This is better known as a "foreigners are better than locals" nonsense.
If the authorities are remotely concerned about terrorist attacks they should be rounding up everybody (local and foreign otherwise) who flood the esplanade and merlion waterfront to take photos and digital video of our financial district landscape and Esplanade. So somehow these people taking photos are not potential terrorists. Talk about awesome profiling. If the intelligence service is remotely as good as they make themselves out to be, there wont be a need for the war against terrorism in the first place.
to be fair, who are we trying to protect here. A nation who has not hesitated to use nuclear weapons, not once but TWICE, on civilians? flooded the world with its MTV culture, Levi jeans and Macdonalds? Give me a break. Do we preach the same level of justice when the Africans are been slaughted and starved to death? (Oohh I'm sorry, they are too poor to be our trading partner)
Originally posted by sebastiansong To be fair, who are we trying to protect here. A nation who has not hesitated to use nuclear weapons, not once but TWICE, on civilians? flooded the world with its MTV culture, Levi jeans and Macdonalds? Give me a break. Do we preach the same level of justice when the Africans are been slaughted and starved to death? (Oohh I'm sorry, they are too poor to be our trading partner)
i lived around that area where that guy took his photos and i must admit that the residents there are really concerned abt security as a matter of fact. There will be police patrols together with a armed jeep a few times per day, more frequent into the nite ... that shows why the residents are paranoid ...
If a bomb went off here, who do you think is going to be hurt? And I'm not just talking about physical injury here. Not only will there be Singaporeans killed or injured, our tourism industry will be badly affected, not to mention our standing as a financial centre.
Doing that against that enemy was well justified, imo. Serves them right for all the atrocities they did against us. Massacres and murders, so you can ignore these? What about throwing a baby up in the air and have it impaled in their knives, just like a kebab? Or the even attacking medical personnel?
Or perhaps an unprovoked attack on some island, which sank many ships and killed many more men and women? They didn't even bother to declare war.
Knew I was going to touch raw nerves with my post.
First off, I am not a Japan worshipper. I always believe one wrong does not warrant another wrong. To use non conventional weapons against non military targets cannot be justified on any grounds. Ultimately it is always the innocents who suffer, never those in Power.
Yes the Japanese has massacred in the past. What about the Americans... didnt they do rob the Native Americans of their land? round up every single American of Japanese descent and send them into a "camp" when WW2 erupted... what abt all the abuse against the Blacks? btw the Chinese never empower the Americans to NUKE the Japanese. The Americans did it in order to establish their presence and secure dominance of the Pacific theatre to counter spread of communism. btw the Americans were part of the 8-Nation Alliance that sacked the Yuan Ming Yuan and forced humiltating terms on China.
My point is there is never a black and white reality and often we are overwhelmed by the powerful presence and influence of the CNN, BBC to be fully aware of our Asian side.
Keep going! When it comes to rogue states that flout international law at a whim and thus can be construed as international criminals and terrorists then the good ole USA stands head and shoulders above the rest based on its actions of the last 50 years or so.
Interesting points raised by both sides of the camp (roughly labelled pro-US and anti-US for discussion sake). But are we not enjoying the longest period of world "peace" (I know that there are / were many regional conflicts around the world post WW2) that the world has known in its history ?
In order to secure this peace, there really needs to be a dominant force or dominant bloc. Would you rather this dominant bloc to be composed of nations such as North Korea, Iraq etc. ?
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not agree with the US Government's antagonist stance on many issues, but I would much rather the balance of world power be on their side than on the "other side". The Republican US Government is extremely arrogant and I would much rather that the Democrats be in the White House but I guess we will have to wait another two years for the next presidential elections.
Sure, US culture has permeated the world. But is that necessarily a bad thing ? It's really up to all of us individually whether or not we embrace certain cultural values. I personally do not watch MTV, nor am I a big fan of McDonald's nor do I wear Levi jeans. But that's my choice. Similarly, everyone who complains about US cultural dominance can make that choice right ?
We have great Hong Kong cantopop that we can embrace or even local enterntainment talent. We have fantastic Asian food that I love. But at the end of the day, the democractic values of the free world has enabled us to make this choice.
I would much rather the US having 100 gazillion nukes than Saddam having one.
Good pt to bring up the classic Tom Clancy ultra right wing line of rather US having the Nukes rather than Saddam having one? You trust someone who has USED nukes over someone who is "suppose" to have weapons of mass destruction?
do you research... who support the Iraqis during the Iraq-Iran war. Who made Saddam?
As for Middle East.. the Saudi royal family make Saddam look like a Saint (ohhh you wont hear abt that cos they are friends of USA)
as for choice, you often don have much of a choice. MacDonald, Coke and MTV with its massive coffers can easily muscle out Canto Pop or local establishments. Worst still, do what Nestle does and pretend they don OWN the assets.