Bullies are a real hate of mine. School bullies to be specific. People that select those that are weakest and cant fight back and make them miserable. Physical or Mental attacks, it doesnt matter. Bullies are the scum of the earth. I think that methods of dealing with bullying are pitifully weak, especially here in the UK. The punishment for severe or long term bullying should be the bully (or bullies) being expelled from school at the very least. I personally think that schools efforts to deal with the issue are absolutely laughable, I think it should be a police matter, bullies should be handed a real punishment and im not talking about the pitiful anti social behaviour orders that are impossible to enforce and no effort is made to anyway. Bullies should be left with a criminal record to show for their actions, after all a victim of bullying could carry the effects of the ordeal with them for the rest of their life, why shouldnt a bully have to deal with a black mark of a criminal record?
Personally, I've never had a real problem with bullies. True, some people shove me for some reason or another(usually dealing with making themselves better), but I've never actually been threatend and mugged. So take that into account with my opinion.
I think that while bullying shouldn't be promoted, mediocre bullying (shoving, occasional stealing(depends), ect.) should still not be a criminal offense, because: 1. The people punching others for money probably don't realise what they're doing, they should instead recieve something more direct to thier current lives like suspension, because a criminal offense probably won't affect them well after the fact. 2. Let's face it, there's going to be bullying in the real world. Wether it's be a mugger on the street, insurance companies or buisnessmen, they're going to still use every dirty trick in the book to get to the ends. The victims of being bullied have to learn how to stand up to the threat- not just the physical but the mental- or else they wouldn't function as well in the real world.
be that as it may, that doesnt mean people shouldnt be helped. And it doesnt mean you shouldnt employ tough tactics to show that bullying is just not acceptable. And the argument that people dont realise what theyre doing is rubbish. They are doing to to humiliate and to demean. That is the effect they want and they know by doing what they do they are likely to get it.
Originally posted by Leper Messiah
be that as it may, that doesnt mean people shouldnt be helped. And it doesnt mean you shouldnt employ tough tactics to show that bullying is just not acceptable. And the argument that people dont realise what theyre doing is rubbish. They are doing to to humiliate and to demean. That is the effect they want and they know by doing what they do they are likely to get it.
I think they realise that they bully to humilate thier victims, I'm not sure if they entirely understand just what happens to those people mentally. Which isn't to say that they should get away free, just that the punishments have to be more direct in thier lives(in-house suspension or detentions, things which are not exciting for them.) Criminal punishment, again, would be overkill for the situtation-and largely useless.
Then again, I still feel that fundamentally nature is better than nurture- it will be better for those being picked on to stand up against thier aggressors than to be held in the bossom of the school system. If someone is bullied by a larger person, then they should learn to deal with the situation, wether by simply confronting the person and getting beat up(or, if they prefer not to recieve bodily harm, build up thier muscles to fight) or by coercing the bully into not punching them(tougher to pull off, but not impossible.) Of course, if this ever becomes life threatening then it's clear to bring it to the administrator's attention. But overall, I imagine that this would produce more people prepared to fight the real world, instead of becoming slaves to it.
People should learn to sort it out for themselves in a excuse used by schools and other institutions for doing nothing. It suits these places to allow it to go on, it creates a predictable order among people. There is no way in hell it can ever be justified that there should be not interference, we are not animals, we are human beings and we should be able to stand up for someone else when its needed
But overall, I imagine that this would produce more people prepared to fight the real world, instead of becoming slaves to it.In my experience, people who are bullied at school largely end up as physical cowards, unable to stand up to anyone physically in later life. This is because they are conditioned when young to believe that because someone's bigger/more aggressive, they are in charge.
They don't end up "being able to stand up for themselves", because quite simply, they are incapable of doing so against a larger, more aggressive opponent at that early stage in their physical and mental development.
I always wish that I'd done more for people I saw being bullied at school. We should teach the bullied to stand up for themselves BY EXAMPLE, by demonstrating this ourselves. Instead, teachers and other pupils let bullying continue because in reality they themselves are psychologically dominated by the bullies as much as the direct victims are, whether they realise it or not.
In short, Tyrion, I consider your stance to be somewhat impractical.
I do agree that more needs to be done to stop bullying, and the support a lot of schools give is pretty useless. They often ignore it and hope it will go away.
I don't think that criminal records or expulsions are the way to go though.
Just because a victim may feel the effects of bullying thoughout their life is no reason the bully should too. That just creates two victims. Many people who were bullies when kids go on to lead perfectly normal lives once they grow up... giving them criminal records is just going to make them MORE bitter and angry and make it harder for them to get jobs and grow up.
My issue with expulsions is similar. A lot of troubled kids who bully won't care at all if they get expelled. Just means less work and more time to play. It just leads to more angry, uneducated, unemployed youths causing trouble outside school.
I saw a system on tv a while back that seemed to work quite well. There was a clearly defined system of offences and punishments (eg: one offence warning, 2 offences detention, 3 offenses etc..) which at least meant everyone knew where they stood.
Kids who were "excluded" weren't sent home.
They were given class times that were incompatible with their mates (starting about 12, finishing about 6) so they couldn't see their mates at lunch or after school.
They were put in special classes where no talking was allowed.
They were given clear targets for improvement before they were allowed back into normal school life.
Apparently it has a really high sucess rate as it actually affects their social life while trying to improve their academic standards at the same time and doesn't just chuck them out and make the situation worse.
Fight back. Someone comes at you, you have every right to defend yourself.
I've helped out other people that were being bullied. When the bully gets opposition they find themselves ineffective to you. They walk the path of least resistance. Just be sure to make them regret messing with you. ;)
Originally posted by toms
I do agree that more needs to be done to stop bullying, and the support a lot of schools give is pretty useless. They often ignore it and hope it will go away.
I don't think that criminal records or expulsions are the way to go though.
Just because a victim may feel the effects of bullying thoughout their life is no reason the bully should too. That just creates two victims. Many people who were bullies when kids go on to lead perfectly normal lives once they grow up... giving them criminal records is just going to make them MORE bitter and angry and make it harder for them to get jobs and grow up.
My issue with expulsions is similar. A lot of troubled kids who bully won't care at all if they get expelled. Just means less work and more time to play. It just leads to more angry, uneducated, unemployed youths causing trouble outside school.
I saw a system on tv a while back that seemed to work quite well. There was a clearly defined system of offences and punishments (eg: one offence warning, 2 offences detention, 3 offenses etc..) which at least meant everyone knew where they stood.
Kids who were "excluded" weren't sent home.
They were given class times that were incompatible with their mates (starting about 12, finishing about 6) so they couldn't see their mates at lunch or after school.
They were put in special classes where no talking was allowed.
They were given clear targets for improvement before they were allowed back into normal school life.
Apparently it has a really high sucess rate as it actually affects their social life while trying to improve their academic standards at the same time and doesn't just chuck them out and make the situation worse.
Well, I'd certainly like to see that be given a more widespread trial, it sounds effective.
A big problem with schools in my eyes is that they dont do enough. Many have anti-bullying statements (in fact i think they are a legal requirement) but no clear strategy is evident in them. Something organised like what you describe there has half a chance.
I do disagree with your statement that there should be concern for the bully as well as the victim, or at least i don't think there should be a lot of concern anyway. After all in some cases they cause serious possibly life-long harm. A harsh punishment for such an action is not unjustified. However the primary responsiblity is to help the person suffering, and the system you gave details of gives hope.
and to Sith, its not always as simple as fighting back. If you fight back and lose theres a good chance of a bad situation getting worse.
for all, the BBC has an excellent website on bullying and its effects which you can read at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/personal/index.shtml?bullying#topics)
if anyones in any doubt as to the effects of bullying go to the section which deals with real life stories and you can listen to the accounts of several people who have been affected by bullying, including a few famous faces.
"Bullies" are also people, you know. Silly folks, but people nontheless.
As far as I see it, strict punishments would only be a sort of vengeance against their actions, and would only make them feel more unfairly treated and more frustrated against the system (at least I would react that way). In other words, stricter punishments would achieve the opposite of what it should.
Why not go to the core of the problem instead? Such as, why are people bullies? Why do they feel like they do? And what can we do to solve this?
That is IMO far more constructive thinking.
And no, I've never had problems with bullies.
Bullies go after people because they want a victim. Groups like someone to pick on, im afraid it doesnt get whole lot more complex than that in a lot of cases Breton.
Some people seem ive spoken to about bullying have two very important misconceptions about bullying:
1) They believe bullying isnt present in every single school in every single grade/year and that it is often by a group of people
2) They believe that behind every bully is some deep seated trauma or personal problem which causes them to act like it.
Im afraid not. Bullying is widspread and often has no better reason than to have someone to belittle and pretend to be superior to.
All it takes is that bystanders stop them and that teachers and school staff punish them as they should be punished.
I don't think that criminal records or expulsions are the way to go though.
Damn right. About expulsion, I'm less sure. If bullying can't be stopped, kick the bully out and save the victim that way before he or she gets transferred. Often, it's one or the other, and if it has to be, I say kick out the bad guy.
I do disagree with your statement that there should be concern for the bully as well as the victim, or at least i don't think there should be a lot of concern anyway. After all in some cases they cause serious possibly life-long harm. A harsh punishment for such an action is not unjustified. However the primary responsiblity is to help the person suffering, and the system you gave details of gives hope.
Partly yes, partly no. If bullying is a result of the bully being subjected to violence at home, shouldn't the violence at home be stopped?
and to Sith, its not always as simple as fighting back. If you fight back and lose theres a good chance of a bad situation getting worse.
Right.
Ignoring it or joking, etc. works fairly well, though. For example:
Someone tells you something as part of bullying, just smile and go "oh, sorry, are you talking to me? What did you say?" If/when they repeat themselves, go "sorry, didn't catch that..", still smiling. Repeat until bully feels to dumb to go on.
That's a very good method there. Make the bully feel like he's not worth getting mad at.
I always wish that I'd done more for people I saw being bullied at school. We should teach the bullied to stand up for themselves BY EXAMPLE, by demonstrating this ourselves. Instead, teachers and other pupils let bullying continue because in reality they themselves are psychologically dominated by the bullies as much as the direct victims are, whether they realise it or not.
Just as an aside, the logical extension of this concept to the international realm would be that you should support armed intervention in Iraq to oust the suppressive Baath regime and help liberate the Iraqi people.
Anyway, school officials should assume a responsibility to intervene in cases of bullying. Making the victim responsible for his or her self defense will only work in specific situations. I agree that school officials tend to use the 'victim should stand up to the bully' concept as an excuse for inaction far too frequently.
but then you get the bully's mates stepping in, then your mates, then you have to step in every time... then it ends up as chaotic gang warfare... :D
I'm not going to go into the iraq thing, as that will derail the thread.
I do agree that where it is a choice between the victim and the bully the victim's needs should win out.
But if the bully just gets expelled, then goes to another school and bullies other kids, then gets expelled again, then has no qualifications, lots of anger and no prospects then you have managed to turn a kid with some problems into an adult who is likely to be a violent criminal (or a drain on society).
Most kids are still salvagable, can still turn over a new leaf, but expulsion tends to be the WORST way to get them to do any such thing.
Of course, a system like the one i described above that might actually get them to turn their life around has one big drawback. It costs money and resources. Which i suspect many schools are unwilling or unable to spare.
However it must be more benficial and cost effective for society as a whole to "fix" these kids while they are still "fixable" rather than put it off and later have to deal with a much more expensive and damaginf problem.
I wish i had done more to stand up to bullies too, but i suspect I also did a minor bit of bullying myself.
All kids do. Even the weak ones when they find someone weaker. It is probably to do with the animal thing of establising dominance or something. Most kids grow out of it with no ill effects, some still stay bullies/victims thoughout their adult life.
Its the extreme cases that need to be dealt with swiftly.
Just as an aside, the logical extension of this concept to the international realm would be that you should support armed intervention in Iraq to oust the suppressive Baath regime and help liberate the Iraqi people.
Nice try. Consider all the variables next time you make an analogy:rolleyes: .
Anyways, I notice a huge difference in bullying in classes where the teacher actively moves to prevent it. In a class where bullies get demerits (warnings) and detentions, there's no bullying. In a class where the teacher does nothing, there is a lot of bullying.
I don't know about you guys, but I haven't actually seen or heard about any real bullying or bullies at my school. So in my experience, it's not nearly as widespread or as large a problem as some of you alledge.
Sure, there's the occasional idiot, but no one who messes around with others.
I don't know why, perhaps it's special of the place I live, perhaps other reasons...but that's how it is.
And teachers aren't very strict either, so...
It'd help if schools didn't have these ridiculous "Zero Tolerance" policies where self defense becomes as great a crime as bullying itself. Doesn't matter if you didn't hit first; get involved at all and they haul your ass to the office.
Originally posted by Breton
I don't know about you guys, but I haven't actually seen or heard about any real bullying or bullies at my school. So in my experience, it's not nearly as widespread or as large a problem as some of you alledge.
Sure, there's the occasional idiot, but no one who messes around with others.
I don't know why, perhaps it's special of the place I live, perhaps other reasons...but that's how it is.
And teachers aren't very strict either, so...
id say your not looking hard enough. Ive heard people say "its not that common in my school" before (including ludicrously at my old school), i assure you, it is. Its not always obvious because people often wont speak up for themselves.
And even if it was not common in your school, your school hardly represents every other school in the world.
Tom:
Just because a victim may feel the effects of bullying thoughout their life is no reason the bully should too. That just creates two victims.This is somewhat silly to my mind.
What you seem to be implying with the "two victims" statement is that a transgressor shouldn't be punished in any meaningful way for his or her transgression. Which is overly liberal PC poppycock. If a bully is expelled from school, it shows the other students that:
A: If you bully you will be expelled,
B: That those who are caring for you (teachers and staff) are paying attention, watching, and protecting you AS SOCIETY SHOULD. This would make them more socially responsible, as they would feel part of society, instead of the outcasts that victims invariably feel themselves to be.
just chuck them out and make the situation worseExpulsion makes the situation worse for the BULLY. That's the punishment aspect, and the point of the exercise. At the same time it protects the good students.
you have managed to turn a kid with some problems into an adult who is likely to be a violent criminal (or a drain on society). You're living in the PC nineties. Criminality is a CHOICE. Many dirt-poor people with no qualifications stay off drugs, and stay away from crime. Being a scally, being an evil scum sucker... is a CHOICE people make. They must be punished for that choice. Prevented from harming others.
So a bully gets expelled. So he becomes a mugger of old ladies... Arrest, try, then imprison him. He was always headed that way anyway. Let him eat prison food for a few years. It both punishes him, and protects the public from him.
Wilhuf:
Just as an aside, the logical extension of this concept to the international realm would be that you should support armed intervention in Iraq to oust the suppressive Baath regime and help liberate the Iraqi people....:rolleyes:
You're being extremely silly.
Point 1: In THIS thread I've advocated JUSTIFIED responses to barbaric acts. Your beloved war on Terroorrrrrr, doesn't qualify.
Point 2: Only a complete ninny would attempt to extend the principle of stepping in to defend a bullied child from a bullying child, with the mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis, the loss of their national infrastructure and the general worsening of their quality of life, ie: Your beloved war.
Sith:
Fight back. Someone comes at you, you have every right to defend yourself.This is unworkable, because as I stated earlier, bullies target those who are physically or psychologically least capable of defending themselves.
This is unworkable, because as I stated earlier, bullies target those who are physically or psychologically least capable of defending themselves.
Exactly. I know this girl who got beat up all the time in school. Could she "just fight back"? Not a f---ing chance.
Just as an aside, the logical extension of this concept to the international realm would be that you should support armed intervention in Iraq to oust the suppressive Baath regime and help liberate the Iraqi people.
I'll actually address that.
Invasion of Iraq: 300 000 Iraqis dead. 1100 Coalition troops dead. Millions of dollars in war costs for Coalition alone. Tens of millions in destruction of military, public, and civilian structures, roads, etc. Anti-Coalition insurgency born. Iraqi people far less safe. Condemned by UN, NATO, and most of the world.
Stopping bullies: 0 dead or wounded. No cost except besides school budget. No destruction of property. No resulting pro-bully insurgency in school. Student body safer. Anti-bullying programs are encouraged by NATO, UN, and most of the world.
See the difference?
But you're saying that violence is justified in order to prevent future violence. And that someone who is physically more powerful is justified in taking forceful action to prevent another individual from harming another, weaker individual. This is precisely what happened in Iraq.
Expulsion makes the situation worse for the BULLY. Precisely what happened to Hussein when US forces detained him.
But you're saying that violence is justified in order to prevent future violence.
Are you talking to me? Because I certainly didn't. Please show me where in this thread I said something that gave you that impression.
Doing something about bullying does not necessarily equal violence. If I tell a bully who's harrassing someone to stop it and go f--- himself, or if I go to my school's dean to report bullying, is that violence? Hardly.
And even if I did advocate attacking someone physically in anything but self-defence, that's still not the same thing as Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it has no collateral damage. It's not like I have to injure a dozen innocent bystanders to defend myself from a bully. However, you needed to kill 300 000 innocent bystanders to take down Saddam Hussein. And self-defence does not equal pre-emptive action, so your analogy is void in either case as Iraq was a pre-emptive strike. It's like me being in a classroom where there is a bully and a person I think the bully wants to beat up, and I walk over to the bully and beat him up without him having done anything. Oh, and if that was to be successfuly, fully compared to Iraq, I'd have to accidentally beat up several others in the classroom, too. Almost forgot.
If you were talking to Spider Al, I don't see where he advocates pre-emptive violence, Iraq-style, in his posts either.
If you were talking to Spider Al, I don't see where he advocates pre-emptive violence, Iraq-style, in his posts either.Quite.
Wilhuf, only the truly ignorant fail to read the posts of those they're "debating" with. Read mine again:
"Point 1: In THIS thread I've advocated JUSTIFIED responses to barbaric acts. Your beloved war on Terroorrrrrr, doesn't qualify.
Point 2: Only a complete ninny would attempt to extend the principle of stepping in to defend a bullied child from a bullying child, with the mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis, the loss of their national infrastructure and the general worsening of their quality of life, ie: Your beloved war."
Originally posted by Leper Messiah
Bullies are a real hate of mine. School bullies to be specific. People that select those that are weakest and cant fight back and make them miserable. Physical or Mental attacks, it doesnt matter. Bullies are the scum of the earth. I think that methods of dealing with bullying are pitifully weak, especially here in the UK. The punishment for severe or long term bullying should be the bully (or bullies) being expelled from school at the very least. I personally think that schools efforts to deal with the issue are absolutely laughable, I think it should be a police matter, bullies should be handed a real punishment and im not talking about the pitiful anti social behaviour orders that are impossible to enforce and no effort is made to anyway. Bullies should be left with a criminal record to show for their actions, after all a victim of bullying could carry the effects of the ordeal with them for the rest of their life, why shouldnt a bully have to deal with a black mark of a criminal record?
Now you see, I disagree. I think bullying is character building if you're made of the right stuff.
You don't have to win, you just have to alternatively cough blood and go to the hospital. One way or the other, you make sure that everyone knows, that you mean buisness, and that anyone who messes with you, is going to end up on the 9'o clock news one way or the other.
It's the mentality of "Oh my, everyone should be protected, god that is AWFUL, the primary conditions of REAL LIFE affect CHILDREN".
Seriously. People need to get less sentimental and more pro-active to the idea of STOMPING PEOPLE UP THE pack-animal when they get out of line.
Someone bullies you? GOUGE HIS EYE OUT. Don't sit around and take it like a kitty-cat.
(Naturally, in this cosmic world, there are exceptions. I was refering to cowards with personality flaws, that make up about 85% of the entire group. There are of course people who are being wronged, and can't do anything about it because they have illnesses, or any other type of physical/mental disorders that are _serious_ [none of that New-Age bull**** where the psychiatrist attempts to pin some disorder they pulled out of their pack animal so they could collect their paycheck]).
Bullies themselves? I think they're sad. Not so much because they're going to be emotionally stumped when real world kicks in, but so much so because they'll be WITHOUT AN EYE when they enter it.
True story.
Seriously. People need to get less sentimental and more pro-active to the idea of STOMPING PEOPLE UP THE pack-animal when they get out of line.
Someone bullies you? GOUGE HIS EYE OUT. Don't sit around and take it like a kitty-cat.
:eek:
This is a shockingly silly post.
I'm about to break a forum rule, please don't.
SkinWalker, you can look again.
Now you see, I disagree. I think bullying is character building if you're made of the right stuff.
You don't have to win, you just have to alternatively cough blood and go to the hospital. One way or the other, you make sure that everyone knows, that you mean buisness, and that anyone who messes with you, is going to end up on the 9'o clock news one way or the other.
Looking away from the fact that most people who get bullied are smaller and weaker than the bully and thus can't put the bully in the hospital.
(Naturally, in this cosmic world, there are exceptions. I was refering to cowards with personality flaws, that make up about 85% of the entire group. There are of course people who are being wronged, and can't do anything about it because they have illnesses, or any other type of physical/mental disorders that are _serious_ [none of that New-Age bull**** where the psychiatrist attempts to pin some disorder they pulled out of their ass so they could collect their paycheck]).
So because you're bullied, you have a personality flaw? And what's that BS about therapists pulling disorders out of their hindquarters? You sound like a Catholic fanatic refusing to believe that Evolution exists. There's something called research, friend.
I'm not going to elaborate as you're probably just fishing for attention anyhow...
Looking away from the fact that most people who get bullied are smaller and weaker than the bully and thus can't put the bully in the hospital.
There are these things called TOOLS (no, not you) which we use to accomplish things in life. Now I'm not saying get a gun and start killing stuff, but find an acceptable line and start cleaning. When I had six people on my pack-animal, do you think I just sat there and took it? Hell no - the only thing I TOOK was a 2 by 4, and I started mauling people straight to the dentist (unless they see their friend lost his teeth, so they smartened up enough to run)
Don't give me any **** regarding physical strengths or abilities. When you fight, you use your mind. Sometimes it'll backfire and you'll be on the recieving end of it, but I found it's much more satisfying you went down YOUR way instead of going down because you were too pussified to do anything about it.
So because you're bullied, you have a personality flaw? And what's that BS about therapists pulling disorders out of their hindquarters? You sound like a Catholic fanatic refusing to believe that Evolution exists. There's something called research, friend.
I'm not going to elaborate as you're probably just fishing for attention anyhow...
Back to topic: You have a personality flaw if you sit there and take it without doing anything to fight idiots.
----------------------------------------------
A little sidestep if someone of holy importance reads this:
How in the name of SkinWalker are personal insults for stating an opinion tolerated here?
they're not
Consider yourself warned if I edited your original post with red text. Insults and ad hominem remarks are not tolerated here. Further violations may result in further warnings or bans from posting
How did this obvious troll survive to over three thousand posts? Ban the fellow I say. Bad enough that he's a troll and an internet ninja kill0r, he's offensive to boot.
There are these things called TOOLS (no, not you) which we use to accomplish things in life. Now I'm not saying get a gun and start killing stuff, but find an acceptable line and start cleaning. When I had six people on my pack-animal, do you think I just sat there and took it? Hell no - the only thing I TOOK was a 2 by 4, and I started mauling people straight to the dentist (unless they see their friend lost his teeth, so they smartened up enough to run)
Yeah, there's a brilliant idea, dove! Pack a knife or a stun gun when going to school! Er, but you do the explaining for me when the cops see it:rolleyes: .
Back to topic: You have a personality flaw if you sit there and take it without doing anything to fight idiots.
I already addressed that. It's obvious that you've never been bullied. If it was so easy to fight back, it's funny how most people don't do it, would you not say?
Besides, if you fight back directly, you show that bullying affects you, which is in part what the bullies want.
How did this obvious troll survive to over three thousand posts?
They have a tendency of doing as much. Remember let's not pick on other members, the fellow who got away with insulting people for thinking it was wrong to feel sorry for high school freshmen who got beat up?
Unless I'm forgetting the important words in order for me to start breaking rules. Then it's totally my fault. Here, let me say the magic words that grant me ABUSE POWERS:
So you can say people here have "personality flaws" (as should be clear from this thread, several people here are victims of bullies) and use the "p-word" (you know, the one referring to the female genitalia) freely, but I can't break any rules, 'cause then I anger you. Message received:p.
Consider yourself warned if I edited your original post with red text. Insults and ad hominem remarks are not tolerated here. Further violations may result in further warnings or bans from posting
In THIS thread I've advocated JUSTIFIED responses to barbaric acts. Your beloved war on Terroorrrrrr, doesn't qualify.
But the global war on terror does indeed use necessary directed violence in response to barbaric acts of terror committed against the US and many other countries. The US and her allies are completely justified in its operations rooting out Taliban and Al-Qa'ida elements in Afghanistan, in a self-defensive response to the September 11th assault on New York, Arlington, and Pennsylvania. Terrorism is just an extremist form of bullying.
Today, US defensive operations against terrorists in Iraq are more of the same. A response to bullies and their extremist attempts at intimidating and controlling people through terrorist tactics, techniques and procedures.
Iraq was a pre-emptive strike. It's like me being in a classroom where there is a bully and a person I think the bully wants to beat up, and I walk over to the bully and beat him up without him having done anything.
Your analogy needs a little adjustment: Iraq waged war against Iran in the 1980s and invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. They fired ballistic missiles at Israel. The Hussein regime killed millions of Kurds and Shia, used chemical weapons against their own civillian population, and forcibly deported thousands. So, yes, the Hussein regime did have a history of bad behavior. A better analogy is 'some bully severely beats the hell out of dozens of people, steals lunch money, and prevents kids from going where they want to in their own school, and so a group of other kids who are tired of it group up and put it to a stop. They give the bullied victims money and train them so they can defend themselves in the future.' :)
But the global war on terror does indeed use necessary directed violence in response to barbaric acts of terror committed against the US No it doesn't, oh regurgitator of fascist propaganda. :D
Your repeated vomiting of Fox News transcripts is amusing, but simultaneously depressing.
Terrorism is just an extremist form of bullyingActually since the word "terrorism" implies a small force of terrorists waging a guerrilla war against a larger, stronger, shambolic nation or other large entity, you might say that the terrorists can't qualify as bullies. Bullies always pick on the weak targets.
One can hardly call a militarised, violent nation like the US "weak". Abominable yes, but "weak"? Not really.
The Hussein regime killed millions of Kurds and ShiaAnd George W. Didn't go to war using that as a basis. No, he accused a nation that was currently harmless to the US of plotting to destroy the US and being CAPABLE of harming the US, and proceeded to bomb them. Eagle's analogy was PERFECT.
Bullies always pick on the weak targets.
Concur. Terrorism is universally defined as deliberate military operations against civillian, usually noncombatant targets. You find this frequently in Iraq.
Bullies are very similar really, to terrorists. Both use violence and intimidation against people unable to defend themselves.
No, the US isn't weak. The civillian population, terrorized by Hussein, are the 'weak' party in this analogy, not the US.
he accused a nation that was currently harmless to the US
But Iraq had been firing anti-aircraft missiles continuously at US aircraft in the UN-Mandated no-fly zones since 1998. Never mind the thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam. No, not harmless. Get a clue.
But the global war on terror (...)
As SkinWalker so aptly put it, a war can hardly be considered global at a given time when it is waged in one nation at that time:
(Dictionary "dot com"):
6 entries found for global.
glob·al Audio pronunciation of "global" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glbl)
adj.
1. Having the shape of a globe; spherical.
2. Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide: global war; global monetary policies.
3. Comprehensive; total: “a... global, generalized sense of loss” (Maggie Scarf).
4. Computer Science. Of or relating to an entire program, document, or file.
(...) does indeed use necessary directed violence in response to barbaric acts of terror committed against the US
There's nearly no evidence of links between the Al-Qa'ida and the Baath party, and there is certainly no evidence of Al-Qa'ida operating in Iraq at the time of the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(...) and many other countries.
Oh? Iraq, to my knowledge, has been aggressive towards Iran, Saudi-Arabia, and Kuwait only. And the rest of the force fighting her in 1991, of course, but defending yourself in war is hardly "barbaric". Iraq hardly hurt "many" other countries than the USA.
The US and her allies are completely justified in its operations rooting out Taliban and Al-Qa'ida elements in Afghanistan (...)
We're discussing Iraq and bullying, not the war on terrorism and Afghanistan.
Here's food for thought: Saudi Arabia had lots more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did (nearly all of the hijackers were Saudi, for one thing). Compared to Saudi-Arabia, when it comes to 9/11, Iraq is as innocent as a 5-year old building a sand castle at the beach. Yet Bush waged war against Iraq, not Saudi-Arabia. Not only that, but Bush stated for a motive that Saudi-Arabia needed to be protected (from Iraq). Protected? Bush said it was the American responsibility to protect the same regime that killed 3000 Americans only a few years before?!
If the war going on now truly was a war against terrorism, it would not be taking place in Iraq: It'd either be taking place in Saudi-Arabia, or it'd be over (as bin Laden would have been caught if the USA committed a little more forces a little earlier than two whole months after 9/11).
Terrorism is just an extremist form of bullying.
Totally incorrect.
Bullying is the attack on a weaker person, verbally or physically, or both, or in some other way (freezing a person out, for example), with the intent of gaining a feeling of power by making the victim feel powerless and inferior.
Terrorism is the attack on civilian targets to communicate a political message.
There is a huge difference.
Today, US defensive operations against terrorists in Iraq are more of the same.
A response to bullies and their extremist attempts at intimidating and controlling people through terrorist tactics, techniques and procedures.
So you're saying Saddam was "bullying" the Iraqi people? Or that bin Laden was "bullying" the people in the World Trade Center? If you ask me, Saddam was doing what he was doing for money and power (though not a feeling of power, as in bullying, mind you, but actual political power), and bin Laden was sending a political message, as well as avenging what he felt was Western tyrrany.
And George W. Didn't go to war using that as a basis. No, he accused a nation that was currently harmless to the US of plotting to destroy the US and being CAPABLE of harming the US, and proceeded to bomb them.
Exactly.
Let me again remind you that terrorism was not the prime rationale for striking against Iraq. It was WMDs and the threat of another Iraqi war against the Middle East (namely the same Saudi-Arabia that killed 3000 people and wiped out the WTC) and even the USA (how Iraq could manage to invade the USA was never explained).
Eagle's analogy was PERFECT.
Thank you.
Consider yourself warned if I edited your original post with red text. Insults and ad hominem remarks are not tolerated here. Further violations may result in further warnings or bans from posting.
Sorry, Skin. Thank you for watching over us, though.
Terrorism is universally defined as deliberate military operations against civillian, usually noncombatant targets. You find this frequently in Iraq. Then many American soldiers should be tried for terrorism. :) Heck, Bush should. How many tens, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians has he killed in deliberate military actions by proxy?
Or is it okay when Yankee doodle does it?
No, the US isn't weak. The civillian population, terrorized by Hussein, are the 'weak' party in this analogy, not the US.Then you concede the point that Hussein was not adversely affecting the US, and that the war on Iraq's civilians was fought for purely spurious means? Excellent.
No, not harmless. Get a clue.Buffoonery. Harmless to the US, as in Bushie's people's claims of WMD threats being false. Wake up and smell what you're shovelling.
There's nearly no evidence of links between the Al-Qa'ida and the Baath party, and there is certainly no evidence of Al-Qa'ida operating in Iraq at the time of the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
But the press reported that Al-Qa'ida operator Abu Zarqawi was in Iraq when OIF was launched.
Bush said it was the American responsibility to protect the same regime that killed 3000 Americans only a few years before?!
No, the Saudi regime were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Bush never said they were.
How many tens, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians has he killed in deliberate military actions by proxy?
I don't know, provide evidence and 'enlighten' us.
... many American soldiers should be tried for terrorism.
Which ones? Is this your idea of a joke? US forces have specific rules of engagement that civillians are not to be intentionally targeted. If you were even vaguely aware of terrorist tactics, techniques and procedures, you would know that terrorists do precisely the opposite.
But the press reported that Al-Qa'ida operator Abu Zarqawi was in Iraq when OIF was launched.
That hardly counts as evidence in my book.
No, the Saudi regime were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Bush never said they were.
15 out of 19 hijackers worked for the Saudi regime. The hijackings and the attack was paid for by Saudi money. And you're saying they're not responsible? If 15 out of 19 hijackers were Iraqi, I think you'd be using that as a prime argument as to why we should invade Iraq. As it is, you don't even know.
If two gangs rob a bank, and 15/19 of the robbers come from the Pegasus gang, while only 4/19 come from the Black Devil gang, which gang do you proscecute first? The Pegasi or the Black Devils? I'd say the Pegasi.
And I know Bush didn't even say Saudi Arabia was largelly responsible for the attack. That's another problem, that he doesn't even mention them and apparently does not care. Proves to me that his loyalty lies with his terrorist/oppressor buddies in the Saudi-Arabian royal family and not with John Doe, John Smith, and John Q.
The fact that lots of Americans don't even know that Saudi-Arabia was so largelly involved in 9/11 (again, to a much higher degree than Iraq could ever be), tells me how messed up the US system of information is. Don't you agree that when terrorists kill 3000 people, the people has the right to know who those terrorists were, regardless of how close they are to the president?
I don't know, provide evidence and 'enlighten' us.
You don't know? Get informed. Operation Iraqi Freedom started long ago, and you should be up-to-date on casualties since you so strongly support this war of yours.
300 000 last time I checked.
Consider that 1500+ US servicemen have been killed. Then consider that civilian deaths are way higher than military deaths.
Then consider that in the Afghani invasion, 30 000 were killed (and that's a small conflict compared to OIF).
And even if the death toll from Operation Iraqi "Freedom" was only a dozen people, there's still the half-a-million civilians dead from US sanctions and bombings. Justify that to me. 500 000+ innocents slaughtered.
Which ones? Is this your idea of a joke? US forces have specific rules of engagement that civillians are not to be intentionally targeted. If you were even vaguely aware of terrorist tactics, techniques and procedures, you would know that terrorists do precisely the opposite.
How about the ones who deliberately bombed or fired cruise missiles on civilian targets? Or maybe the ones who abused those prisoners in Iraq? What about those in the video that shot those wounded Iraqi prisoners inside a mosque? Or was that all censored in the States?
Whoever deliberately kills innocents or POWs (and the American armed forces have a long record of doing that, under orders or not) should be tried as criminals. End of story.
How about the ones who deliberately bombed or fired cruise missiles on civilian targets? Or maybe the ones who abused those prisoners in Iraq? What about those in the video that shot those wounded Iraqi prisoners inside a mosque? Or was that all censored in the States?
Did you know the US has a free press? I haven't seen any press reports on deliberate attacks directed against known civillian targets. Show me the reporting that documents US military personnel deliberately bombing and or firing cruise missiles at known civillian targets. You've got nothing.
And while you're at it, provide documentary evidence of the civillian casualties.
Are you talking about the GI who shot the prisoner in a Mosuqe who was pretending to be a noncombatant? The soldier who shot him claimed he saw that individual operating with an insurgent group just the day before.
That hardly counts as evidence in my book. That an Al-Qa'ida agent was confirmed to be operating in Iraq is sufficient proof that Al-Qa'ida was present in Iraq at the time OIF started. Just not in the vast legions and divisions that you 'require' in your own opinion.
The hijackings and the attack was paid for by Saudi money. And you're saying they're not responsible?
You're saying the Saudi government, the 'regime', the House of Saud, is responsible. I'm saying, no, they're not.
:confused: This thread is about americans and iraq too!!! *sigh*:(
But the press reported that Al-Qa'ida operator Abu Zarqawi was in Iraq when OIF was launched.Even if it were true, which is uncheckable at this time, do you genuinely believe that the presence of one terrorist in a country makes that country automatically in league with those terrorists? Of course it doesn't. There are probably many people you would deem to be "terrorists" dotted around all our western nations. Does that mean we're in league with them? Your logic is, as ever, deeply flawed.
No, the Saudi regime were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.They were certainly more responsible than the Iraqi regime. ;)
I don't know, provide evidence and 'enlighten' us.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) That's a conservative estimate drawn from reputable news sources, within Iraq alone. QED. There was Afghanistan before.
And all the other civilians who WILL die because of American intervention that would not have died otherwise, due to their national infrastructures being completely decimated.
Which ones? Is this your idea of a joke? US forces have specific rules of engagement that civillians are not to be intentionally targeted.Well let me explain it to you:
1. By your definition, "Terrorists" knowingly attack civilian targets to further their political goals.
2. Bush and his controllers decided to go to war against Iraq.
3. They were fully aware that this would result in Iraqi civilian casualties on a massive scale.
4. They accepted this, as it furthered their political goals.
5. Therefore they knowingly targeted Iraqi civilians to further their political goals.
See where we're going with this? Of course your government is guilty of the same things that those you despise as "terrorists" are guilty of.
Did you know the US has a free press? Did you know that the US has a massive propaganda-machine that it dares to call a "free press"?
Are you talking about the GI who shot the prisoner in a Mosuqe who was pretending to be a noncombatant?Even from you this is shocking. First of all, he WAS a noncombatant, as he had been placed in the mosque the previous day by OTHER American marines, to be evacuated and treated as soon as possible. But this didn't happen. Instead, another group of marines arrived and, upon entering the mosque, they shot the poor sod, and three other wounded Iraqis.
Kevin Sites was present when a lieutenant from one of the units asked a Marine what had happened inside the mosque. The Marine replied that there were people inside.
“Did you shoot them?” the lieutenant asked.
“Roger that, sir,” the second Marine replied.
“Were they armed?” the lieutenant asked.
The second Marine shrugged in reply.
Sites saw the five wounded men left behind on Friday still in the mosque. Four of them had been shot again, apparently by members of the squad that entered the mosque moments earlier. One appeared to be dead, and the three others were severely wounded. The fifth man was lying under a blanket, apparently not having been shot a second time.
One of the Marines noticed that one of the severely wounded men was still breathing. He did not appear to be armed, Sites said.
The Marine could be heard insisting: “He’s f---ing faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s f---ing dead.” Sites then watched as the Marine raised his rifle and fired into the man’s head from point-blank range.
“Well, he’s dead now,” another Marine said.
There is no way you can defend this sort of military practice. It's illegal, amoral and a war crime. To this date the Americans have not charged the soldiers in question for negligence, and America has a long history of not allowing ANY of its people to be tried by international war crimes tribunals.
SKIN, PLEASE SPLIT THE IRAQ RELATED POSTS OFF FROM ALL THREE THREADS INTO A SINGLE THREAD, THIS IS GETTING CONFUSING. ;)
I'm just gonna go and post on the topic of bullies here...
Most of the bullies don't know what they are doing, but when they do, they mostly change. The victims themselves can't make this clear to them, as they'll laugh at anything s/he will say, but when a teacher tells them, they might listen. This week, i recognized two groups of bullies, got a teacher, she talked to them, and they apologised and even defended me from others.
This is the way we can fight back. Those who have been bullied know how hard it is to stand up to them, but when someone else does it for you, it's a lot easier and has a lot more impact.
Ofcourse, if they still won't listen, expell them. Let's face it: if you can't talk sense into them, what can the school do?
It's unclear to me how you got unto the subject of Iraq. Did someone compare Bullies to terrorrists?
EDIT: oh, wait, I have something else to say on the subject of terrorrists: They are, like bullies, pathetic people with nothing better to do than to destroy people's lives becuas they differ from you in some way or another. Screw that. It's like saying their precious God (who they are probably 'defending' or something) made a mistake in creating different beliefs. If they (Bullies AND terrorrists) would use their brains for a change, they'd realize they are causing pain and suffering for no real reason at all, and stop.
Here's an article that's related to this topic by describing why bullying seems to happen in school(deals more with the social structure though.)
http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html)
Did you know the US has a free press?
I've lived in the USA for three years, and I've seen enough of this "free press" of yours to know that it's not on top of the list of "objective media".
From FOX News' propaganda (it can not be described as anything but a private-run propaganda machine) to CNN introducing its Iraq broadcasts with a little movie clip with an F-15 fighter plane model, text bits like "Iraq has failed to... yadda, yadda, yadda", and "WAR ON TERROR" floating into the centre in a grand, Bush-hugging glide, to a total disrespect for privacy when doing news reports on tragedies and murders and the Armed Forces' censorship of images that were graphic in nature (read: that could sway public opinion away from supporting the sacred War on Terror™)...
Yeah, when it comes to free, responsible, well-behaved, respectful media, the USA's an example to admire and follow...:rolleyes: I remember when pictures came in of those soldiers who had gotten executed by means of bullets in their necks and this Norwegian paper running them with the head line "THE PICTURES THE USA DOESN'T GET TO SEE":p.
I haven't seen any press reports on deliberate attacks directed against known civillian targets.
My point exactly.
http://www.progressive.org/mplandau998.htm)
The mosque incident is a second one.
The bombing of schools and hospitals in Serbia a third.
The rocket attack by Clinton on civilian targets in Baghdad a fourth.
I'll find sources as soon as I can.
Are you talking about the GI who shot the prisoner in a Mosuqe who was pretending to be a noncombatant?
Did you see the video clip? He was a non-combatant. Surely, even by Darth Rumsfeld's definition a wounded and un-armed prisoner of war is a non-combatant, no?
Links to one of the sites hosting images of the tragedy:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/119384.php)
What about the Iraqis who were paraded nude trough the streets by US soldiers? Were they pretending to be non-combatant when they walked in shame trough the streets completely nude with their private organs and bare hands hanging for all to see? No, wait, I get it now... They were hiding hand grenades in their hair and AK-47 rifles under their skin:eek:! How dumb I've been not to see that:mad:!
Nobody's saying that US doctrine allows for the shooting of wounded POWs. It obviously was an isolated incident. But:
How many Norwegian soldiers have you seen parade POWs nude trough the public streets of a city in broad daylight?
How many French soldiers have you seen abuse and taunt POWs in jails?
How many British soldiers have you seen shoot unarmed, defenceless, wounded POWs?
My point? The US Armed Forces has a serious disipline problem when its soldiers do things like that with such a great frequency.
As a side note, he was a Marine, not a G. I.
At Wilhuf: I have to ask you to tell me who told you that the POW who got shot in that mosque was in reality posing a treath. Such a lie - trying to excuse and white-wash the shooting of defence-less POWs - is a very grave concern to me.
On the Saudis:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Or was it the Saudis? Damn, it was them.”
“The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document. One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes ‘very direct, very specific links’ between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators ‘that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.’” Of all the hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudi. Josh Meyer, “Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003.
Read trough the parts on Saudi-Arabia (note the sources are right there, throwing the "he's lying" argument right out of the window): Link (
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16)
___________
To SkinWalker: If you would be so kind, I'd appreciate it if you threw all the Iraq-related posts in this thread into either the WMD - Weapons of mass deceptions thread or into a new thread. Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by Doomie
Most of the bullies don't know what they are doing, but when they do, they mostly change.
Sometimes. In my experience, there are two kinds of bullies: Idiots and gangers.
The idiots are just stupid and can't see that they are hurting other people. They can usually be 'converted' if some authority (read: a teacher) comes down on them like a ton of bricks.
Not so with the ganger-scum. These people know exactly what they are doing and probably are actually enjoying breaking another human being. No, they do not have a weak sense of self and should be pitied. They simply lack any sense of common decency and compassion, and should be caught between a rock and a hard place.
The latter group, I suspect are well on their way to becoming mobsters en miniature. Personally, I'd deal with them by sending them to another town. Seperately. For a long time. Preferably far away and without means to communicate with their former friends.
This week, i recognized two groups of bullies, got a teacher, she talked to them, and they apologised and even defended me from others.
Kudos to you.
EDIT: oh, wait, I have something else to say on the subject of terrorrists: They are, like bullies, pathetic people with nothing better to do than to destroy people's lives becuas they differ from you in some way or another.
Sadly, you're wrong. A stupid terrorist is a poor terrorist. Most terrorists are smart, and know exactly what they are doing. The thing with terrorists is that they have lost their ability to question what they believe in (normally I'd insert a jab at religion at this point, but I'm tired and want to go home).
The latter group, I suspect are well on their way to becoming mobsters en miniature. I'd agree with this. Many criminologists and commentators on issues of crime in society (Marc MacYoung and Stanton Samenow to name two of the most respected) are singing from the same hymn-sheet these days: Saying that criminal behaviour has the same basis as "minor" socially unacceptable behaviour such as bullying. And that basis is, self-obsession. Through obsession with oneself, one's needs and goals to the exclusion of all else, one cuts off empathy and becomes truly criminal.
These commentators also tend towards the view that this is a choice criminals make. It's not forced on them. It'd not instilled at birth. I agree with their reasoning.
So pity for the perpetrators of crime? I think not.
I'd agree on the lack of empathy point.
It seems to me that a lot of the anti-social behaviour (both by kids and adults) around these days comes from the fact that people seem a lot more self centred and a lot less empathetic to their affect on others.
When i see kids smashing things up for no reason it appears to me that they never even think "how would I like it if someone smashed up MY stuff". Same with thugs who beat people up for no reason.
Some of it comes from being a kid, where you haven't yet learnt to associate action with consequence. (ask a lot of kids to think WHY they did some of this and they can't tell you, and are often quite sorry once they THINK about it). But i'm sure that it has got worse over recent years. And not as many people seem to grow out of it as used to.
:guard: okay my opinion on this is similar to toms but it includes harsher punishment for worse kinds of bullying. I don't believe that expulsion should be a consideration unless what the bully did was damaging physically to the victim or had a very bad impact mentally on the victim. In my opinion also a criminal record should be used for all kinds of bullying so that the bullies will have something that will teach them that what they did can't be undone just like their record.
or had a very bad impact mentally on the victimI'd like this, but how would you measure the mental impact?
In my opinion also a criminal record should be used for all kinds of bullying so that the bullies will have something that will teach them that what they did can't be undone just like their record.That's a very good idea. I'd go for it.
Originally posted by jadendecar
I don't believe that expulsion should be a consideration unless what the bully did was damaging physically to the victim or had a very bad impact mentally on the victim.
I do not believe in expulsion at all. Since the bully still has a right and a duty to attend school, this is merely moving the problem to another place, possibly spreading the contagion.
No, school bullies should be kept at the same school, but they should be increasingly deprived of their priviliges (such as leasure time between classes, unsupervised time during classes, etc.). In the most extreme cases, one might consider sending them to a really Preussian boarding school to break them.
The fundamental principle is that the students must know and feel that the school wins. Every time. If they try to f*ck with the system, they lose. Every time. Period.