Now Kuwait is helping terrorists
CJ
Guantanamo Bay.
If this isn't a slap in the face. We save them from being literally
slaughtered by Saddam's troops, we keep Iraq from invading them, and this is
the thanks we get?....Kuwait helping terrorists. If a Kuwaiti citizen or
group is providing the assistance, that is one thing, but it is the Kuwaiti
government.
I say to hell with all of them. Cut of aid to all foreign
countries(including Israel), and next time one of their so-called "brothers"
from a neighboring muslim state decides they want to kill their own people
to get their hands on their oil....we should let it happen. If this is what
we are going to get, then to hell with them.
Al Nakba
"CJ" <nu...@business.com> wrote in message
news:qYPB8.44$Kg.6...@monger.newsread.com...
CJ
news:HTQB8.70782$071.22...@typhoon1.we.ipsvc.net...
> Kuwaitis are supreme ingrates. They will probably get Saddamized again.
And we should turn away when it happens. No need to bail out an ingrate.
al
> Guantanamo Bay.
>
> If this isn't a slap in the face. We save them from being literally
> slaughtered by Saddam's troops, we keep Iraq from invading them, and this
is
> the thanks we get?....Kuwait helping terrorists. If a Kuwaiti citizen or
> group is providing the assistance, that is one thing, but it is the
Kuwaiti
> government.
Since when were the detainees at the Bay "terrorists"? I don't recall
anyone being tried? Or, have you already tried them at an unspecified
location?
> I say to hell with all of them. Cut of aid to all foreign
> countries(including Israel),
LOL, that'll be the day....
al
> "Al Nakba" <na...@ballahfalastin.com> wrote in message
> news:HTQB8.70782$071.22...@typhoon1.we.ipsvc.net...
> > Kuwaitis are supreme ingrates. They will probably get Saddamized again.
>
> And we should turn away when it happens. No need to bail out an ingrate.
Yeah, and anyways, riding a bicycle is good for the heart and the
environment.
CJ
news:NLVB8.9988$LI2.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "CJ" <nu...@business.com> wrote in message
> news:qYPB8.44$Kg.6...@monger.newsread.com...
> > Kuwait is now providing legal assistance to some of the "detainees" at
> > Guantanamo Bay.
> >
> > If this isn't a slap in the face. We save them from being literally
> > slaughtered by Saddam's troops, we keep Iraq from invading them, and
this
> is
> > the thanks we get?....Kuwait helping terrorists. If a Kuwaiti citizen
or
> > group is providing the assistance, that is one thing, but it is the
> Kuwaiti
> > government.
>
> Since when were the detainees at the Bay "terrorists"? I don't recall
> anyone being tried?
Since when do you you have to be "tried" to be called a terrorist? If they
are Al-Quaeda...they are terrorists...PERIOD.
al
> > anyone being tried?
>
> Since when do you you have to be "tried" to be called a terrorist?
Oh, really? Must be a new type of "justice" I'm unfamiliar with.
> If they are Al-Quaeda...they are terrorists...PERIOD.
And who determines who is "Al-Qaeda" and who isn't?
CJ
> > > Since when were the detainees at the Bay "terrorists"? I don't recall
> > > anyone being tried?
> >
> > Since when do you you have to be "tried" to be called a terrorist?
>
> Oh, really? Must be a new type of "justice" I'm unfamiliar with.
I ask you a question and you ask "oh, really?"....doesn't make a whole lot
of sense.
And what does "justice" have to do with calling someone what they are? I
didn't say, "since when do they have to be tried to be guilty".
Inthelight
family shown on TV partying during the invasion of their own country.
Not being in thier country, dancing and drinking in other country safe
away from any harm.
That the Arab way hell with everyone else. They will never unite and
stay together, they grew up back stabbing any other. My question is
why didn't the Royal family stay and fight for their own country?
Well, for the aid it's world knownledge that americans are slaves to
the world, by working paying thier taxes to give to these countries.
Just think if America would stop paying other countries way, what it
would do for the americans over there.
"CJ" <nu...@business.com> wrote in message news:<qYPB8.44$Kg.6...@monger.newsread.com>...
al953
CJ
news:uv%F8.148$jA6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I suppose Milosevic had lots of oil too, right?
Why did we help them?
The Aggressor
1-Kuwait does not help terrorists, it helps aid workers. Those
Kuwaitis that are in Guantanamo are aid workers, as revealed by
authentic documents recently. If you want to pick on us, try choosing
Bin Laden's spokesperson, Abu-Ghaith, who by the way was a Kuwaiti
until the Kuwaiti Government stripped him of his nationality for being
a traitor to the country and the faith! Or are you so manipulated by
your own media that you've failed to notice?? On that note, why are
the two 'American Taliban' tried and held separately from the other
alledged terrorists?
2-Kuwait does NOT receive financial aid from the USA. Kuwait is NOT
Israel! The USA maintains the 3rd Army HQ in Kuwait-fully paid for by
the Kuwait Government-and the US 5th fleet in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia,
Oman, Qatar, UAE and a few other bases all over the region, presumably
to keep Iraq & Iran in check. By all means, write to your congressmen
and ask to have them removed from our lands. Maybe then we could all
live in peace with each other, coz it's not happening with the way
things are right now!
3-Basic Human Rights-not just your glorified US constitution or even
UN resolutions-instruct and demand that people are innocent until
'proven' guilty. Why is this not reflected in your posts, and why is
an exact opposite reflected instead? Are you a patriot or a fascist?
4-Please get your facts straight, The Kuwaiti 'Government', not the
ruling family, fled the country. If you want to pick on this topic, at
least include the thousands of Kuwaits who also fled the Iraqi
invasion and persecution-and who were also partying while their
country was being stripped of it's identity. Some of the ruling family
members stayed behind to create and maintain a military and civilian
resistance during the occupation. And for those that do not believe
so, remember what happens to people who live in glass houses!
5-The Kuwaiti government fled the invasion to maintain a system of
government and a political entity in Saudi Arabia-their cousins, just
like the US governnment fled the White House to an underground bunker
and create a 'shadow government' after the Sept. 11 attacks, or the
French Government during WWII, or some of the British Monarchy who
fled to Canada during WWII. Why should we be any different??
And before you jump the gun and say that US cabinet were still in the
US while the Kuwaiti government fled theirs, let me tell you that the
Arab principle of a 'homeland' is anywhere where a brother Arab lives.
We do not see our country as a chunk of land on a map like you do. We
do not live like you do, and we do not share the same ideaologies as
you do. In fact, thats what being 'not American' means! You may be the
world's superpower, but the world does not revolve around you. If you
can understand this point, you will understand why we are not your
enemy!
Please check your facts and stop being biased when addressing such
sensitive issues. Generalising and stereotyping us as ignorant,
flea-bitten, in-bred arab terrorists will only show your own blind,
arrogant superiority and ignorance as a people and as a country, and
wont solve anything. Do you intend to honor those that fought and lost
their lives for the sake of YOUR Justice and YOUR Freedom by deying
those very principle to anyone you uncategorically deem unworthy? I
don't think that's what Democracy is about, but if that's what you
believe, please tell me why.
One last note, if Kuwait's helping 11 aid workers is being deemed
'helping terrorists', what was the US doing selling arms to Iran? If
muslims are donating money for charity, and that's called 'funding
terrorism' what's the Jewish Lobby doing asking for more US aid for
Israel?
CJ
news:d65146bd.02053...@posting.google.com...
> May i please point out a few things;
No.
<snip>
>
> And before you jump the gun and say that US cabinet were still in the
> US while the Kuwaiti government fled theirs, let me tell you that the
> Arab principle of a 'homeland' is anywhere where a brother Arab lives.
Arabs are always wanting their own Islamic state and don't tolerate other
religions. This is the essence of zionism. Whether you are israeli, arab,
whatever.
> We do not see our country as a chunk of land on a map like you do.
Then why do you always rail for your OWN Islamic states?
We
> do not live like you do, and we do not share the same ideaologies as
> you do.
Thank God.
>
> One last note, if Kuwait's helping 11 aid workers
Aid workers??? Proof please.
is being deemed
> 'helping terrorists', what was the US doing selling arms to Iran?
Helping them fight off an even bigger terrorist. Sometimes you have to pick
the lesser of 2 evils.
If
> muslims are donating money for charity, and that's called 'funding
> terrorism' what's the Jewish Lobby doing asking for more US aid for
> Israel?
For fighting arab terrorist suicide bomber scum that can't stand a
non-muslim neighber living next to them.
The Aggressor
reaffirmed what everyone suspected; people like you are simply too
arrogant to listen to reason. In any case, this is an open forum, and
i'm free to say what i please, just as you do-only i do it politely!
1-Proof that some of the Kuwaitis held at Guantanamo are NOT
terrorosts is mentioned in this article from the Washington Post;
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11008-2002May25.html)
2-The "precise" definition of an Islamic State, ie, similar to the one
that ruled from the Mediterranean Sea to Asia and from Africa to the
Southern tip of France, is too lengthy to discuss in an NG post, but
if you're really interested to find out-and not simply take what's
been said in the media out of context-please refer to this webpage
(http://www.islamic.org.uk/I4WM/rights.htm)
This state repelled the numerous Crusades as well as the Mongol
invasions, and it did that with Jewish and Christian minorities living
in complete peace and harmony with their muslim neighbours. Proof:
Synagogues & Churches STILL exist in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, etc..
3-Nations in the Islamic world have all attempted to re-establish an
Islamic State, based on the principles described in the link i've
provided above, but have failed time and again due mostly to
personal/tribal/party interests of the leaders, or political strength
of the masses, or economic incapability. No state exists today can
call itself an 'Islamic State' by any measure, not even Saudi Arabia
or Iran!
The Egyptian that was captured after the first WTC bombing, Omar
Abdulrahman, is a prime example; His party of the Muslim
Brotherhood-disgusted at Egypt's economic downturn and military defeat
by Israel-assassinated Saddat for his peace deal with Israel, a move
that resluted in improving Egypt's economic strength considerably.
Bin Laden hated American presence in the region-even though it was
sanctioned by the faith as permissable, and did have precedence in
Islamic doctrine and was therefore allowed. He was misguided by his
mentor and former college teacher into believing that extremist Islam
is the answer to all prayers, he opposed the presence of foreign
soldiers on his homeland, he had his nationality revoked for inciting
militant rebellion in Saudi Arabia and was kicked out as a result. I
believe similar scenarios existed in the USA during the Civil war.
3-Picking the 'lesser of two evils' is exactly what the Turks did in
WWI, look at them now-do you see any?? Moreover, it's exactly what
Poland did with Hitler. What happened to 'non-alignment'? I hear it
was really popular back in the 1980's, and the fruit of this movement
is Singapore's prosperity, as an example.
In any case, your argument doesn't stand to reason; if you KNOW you're
dealing with terrorists, doesn't that make you one as well? Or does it
only apply to Libya and Syria, but not the USA?
4-Please revise your information using other sources than CNN! It's
not the Arabs that can't stand living next to non-muslim neighbours.
Proof? The Crusades. It wasn't about Jerusalem VS the Muslims, it's
the Catholic Church's intolerance of leaving it in the hands of
'barbarian mohammedans' as the Turks-not Arabs, mind you-were called.
Not only that, but some unsolicited crusaders carried out massacres
against German Jews on the way to Jerusalem, on the theory that the
battle against Christ's enemies ought to begin at home.
5-Zionism, contrary to your definition, is the national liberation
movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other
nation, are entitled to a homeland. It is a political movement,
designed by Jews-only and only for Jews-affected by a direct religious
belief,to bring all Jews together in one state.
An Islamic State is a social movement,designed to 'unify' all
peoples-not just muslims, not just jews, not just christians-under a
unified, multi-cultured banner, and it extends everywhere, whereas
Zionism explicitly refers to the Lands of Israel, signifying that
'only' this land is worthy of God's recognition.
Furthermore, Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab world during World
War I, welcomed the return of the Jews to Palestine. His son, Emir
Feisal, who represented the Arab world in the Paris Peace Conference,
had this to say about Zionism:
"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest
sympathy on the Zionist movement.... We will wish the Jews a hearty
welcome home.... We are working together for a reformed and revised
Near East, and our two movements complement one another. The movement
is national and not imperialistic. There is room in Syria for us both.
Indeed, I think that neither can be a success without the other."
(Quoted by UN Ambassador Chaim Hertzog, UN Ambassador, November 10,
1975)
Moreover, if Israel truly was your friend-as most Americans claim them
to be, why did the Rosenbergs sell Nuclear secrets to the Soviets? Why
did Jonathan Pollard spy for Israel? Why did the Mossad encourage
Jewish anti-US activities in the USA? Why-oh why!-did the Israeli Air
Force attack the USS Liberty during the 6-Day War?? If you regard
friends as those that spy on you, incite rebellion and murder you,
then why not Call Bin Laden and Al Qaida and Hezbolla your friends,
and stop wasting valuable taxpayer money and resources!?
The Aggressor
CJ
> Thank you. By simply saying 'NO' to my response, you've unfortunatley
> reaffirmed what everyone suspected; people like you are simply too
> arrogant to listen to reason.
If you call that reasoning.
In any case, this is an open forum, and
> i'm free to say what i please, just as you do-only i do it politely!
Wow...give this man a certificate of achievement.
> 1-Proof that some of the Kuwaitis held at Guantanamo are NOT
> terrorosts is mentioned in this article from the Washington Post;
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11008-2002May25.html)
That looks all great. If they can verify those "documents", then I suspect
they will be sending them on their way.
> 2-The "precise" definition of an Islamic State, ie, similar to the one
> that ruled from the Mediterranean Sea to Asia and from Africa to the
> Southern tip of France, is too lengthy to discuss in an NG post, but
> if you're really interested to find out-and not simply take what's
> been said in the media out of context-please refer to this webpage
> (http://www.islamic.org.uk/I4WM/rights.htm)
Yah, too bad the "freedom of religion" section doesn't hold true in islamic
states.
And if islamic people want a state of their own, then my original comment
stands correct....it IS zionism, whether Israeli, arab, whatever.
> In any case, your argument doesn't stand to reason; if you KNOW you're
> dealing with terrorists, doesn't that make you one as well?
Depends whether or not we saw Iran as a terrorist state.
Contrary to popular believe by you muslims, we don't think all arab states
are terrorist states. But you believe what you like.
Or does it
> only apply to Libya and Syria, but not the USA?
>
> 4-Please revise your information using other sources than CNN!
Show me where I have EVER used CNN as a source. Did you just lie?
I think so.
It's
> not the Arabs that can't stand living next to non-muslim neighbours.
Yah right.
> Proof? The Crusades. It wasn't about Jerusalem VS the Muslims, it's
> the Catholic Church's intolerance of leaving it in the hands of
> 'barbarian mohammedans' as the Turks-not Arabs, mind you-were called.
> Not only that, but some unsolicited crusaders carried out massacres
> against German Jews on the way to Jerusalem, on the theory that the
> battle against Christ's enemies ought to begin at home.
Thats what you call proof? Oh brother.
> 5-Zionism, contrary to your definition, is the national liberation
> movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other
> nation, are entitled to a homeland. It is a political movement,
> designed by Jews-only and only for Jews-affected by a direct religious
> belief,to bring all Jews together in one state.
You are correct, it was also defined by a Jewish man. But the fact that
arabs practice the same principles, but just don't happen to be Jewish,
doesn't make you any less of guilty of committing zionist behavior.
I'm done with you barbarian.
The Aggressor
sarcastic in responding to my comments! The more you do so, the more
you present yourself to be arrogant and hateful, and the more my point
is proven..so bring it on!
This is what you wrote:
"And if islamic people want a state of their own, then my original
comment
stands correct....it IS zionism, whether Israeli, arab, whatever."
So what you're implying is that you're against the creation of a state
that was religiously-inspired, because THAT constitutes zionism. That
pretty much narrows down every nation that was built upon religion. I
fail to see the logic behind your thinking.
The fact remains, generalising Arabs & Muslims as terrorists is not a
valid position to take, no less valid that us taking all Americans as
cowboys walking around wearing 11-gallon hats, lassoeing cows and
killing red indians!
And while we're on that subject, whatever happened to the 'native'
Americans? Weren't they almost wiped off the planet because your
forefathers 'wanted a land of their own' to practice their own
separate religions and live their own lives? That wasn't just
zionism-according to your defintion, it was also ethnic cleansing!
You also said:
"Contrary to popular believe by you muslims, we don't think all arab
states
are terrorist states. But you believe what you like."
First of all, not all arab states are all muslim. We're also
Christians, Druze and Jews. Second, we already KNOW you don't think
we're all terrorists, but the fact remains, we've been generalized
time and again, as you have just done, to be labelled terrorists-all
of us-just because we're Arabs. How many Middle Eastern nationals were
held in custody in the aftermath of Sept. 11 simply for 'looking'
suspiciously Middle Eastern? Even Sikhs and Hindus were targets of
revenge attacks, and they're not even Muslims!!
In any case, before that, you said;
"I say to hell with all of them."
In reference to Kuwaitis, of course, but how many Kuwaiti countries
are there to pluralize them? You sound like you're referring to Arabs
in general! In any case, you're going to deny that and just stick to
the Kuwaitis, whom you've condemned-collectively and arrogantly-to
Hell!
So either you're contradicting yourself, or you're changing your mind,
hopefullly to the better frame. You're right, we're NOT all the same.
We're different races of Arabs, with different religions and dialects.
We're bound by one dominant religion, Islam, which happens to be
exploited by bigots like Bin Laden, and villified by people who
subscribe to your kind of logic.
Coming back to your origional post, I've shown you the proof you've
asked for regarding the 11 Kuwaitis. Now you show me proof that they
ARE terrorists. Neither the US State Department nor the Pentagon have
provided ANY information that would implicate ANY of the prisoners and
corroborate the US's accusations of them, so i find it hard to see how
you're going to do that!
Finally, although you've succeeded in swearing at me and calling me
names, you haven't answered my questions:
1-Why did the Rosenbergs sell Nuclear secrets to the Soviets?
2-Why did Jonathan Pollard spy for Israel?
3-Why did the Israeli AirForce attack the USS Liberty during the 6-Day
War?
4-Does the United States hold the monopoly in determining who is a
terrorist, and who is not?
5-Can you show proof that the Crusades were NOT a result of a need to
spread religion, and consequently did not constitute 'zionist
behaviour' as you stated and according to your defintion?
And since i'm the barbarian Arab and you're the 'enlightened'
American, enlighten me on the following;
6-According to Michael Glennon, an American expert in international
law at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, "Prolonged arbitrary
detention is unlawful in International Law". So why is the United
States, the bastion of freedom and democracy, not abiding by this law
in relation to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay?
7-The United Stated has not yet charged ANY of the detainees, why?
8-Do you deny ever to have watched or used CNN as a source regarding
Arab-Israeli conflicts? (If so, i apologise.)
CJ
> Sure..call me a barbarian and a liar if you wish! Remain cynical and
> sarcastic in responding to my comments! The more you do so, the more
> you present yourself to be arrogant and hateful, and the more my point
> is proven..so bring it on!
>
> This is what you wrote:
> "And if islamic people want a state of their own, then my original
> comment
> stands correct....it IS zionism, whether Israeli, arab, whatever."
>
> So what you're implying is that you're against the creation of a state
> that was religiously-inspired, because THAT constitutes zionism. That
> pretty much narrows down every nation that was built upon religion. I
> fail to see the logic behind your thinking.
I am not against the creation of a "religously-inspired" state. I am
pointing out a fact.
Arabs are ALWAYS complaining about zionism when you yourselves are guilty of
the same behavior.
> The fact remains, generalising Arabs & Muslims as terrorists is not a
> valid position to take
When did I say all Arabs & Muslims are terrorists? I didn't. Care to
repost where I said they were?
You just lied again.
, no less valid that us taking all Americans as
> cowboys walking around wearing 11-gallon hats, lassoeing cows and
> killing red indians!
>
> And while we're on that subject, whatever happened to the 'native'
> Americans?
I'm right here. I am a descendant of them.
Weren't they almost wiped off the planet because your
> forefathers 'wanted a land of their own' to practice their own
> separate religions and live their own lives? That wasn't just
> zionism-according to your defintion, it was also ethnic cleansing!
I wasn't cleansed. Neither was my great-great grandmother who was full
blooded.
> You also said:
> "Contrary to popular believe by you muslims, we don't think all arab
> states
> are terrorist states. But you believe what you like."
>
> First of all, not all arab states are all muslim. We're also
> Christians, Druze and Jews. Second, we already KNOW you don't think
> we're all terrorists
But you said I generalized that you all ARE terrorists when I never said
anything of the sort.
First you said I did, now you say you KNOW I don't think that. So which is
it?
Now it is YOUR "logic" I can't quite grasp. Contradiction must be your form
of logic.
, but the fact remains, we've been generalized
> time and again, as you have just done, to be labelled terrorists-all
> of us-just because we're Arabs. How many Middle Eastern nationals were
> held in custody in the aftermath of Sept. 11 simply for 'looking'
> suspiciously Middle Eastern? Even Sikhs and Hindus were targets of
> revenge attacks, and they're not even Muslims!!
So we should ignore all those who we may believe might have alterior motives
for being in the United States?
Hell, I was searched at an airport when a few "suspiciously" looking people
walked right through.
Didn't bother me though, with the exception of the "suspicious" looking
people walking right through.
> In any case, before that, you said;
>
> "I say to hell with all of them."
>
> In reference to Kuwaitis, of course, but how many Kuwaiti countries
> are there to pluralize them?
Oh brother...you really thought I was talking about multiple Kuwaiti
countries?
You like to nitpick everything don't you?
You sound like you're referring to Arabs
> in general!
No, the Kuwaiti people. And it was more of frustrated comment than
anything, but you nitpick it all you like.
In any case, you're going to deny that and just stick to
> the Kuwaitis, whom you've condemned-collectively and arrogantly-to
> Hell!
>
> So either you're contradicting yourself, or you're changing your mind
Contradicting myself? How?
I have already proven that YOU contradict yourself and lied about what I
have and have not said.
> hopefullly to the better frame. You're right, we're NOT all the same.
> We're different races of Arabs, with different religions and dialects.
> We're bound by one dominant religion, Islam, which happens to be
> exploited by bigots like Bin Laden, and villified by people who
> subscribe to your kind of logic.
not my kind of logic. I have already challenged you to show where I have
said that ALL muslims and arabs are terrorists.
You lied again.
> Coming back to your origional post, I've shown you the proof you've
> asked for regarding the 11 Kuwaitis.
All you showed me was an article that there are "documents" that are suppose
to prove they are "freelancers" or whatever you want to call them.
If the US verifies the authenticity of the documents...I'm sure they will go
free.
If I produced a document that showed you are a jerk, does that make it so?
> Now you show me proof that they
> ARE terrorists.
Don't have to. What idiot knows that the US is going into Afghanistan to
get Bin Laden and goes there "freelancing"??
If anything, Kuwaitis or not, they are guilty of stupidity.
Neither the US State Department nor the Pentagon have
> provided ANY information that would implicate ANY of the prisoners and
> corroborate the US's accusations of them, so i find it hard to see how
> you're going to do that!
>
> Finally, although you've succeeded in swearing at me and calling me
> names
Yah, I called you a name, but swearing at you? LOL...you sure like to make
stuff up that isn't there.
You just lied again.
, you haven't answered my questions:
>
> 1-Why did the Rosenbergs sell Nuclear secrets to the Soviets?
Don't know....its not relevant to the thread. And just because you brought
it up irrelevantly doesn't make it relevant.
> 2-Why did Jonathan Pollard spy for Israel?
Don't know....its not relevant to the thread. And just because you brought
it up irrelevantly doesn't make it relevant.
> 3-Why did the Israeli AirForce attack the USS Liberty during the 6-Day
> War?
Don't know....I don't exactly like Israel either and that is a completely
different discussion. All of these questions are.
But I'm not dealing with those topics now am I. This happens to be a topic
on Kuwait.
> 4-Does the United States hold the monopoly in determining who is a
> terrorist, and who is not?
Nope.
> 5-Can you show proof that the Crusades were NOT a result of a need to
> spread religion, and consequently did not constitute 'zionist
> behaviour' as you stated and according to your defintion?
Nope...and why would I? It has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
> And since i'm the barbarian Arab and you're the 'enlightened'
> American, enlighten me on the following;
>
> 6-According to Michael Glennon, an American expert in international
> law at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, "Prolonged arbitrary
> detention is unlawful in International Law". So why is the United
> States, the bastion of freedom and democracy, not abiding by this law
> in relation to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay?
Because the detainees are not American citizens.
> 7-The United Stated has not yet charged ANY of the detainees, why?
Don't know.
> 8-Do you deny ever to have watched or used CNN as a source regarding
> Arab-Israeli conflicts? (If so, i apologise.)
Nope...don't watch CNN...and if I did, I still never made a reference to it.
pitcairn
wanted which was oil that was what the war was all about
Abdul Hai]
http://pitcairn1.tripod.com/
"CJ" <nu...@business.com> wrote in message news:<qYPB8.44$Kg.6...@monger.newsread.com>...
CJ
news:f3aec3c6.02060...@posting.google.com...
> Cutting off aid will only hurt the poor people and America got what it
> wanted which was oil that was what the war was all about
Regardless, whether it was about oil or some other motive, bottom
line?.....we helped them.
And Americans would probably like nothing better than to not have to buy oil
from them, except the commie liberals who won't let us drill thinking its
going to hurt wildlife in Alaska.
Hell, even though I'm a muscle car fanatic, recent events have made my hobby
a little less of an issue. I wish we were able to use nothing but ethanol
and give the arab oil producing countries a good heave ho.
The Aggressor
are guilty of the same behavior.)
Is it ONLY the Arabs that are complaining about Zionism? Is it ONLY
the Arabs that are guilty of the same behaviour?
Again, i ask you about the Crusades, a topic you promptly dismissed as
irrelevant to the topic of this post. Had you looked into the matter,
you would have realised that was attributed to the expansion of the
Christian faith, a derivative of your defintion of Zionism?
2-CJ:(When did I say all Arabs & Muslims are terrorists? I didn't.
Care to
repost where I said they were? You just lied again.)
This is what i found in your first post;
CJ:( I say to hell with all of them. Cut of aid to all foreign
countries(including Israel), and next time one of their so-called
"brothers" from a neighboring muslim state decides they want to kill
their own people to get their hands on their oil....we should let it
happen.)
So here we have Kuwaitis (who are Arabs), muslims (Not just Arabs),
Israelis (all Jews) AND foreigners (the rest), all in one phrase.
Evidently, these people are all mentioned in once phrase, followed by
'To Hell with all of them), so where have i lied??
3-CJ:(First you said I did, now you say you KNOW I don't think that.
So which is it? Now it is YOUR "logic" I can't quite grasp.
Contradiction must be your form of logic.)
To which my reaction would be to ask you to kindly re-read what you
wrote! Here is what you wrote;
CJ:(Contrary to popular believe by you muslims, we don't think all
arab
states are terrorist states. But you believe what you like.)
4-CJ:(So we should ignore all those who we may believe might have
alterior motives for being in the United States?)
Absolutely NOT! Personally, I totally agree with this policy, and in
fact, condone it. BUT, when they're taken 'into custody' for looking
like they from the Middle East,and held until proof is provided of
their innocence, it is a 'twofold' Constitutional and Legal penalty!
People are INNOCENT, until proven guilty. What law allows the
incarceration of people simply because they 'look' Middle Eastern??
Since when do appearances invoke alterior motives?
5-CJ:(You like to nitpick everything don't you?)
Call it what you want, i call it 'discussing a topic in a NG post'
6-CJ:(No, the Kuwaiti people. And it was more of frustrated comment
than anything,)
I truly sympathize with your frustrations completely, and understand
what triggered them off, but kindly refrain from using them to condemn
entire people and entire faiths to hell when you clearly do not hold
all the facts pertaining to the topic at hand.
7-CJ:(If I produced a document that showed you are a jerk, does that
make it so?)
Yes, especially if it has been substantiated and authenticated. This
is what 'proof' means!
8-CJ:(What idiot knows that the US is going into Afghanistan to
get Bin Laden and goes there "freelancing"?? If anything, Kuwaitis or
not, they are guilty of stupidity.)
If anything, they are guilty of keeping true to their faith! It's the
responsibility of a muslim to aid his fellow muslim in times of need,
even it it means his death, and that is also reflected in the
Christian and Jewish faiths, not to mention your own heritage-being a
native Indian as you stated. Why is it so hard to understand?
9-CJ:(Yah, I called you a name, but swearing at you? LOL...you sure
like to make stuff up that isn't there. You just lied again.)
Please refer to your statements;
CJ: (You just lied again)
(I'm done with you barbarian.)
(And we should turn away when it happens. No need to bail out an
ingrate.)
We all know what a liar is, so no need to dwell on that part.
To re-cap, a barbarian is 'an uncultered or primitive person', an
ingrate is 'an ungrateful person'. Both terms are deemed insults, and
therefore obscenities, and-ultimately-swear words. If you are
insinuating that I or my fellow Kuwaitis or muslim brethren DO posess
these qualities, may i please remind you that you have already
demonstrated your arrogance and hatred, and that there is no need to
re-establish it again.
10-If you don't know WHY those spies betrayed your own country to
Israel, then I cannot make you understand! You have make your own
research and draw your own conclusions. But if I were an American
citizen, i would be infuriated at the thought of helping and aiding
someone who calls me a friend, while at the same time spies on me AND
steals my secrets AND sells them TO MY ENEMY-the Soviet Union!!! Not
just that, this very same person attempts to control MY government by
recruiting a lobby that supports him, in my own government!
At least with us Arabs, we flatly and openly declared Israel to be our
enemy! We've fought wars with it (Yes, Kuwaitis included!) countered
many espionage operations instigated by it, defied it in almost every
political arena, looked it in it's eye and called it a murderer and a
liar-and THAT'S why Israel mistrusts the Arabs, not because WE can't
stand living with them!
11-CJ:( Because the detainees are not American citizens.) This is what
you wrote in response to a question about those that are held in
Guantanamo bay without charge, even though International Law insists
on the unlawfulness of prolonged arbitrary detention.
Thank you! I, or rather, YOU, have just made my point clearer than a
bell! Since the detainees are NOT US citizens, all basic human rights
they deserve are thrown out the window. At the same time, the USA goes
to war under the banner of those SAME basic human rights: Freedom,
Democracy, Liberty & Justice for All.
It seems to me after this dialogue that you do not have a strong grasp
of what state your government is really in, nor do you hold any
interest over how weakly it upholds the principles of the US
constitution, to which you yourself have pledged allegiance to, by
being simply an American. An ethnic background is irrelevant in the US
constitution, as all are equal in the eyes of Justice.
Sadly, it is not shown, either by the US's actions at present, or by
your own commentary to my questions.
Refusing to discuss those questions that you've judged as 'irrelevant'
to this post's topic clearly demonstrates your inability to discuss
complex issues like the War on Terrorism, or the September 11 attacks,
or religion, or even basic Human Rights, and that you're just using
the NG's to propogate your own hatred of anyone who refuses to follow
your country's lead, even it if was for humanitarian reasons...what
does that say about you, i wonder?
Thank you for your 'enlightened' opinions, by the way.
CJ
news:d65146bd.02060...@posting.google.com...
> are guilty of the same behavior.)
>
> Is it ONLY the Arabs that are complaining about Zionism?
For the most part yes, in general, no. Nobody complains about it more than
arabs.
So how does it change what I said? it doesn't.
Is it ONLY
> the Arabs that are guilty of the same behaviour?
Nope, but I AM talking about the arabs who complain about it hypocritically.
> Again, i ask you about the Crusades, a topic you promptly dismissed as
> irrelevant to the topic of this post. Had you looked into the matter,
> you would have realised that was attributed to the expansion of the
> Christian faith, a derivative of your defintion of Zionism?
yes, and ???? Still doesn't change what I said about arabs hypocritically
complaining about zionism.
> 2-CJ:(When did I say all Arabs & Muslims are terrorists? I didn't.
> Care to
> repost where I said they were? You just lied again.)
>
> This is what i found in your first post;
> CJ:( I say to hell with all of them. Cut of aid to all foreign
> countries(including Israel), and next time one of their so-called
> "brothers" from a neighboring muslim state decides they want to kill
> their own people to get their hands on their oil....we should let it
> happen.)
Correct....I said that. But where does it say that I said all Arabs &
Muslims are terrorists? It doesn't.
> So here we have Kuwaitis (who are Arabs), muslims (Not just Arabs),
> Israelis (all Jews) AND foreigners (the rest), all in one phrase.
You are correct....but like I said, nowhere do I say that they are all
terrorists.
Now you are getting desperate.
> Evidently, these people are all mentioned in once phrase, followed by
> 'To Hell with all of them), so where have i lied??
In the fact that you said I called all arabs and muslims "terrorists".
Nowhere in that statement did I say that....so you lied, and you proved
yourself by quoting what I said.
You didn't read that very well did you?
> 3-CJ:(First you said I did, now you say you KNOW I don't think that.
> So which is it? Now it is YOUR "logic" I can't quite grasp.
> Contradiction must be your form of logic.)
>
> To which my reaction would be to ask you to kindly re-read what you
> wrote! Here is what you wrote;
Don't need to read it....I know perfectly well what I said....YOU are the
one that says I called ALL arabs and muslims "terrorists", which I never
did, THEN you turn around and say that you "know I don't think that"
SO WHICH IS IT????? Either you think I said that or you don't.
> CJ:(Contrary to popular believe by you muslims, we don't think all
> arab
> states are terrorist states. But you believe what you like.)
>
> 4-CJ:(So we should ignore all those who we may believe might have
> alterior motives for being in the United States?)
>
> Absolutely NOT! Personally, I totally agree with this policy, and in
> fact, condone it. BUT, when they're taken 'into custody' for looking
> like they from the Middle East,and held until proof is provided of
> their innocence, it is a 'twofold' Constitutional and Legal penalty!
> People are INNOCENT, until proven guilty. What law allows the
> incarceration of people simply because they 'look' Middle Eastern??
> Since when do appearances invoke alterior motives?
>
> 5-CJ:(You like to nitpick everything don't you?)
> Call it what you want, i call it 'discussing a topic in a NG post'
Then next time read what I said and quit saying that I said something that I
didn't.
> 6-CJ:(No, the Kuwaiti people. And it was more of frustrated comment
> than anything,)
>
> I truly sympathize with your frustrations completely, and understand
> what triggered them off, but kindly refrain from using them to condemn
> entire people and entire faiths to hell when you clearly do not hold
> all the facts pertaining to the topic at hand.
>
> 7-CJ:(If I produced a document that showed you are a jerk, does that
> make it so?)
>
> Yes, especially if it has been substantiated and authenticated. This
> is what 'proof' means!
COOL!!!...I can put a seal of approval on that one somewhere!
8-CJ:(What idiot knows that the US is going into Afghanistan to
> get Bin Laden and goes there "freelancing"?? If anything, Kuwaitis or
> not, they are guilty of stupidity.)
>
> If anything, they are guilty of keeping true to their faith! It's the
> responsibility of a muslim to aid his fellow muslim in times of need,
> even it it means his death, and that is also reflected in the
> Christian and Jewish faiths, not to mention your own heritage-being a
> native Indian as you stated. Why is it so hard to understand?
>
> 9-CJ:(Yah, I called you a name, but swearing at you? LOL...you sure
> like to make stuff up that isn't there. You just lied again.)
>
> Please refer to your statements;
> CJ: (You just lied again)
> (I'm done with you barbarian.)
> (And we should turn away when it happens. No need to bail out an
> ingrate.)
>
> We all know what a liar is, so no need to dwell on that part.
> To re-cap, a barbarian is 'an uncultered or primitive person', an
> ingrate is 'an ungrateful person'. Both terms are deemed insults, and
> therefore obscenities, and-ultimately-swear words. If you are
> insinuating that I or my fellow Kuwaitis or muslim brethren DO posess
> these qualities, may i please remind you that you have already
> demonstrated your arrogance and hatred, and that there is no need to
> re-establish it again.
oh my god....do you like doing this to yourself?...I admitted I called you a
couple names, but then you said I sweared at you.....WHERE IN MY STATEMENTS
DOES IT SHOW THAT I SWEARED AT YOU?
Minor point really, but it shows that you like to make stuff up that I
didn't say.
> 10-If you don't know WHY those spies betrayed your own country to
> Israel, then I cannot make you understand! You have make your own
> research and draw your own conclusions. But if I were an American
> citizen, i would be infuriated at the thought of helping and aiding
> someone who calls me a friend, while at the same time spies on me AND
> steals my secrets AND sells them TO MY ENEMY-the Soviet Union!!! Not
> just that, this very same person attempts to control MY government by
> recruiting a lobby that supports him, in my own government!
>
> At least with us Arabs, we flatly and openly declared Israel to be our
> enemy! We've fought wars with it (Yes, Kuwaitis included!) countered
> many espionage operations instigated by it, defied it in almost every
> political arena, looked it in it's eye and called it a murderer and a
> liar-and THAT'S why Israel mistrusts the Arabs, not because WE can't
> stand living with them!
>
> 11-CJ:( Because the detainees are not American citizens.) This is what
> you wrote in response to a question about those that are held in
> Guantanamo bay without charge, even though International Law insists
> on the unlawfulness of prolonged arbitrary detention.
>
> Thank you! I, or rather, YOU, have just made my point clearer than a
> bell! Since the detainees are NOT US citizens, all basic human rights
> they deserve are thrown out the window.
War is hell. Shouldn't have awaken a sleeping giant.
> Refusing to discuss those questions that you've judged as 'irrelevant'
> to this post's topic clearly demonstrates your inability to discuss
> complex issues
Nope, it shows that I am not going to let you sidestep the discussion and
try and divert attention away from it.
You want to start a thread discussing Israeli spies??...then be my guest.
Its a different topic altogether.
like the War on Terrorism, or the September 11 attacks,
> or religion, or even basic Human Rights, and that you're just using
> the NG's to propogate your own hatred of anyone who refuses to follow
> your country's lead
I don't hate a country if they don't follow "our lead", they can do what
they like. I just don't like people defending terrorists.
, even it if was for humanitarian reasons...what
> does that say about you, i wonder?
Coming from you, it doesn't really matter. You have proven yourself to make
up stories and lie about what people have said.
You also like to sidestep the discussion to, and rightfully so in different
debate, propagate your own hatred for Israel(understandably, but it doesn't
belong in this post....this thread is not about Israel.)
> Thank you for your 'enlightened' opinions, by the way.
Your welcome.
The Aggressor
without referring their precursors. That is the basis of a discussion,
any discussion. That is why i included Israel and crusades points. I
didn't intent to sidestep, nor did i lie, i merely repeated your
statements in some cases, and described their intent-as you have shown
it-in others. In any case, for the benefit of all, let's return to the
facts of this NG.
1-In reference to what you said; (I say to hell with all of them) let
me reiterate that not all Kuwaitis are terrorists, and thereby do not
all deserve your collective condemnation. If we both agree on this,
it's a milestone and a closed case.
2-Zionism is a 'national political movement', while the concept of an
Islamic state is a 'social reformation movement'. One is political,
the other is social. Both are inequitable, absolutely and
indefinitely. If we disagree on this, it's nothing new or surprising.
Even some of the muslims cant grasp the idea properly.
And yes, Arabs complain about it, and rightly so, because it goes
against everything it stood out to be in the first place! It wasn't
about returning the Jews to their homeland, it's about expelling the
Arabs that lived there FIRST, so that they can return and settle
in-but that wasn't stated in ther independance proclamation, and has
lured the world into a false sense of duty towards the newly
established state soon afterwards. Don't we have a right to hold a
grudge at that? It's totally the opposite of what they set it out to
be in the beginning.
But it's not just the arabs in general that complain, it's also coming
from Europe, Asia and the Americas..why else would Israel accuse
France and the UN-among others-of being anti-semitic lately?? Why now,
amidst the bloodshed, and not 3 or 5 years ago? Please refer to your
news sources, i cannot argue this point with you if you haven't the
right background, even if it was irrelevant to the case at hand-to
which i totally disagree.
And let me just add here that by equating zionism with the concept of
an Islamic state, it is YOU who have included Israel in this
discussion-being the only jewish state in this world, making my
argument in the matter totally relevant. So i don't believe i've
sidestepped this discussion in this aspect.
3-Having stated the following:
( I say to hell with all of them. Cut of aid to all foreign
countries(including Israel), and next time one of their so-called
"brothers" from a neighboring muslim state decides they want to kill
their own people to get their hands on their oil....we should let it
happen.)
...You have clearly and plainly made a statement of collective
condemnation, not a specific one. If this really was not your intent,
it's not my fault if you can't explain yourself clearly.
If you are as responsible as you claim to be in your commentary, you
should have made it painlessly clear whom it was you intended in this
statement...Kuwaitis? muslims? arabs? Israelis? You have not,
originally, and the proof of that is me finding blanks in your logic
and discussing them..or 'nitpicking', as you colorfully described it.
Had you stated from the beginning that you intended those Kuwaitis who
supported terrorism-and ONLY those Kuwaitis-i wouldn't have dwelled on
it so much, because i totally agree with you on this point.
I ask you now to clarify, once and for all, who is your intended
target of condemnation in your original statement?
4-The basic legal concept of 'the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty' HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED to those that are held in
Guantanamo. THIS is what is crucial to the discussion-not just the 11
Kuwaitis. Merely passing judgement on all these people because they
were captured in the vicinity of escalating hostilities does not make
them guilty. Well, it does if one conforms to fascism, i guess!
I do not exhonorate them all, there may well be many of them
disguising themselves as innocents when they are not, but how can you
judge one from the other without 'due process'? How can you throw out
the constitution of your country whenever it befits you, and at the
same time wage wars to defend it? It's unjust and biased, and it's
certainly not what the USA is build upon. You, of all people, should
realise that by now!
5-This 'sleeping giant' you referred to is-i presume-the USA. You
couldn't have said it better! That's exactly what's been happening
recently. A nation's intelligence community wakes up to find
terrorists killing 3000+ people in one terrible act of cowardice.
Reaction? Tell the military to kill them all, like they killed us! It
doesn't matter if innocents are killed and incarcerated in the
process, so long as the giant's interests are served.
That's what the terrorists did to your fellow Americans, because these
terrorists are bigoted animals who want to kill out of context because
the 'believe' it's been divinely inspired, just because one of their
demented leaders says so. Is it befitting to equate yourselves like
they did and disregard the very laws which you're defending?
Let me remind you that right now, your fellow Americans-among numerous
others-are risking life and limb to defend YOUR constitution, YOUR
country and YOUR rights, to keep you safe in a 'civilised' country.
What do you do in return? You say this;
(And what does "justice" have to do with calling someone what they
are?) in reference to suspected Al Qaida operatives in Guantanamo.
Fine, justifiable frustration and hatred-after the fact. God only
knows how much Americans need to let off some steam. But how do YOU
know that the Guantanamo detainees are in fact Al Qaida? Just because
your politicians and military leaders said so? How is that different
from Bin Laden and his lieutenants telling their mindless followers to
kill Americans and Jews? How did they know that ALL Americans and Jews
are responsible for the killing of muslims?
Again i ask you, where is the irrefutable proof that the 11 Kuwaitis
(just them for now, for the sake of simplicity) are terrorists? So
far, there is nothing that would stand in any court of law- let alone
a US court of law. And until there is, all those detainees are being
detained illegally, and those 11 Kuwaitis among them remain to be
'presumed innocent' for the time being, until they are proven guilty
beyond any doubt.
This is true justice, because this is the law. Those that uphold the
law must seek to enforce it completely and unanimously, and that is
what you must understand.
CJ
> CJ, you cannot stick to the facts at hand and discuss them plainly
> without referring their precursors. That is the basis of a discussion,
> any discussion. That is why i included Israel and crusades points. I
> didn't intent to sidestep, nor did i lie
You can't keep the context straight...I didn't say you lied about Israel.
You lied about what I said. You said I said things that I did not.
Since you can't seem to keep it straight...I am NOW done with you.
The Aggressor
you for the discussion.
The Aggressor
pitcairn
give a toss you are the world's greatest enviornmental hazard and you
don't even have hte guts to do anything about it
Abdul Hai
http://pitcairn1.tripod.com/
"CJ" <nu...@business.com> wrote in message news:<ZF2L8.1588$%k1.12...@monger.newsread.com>...
CJ
> give a toss you are the world's greatest enviornmental hazard and you
> don't even have hte guts to do anything about it
Nothing to be done about it.
Answer this question.....how would the wildlife in Alaska suffer just
because we are doing some drilling?
Do the drilling facilities take up 5000 square miles or something?
I'll be waiting for your explanation.
CJ
> "pitcairn" <pitc...@bvimailbox.com> wrote in message
> news:f3aec3c6.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > The wildlilfe in Alaska is very importnat and as for your cars I don't
> > give a toss you are the world's greatest enviornmental hazard and you
> > don't even have hte guts to do anything about it
Oh, and by the way, I take it you don't have a car and walk everywhere you
go, right?
You don't travel by any form of gas powered machine, right?
You are a hypocrite. So stfu.
ralph
>
> "pitcairn" <pitc...@bvimailbox.com> wrote in message
> news:f3aec3c6.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > The wildlilfe in Alaska is very importnat and as for your cars I don't
> > give a toss you are the world's greatest enviornmental hazard and you
> > don't even have hte guts to do anything about it
>
> Nothing to be done about it.
>
> Answer this question.....how would the wildlife in Alaska suffer just
> because we are doing some drilling?
> Do the drilling facilities take up 5000 square miles or something?
>
> I'll be waiting for your explanation.
by
Pamela A. Miller
Arctic Connections
Pollution
There is about a spill a day at Prudhoe Bay. The Prudhoe Bay oil
fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 409 spills
annually on the North Slope since 1996 (Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation spill database 1996-1999). Roughly 40
different substances from acid to waste oil are spilled during routine
operations. Over 1.3 million gallons spilled between 1996 and 1999,
most commonly diesel and crude oil. Diesel fuel is acutely toxic to
plant life.
A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years later
there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little
vegetation recovery. The Exxon Valdez studies show petroleum
hydrocarbons pose higher risks to fish and wildlife than previously
known and that there is long-lasting ecological damage. Prudhoe Bay is
a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The oil
industry on Alaska's North Slope annual emits approximately 56,427
tons of oxides of nitrogen, which contributes to smog and acid rain.
This is more than twice the amount emitted by Washington, DC (EPA
National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends 1900-1998, 2000). North Slope
oil facilities release roughly 24,000-114,000 tons of methane, a
greenhouse gas. Substances associated with Prudhoe Bay drilling
operations, natural gas facilities, and incinerators were detected in
accumulated snow in the area. Despite improvements in drilling waste
disposal techniques over the years, problems remain: During horizontal
drilling of the Colville River pipeline crossing for Arco's Alpine
field, 2.3 million gallons of drilling muds disappeared under the
river in 1998. It is unknown where they ended up and if they will
ultimately pollute Alaska's largest arctic river. At Endicott,
contractors for British Petroleum illegally disposed of hazardous
drilling wastes containing benzene and other toxics for at least three
years until a whistleblower came forward. Some of the waste reached
the surface and workers were exposed to hazardous fumes. In February
2000, BP was ordered to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to
implement a new environmental management program, and to serve 5-years
probation for its failure in reporting the dumping. BP also paid $6.5
million in civil penalties. Its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of
violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine. A
huge cleanup job remains across the North Slope.
For example: Hundreds of old exploratory and production drilling waste
pits have yet to be closed out and the sites restored. More than 55
contaminated sites associated with the oil industry exist on the North
Slope (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). Many gravel
pads are contaminated by chronic spills. Oil companies will not re-use
gravel from many abandoned sites due to concerns about contamination.
Although there have been some pilot studies of rehabilitation
techniques for gravel pads in the arctic oil fields, the technical or
economic feasibility of restoring the tens of thousands of acres of
roads and drilling sites has yet to be proven.
Industrial Sprawl
Proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge point to the Prudhoe Bay
oil fields as an example that development would not harm the
environment. Consider these facts:
Since the Prudhoe Bay oil discovery in 1968, the oil industry has
dramatically transformed a vast arctic wilderness. Prudhoe Bay and 18
other producing oil fields sprawl over more than 1,000 square miles of
America's Arctic-- an area the size of Rhode Island. Today the North
Slope oil fields include 3,893 exploratory and producing wells, 170
production and exploratory drill pads, 500 miles of roads, 1,100 miles
of trunk and feeder pipelines, 2 refineries, many airports, many camps
with living quarters for hundreds of workers, 5 docks and gravel
causeways, and a total of 25 production plants, gas processing
facilities, seawater treatment plants, and power plants. Many impacts
exceed the Interior Department's predictions in a 1972 Trans-Alaska
Pipeline EIS. Gravel mines extracted 400% more gravel. Oil companies
drilled five times more wells. Road mileage was double. Gravel pads
for drilling and oil facilities were predicted to cover 2,155 acres,
but such infrastructure fills three times the area. Drilling
proponents say that impacts will be small due to technological
improvements. Despite advancements, there are unavoidable impacts from
the latest North Slope oil development.
The industrial network continues to expand across the landscape each
year with new drilling pads, roads, pipelines, processing plants, and
other facilities and operations that add to the cumulative impact.
Technological advances have reduced the size of individual drilling
pads and some roads, but oil development unavoidably involves
construction of many permanent industrial facilities and noisy
operations spread across vast expanses of the landscape. No matter how
well done, oil development would industrialize a unique, wild area
that is the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge. Industry focuses
attention on the direct "footprint" where facilities will be built but
ignores the secondary and cumulative impacts of the industrial network
on wildlife habitats.
For example: Roughly 22,000 acres of tundra wetlands, floodplains, and
other habitats have been directly lost due to the oil fields and
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. But the impacts to wildlife and their
tundra habitats extend well beyond the sites of constructed
facilities. A study of major landscape impacts due to the Prudhoe Bay
oil fields in Science found that secondary effects such as
hydrological changes to wetlands lagged behind construction and the
total area eventually disturbed greatly exceeded direct impacts. "The
extent of disturbance greatly exceeds the physical "footprint" of an
oil-field complex," according to caribou biologists Nellemann and
Cameron (1998). Many studies recorded decreased caribou densities
within 4-km of pipelines and roads and regional changes in calving
distribution for the Central Arctic Herd at Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay
air emissions have been detected nearly 200 miles away in Barrow,
Alaska.
--
Correction: In the thread 'Canada Faces Disruption of Edible Tuber
Supply', I recently posted
'2.5 million Canadians live in Toronto, on taro root alone'.
This should have read
'2.5 million Canadians live in Toronto, Ontario, alone'.
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
CJ
news:3D0D98...@gernsback.net...
> CJ wrote:
> >
> > "pitcairn" <pitc...@bvimailbox.com> wrote in message
> > news:f3aec3c6.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > > The wildlilfe in Alaska is very importnat and as for your cars I don't
> > > give a toss you are the world's greatest enviornmental hazard and you
> > > don't even have hte guts to do anything about it
> >
> > Nothing to be done about it.
> >
> > Answer this question.....how would the wildlife in Alaska suffer just
> > because we are doing some drilling?
> > Do the drilling facilities take up 5000 square miles or something?
> >
> > I'll be waiting for your explanation.
Good article.
However, tankers and pipeline land drillers are 2 completely different
things.
Also, she kept mentioning poisons. You mean to tell me that the earth has
poisons in it??
It came from the earth, it can go back in if it did spill.