
The difference between what constitutes my opinion and what constitutes facts should be obvious. It shouldn't need explicitly pointing out.
I do however, think it irrefutably true that our actions in Iraq have led to the deaths of a lot of innocent people. To deny this is just stupid, surely?
Matthew
The difference between what constitutes my opinion and what constitutes facts should be obvious. It shouldn't need explicitly pointing out.
I do however, think it irrefutably true that our actions in Iraq have led to the deaths of a lot of innocent people. To deny this is just stupid, surely?
Matthew
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Mick P
Tom
The best thing is not to discuss after the event, but to learn how to effectively prevent the thing happening in the first place.
What the pro hunt lot need to do, is to work out why they lost the argument and apply those lessons to prevent shooting and fishing being banned. That is positive.
No amount of protesting will allow hunting to take place ever again, so its a dead duck as it were.
Regards
Mick
The best thing is not to discuss after the event, but to learn how to effectively prevent the thing happening in the first place.
What the pro hunt lot need to do, is to work out why they lost the argument and apply those lessons to prevent shooting and fishing being banned. That is positive.
No amount of protesting will allow hunting to take place ever again, so its a dead duck as it were.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
There is nothing wrong in arguing / moaning / discussing things that are going to happen. My whinge is that most often, people whinge after the event on hopeless cases.
So, if I am to understand you correctly, had the thread actually been about the two US hostages who have just been killed, would that be 'people whinge[ing] after the event on hopeless cases'?
Just curious.
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
I do have the occassional moan myself.
Phew.....never a truer word spoken!
JonR
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by ErikL
On one hand, Iraq is a fucking disaster and each death on the military and local civilian side was preventable. Containment, as a policy, ain't that bad afterall.
On the other hand, wouldn't the one percent of Muslims estimated to be "radical" or "terrorists" (12+ million worldwide) be focused on attacking American and ally targets elsewhere, whether or not Iraq was invaded?
IMO we should've stayed the course in Afghanistan (if Iraq's a fucking disaster, Afghanistan's off the charts) and kept the heat on other countries known to be terrorist safe-havens.
On the other hand, wouldn't the one percent of Muslims estimated to be "radical" or "terrorists" (12+ million worldwide) be focused on attacking American and ally targets elsewhere, whether or not Iraq was invaded?
IMO we should've stayed the course in Afghanistan (if Iraq's a fucking disaster, Afghanistan's off the charts) and kept the heat on other countries known to be terrorist safe-havens.
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Ludwig my old mate, I think we're bein followed by a moon shadow here ?
GG
GG
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by ErikL
As Cat Stevens was somewhat loud about who/what he supported, I wonder how many quiet and actually dangerous individuals remain unchecked?
Also- can someone explain what denying Cat Stevens entry into the US accomplishes?
Also- can someone explain what denying Cat Stevens entry into the US accomplishes?
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Bob Edwards
Matthew--
To be pedantic, I did not say you were stating opinions. You stated certain things as factual (and thus presumably beyond dispute) when in reality they are simply conclusory assertions and are subject to a tremendous amount of debate and discussion.
Knowing you from your posts to be a thoughtful and generally informed person, I simply think that to state things as you did clouds the discussion rather than advancing it.
Best,
Bob
To be pedantic, I did not say you were stating opinions. You stated certain things as factual (and thus presumably beyond dispute) when in reality they are simply conclusory assertions and are subject to a tremendous amount of debate and discussion.
Knowing you from your posts to be a thoughtful and generally informed person, I simply think that to state things as you did clouds the discussion rather than advancing it.
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Also- can someone explain what denying Cat Stevens entry into the US accomplishes?
Ludwig:
That could depend on why he was coming here.
I'm reminded of a Jack Dee line: So have you heard about Salman Rushdie's new book? No, not "Buddha's A Big Fat Bald Bastard" - it's "Cat Stevens, What A C*nt He Turned Out To Be."
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 22 September 2004 by matthewr
Bob,
I often read stuff on here that I find astonishingly deluded and wrong-headed, often on very serious subjects/
Sometimes I will spend time and effort constructing a long reply. Sometimes -- due to bad mood or exasperation or a feeling that the other person is an idiot -- I keep it short and simple. The latter can tend towards the bombastic.
Tonight I am very tired and in a bad mood and, to be honest, my initial reaction to a suggestion that we are not to blame for the death of innocents in Iraq was just to say "Yes we fucking are".
Sometimes it just happens that way.
Matthew
I often read stuff on here that I find astonishingly deluded and wrong-headed, often on very serious subjects/
Sometimes I will spend time and effort constructing a long reply. Sometimes -- due to bad mood or exasperation or a feeling that the other person is an idiot -- I keep it short and simple. The latter can tend towards the bombastic.
Tonight I am very tired and in a bad mood and, to be honest, my initial reaction to a suggestion that we are not to blame for the death of innocents in Iraq was just to say "Yes we fucking are".
Sometimes it just happens that way.
Matthew