Do Mau Beick:
The point of discussion was not the legality or illegality of the use of the Army. It was about Alfredo leaving the barracks and taking with him the guns that he did not own, without an order from his superiors. Alfredo action, to me is called "deserting". Above that we witnessed on TV his numerous calls for the Prime Minister to resign. Who he thought he was? And the question remains: Why is he allowed to remain free and roam around the country acting like an hero? In my view he is being protected by somebody that gave him the part in the act.
I rest my case too.
.
quinta-feira, julho 20, 2006
Só para alguns...
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
7 comentários:
Tradução:
Só para alguns...
Do Mau Beick:
A questão na discussão não era a legalidade ou a ilegalidade no uso das forças armadas. Era sobre Alfredo ter saído do quartel e levar com ele as armas que não lhe pertenciam, sem autorização dos seus superiores. À acção de Alfredo, chamo "desertar". Ainda por cima, testemunhámos na TV os seus numerosos apelos para o Primeiro-Ministro resignar. Quem pensava ele que era? E a questão mantém-se: Porque é que é autorizado a continuar em liberdade e a percorrer o país agindo como um herói? Na minha opinião ele está a ser protegido por alguém que lhe deu sociedade no acto.
Coloquei o meu caso também.
He..heh...heeh....MAU "MATENEK" acertar isso......
hahahaha serres o bom Timorense!!!
"The point of discussion was not the legality or illegality of the use of the Army. It was about Alfredo leaving the barracks and taking with him the guns that he did not own, without an order from his superiors."
How dumb can one be? Let me see if I can understand you well.
The point "was not the legality or illegality of the use of the Army" ita was about the legality or illegality of Alfredo leaving barracks and taking with him the guns that he did not own?
What the F**K? what kind of reasoning is that?
Alfredo is ALSO the army! So which army are you talking about regarding "legality or illegality"?
You don't make one little bit of sense!!
As for orders form superiors. Which superiors gave the orders to the 'army' to go to tasitolo against the law?
Mau Beick, I don't know how old you are but I would say this is speech typical of a senile man/woman.
As for the anonymous that called Mau Beick "Mau Matenek" I have only one comment. You must not be far behind him given that you find his logic "logic".
God! I suppose people come in all "logics" and sizes.
Responding to 1:56:49 AM
It is not clear whether the decision to call in the army was legal or illegal. The government's argument is that there are laws in place to allow the government to call the army in to control a situation if the police fail to do so. On 28 April 2006, the riots broke out because the police lost control of the situation and the army was brought in to assist. It is alleged that the protesters lauched GRENADES at the army before they fired.
I think we need to wait until the investigations are finished and the facts established before we can make a conclusion as to whether the decision to call in the army to control the protest/riots was illegal. I haven't got the legislation in front of me so I can't make a conclusion myself at this stage.
Also, I believe Mau Beick is right. Legally Alfredo does not own the guns. The guns are the property of the state, not his. The guns are assigned to him. They are not owned by him.
Alfredo did desert his barracks. If he had an issue with what happened on 28 April, why did he take his weapons? He could have still protested about the incident without having to take his weapons or leave his barracks.
To Mr Dumbo of 1:56:
What I wrote above is part of a discussion that I had with another comentator on this blog.
It seems that you do not understand what is an Army. And for you to say that Alfredo is Army as well shows us how narrow minded you are.
An Army is a group of soldiers. In the case of what happened in Taci-Tolo the Army (a group of soldiers) went there because they were ordered there by their superiors.
In the case of Alfredo (an ex-major) and I believe he was in the Military Police (do you understand the role of a Military Police), abandoned his post (without permission) took the guns that belong to the State, went to the mountains, killed people, and demanded the resignation of Alkatiri.
The difference is that the soldiers that went to Taci-Tolo had orders to go there (regardeless of the orders being legal or illegal).
Alfredo had no orders to leave his barracks! And certainly no orders to kill, or demand the sakcing of Alkatiri.
Do you understand now or don't you want to understand.
As for my age I can tell you this much:
"I was already around this land for a long time, while you were still swing in father's nuts, arsehole.
Cheers
from Mau Beick
Mr Mau Beick. Your thickness is rather difficult to get through.
But since you say that an army is "a group of soldiers" would you consider the 15 odd soldiers from the Military Police that defected with Alfredo as being a "group of soldiers"?
And if you concede that they are a "group of soldiers" do I now have you permission to define them as being part of the army?
Although I myself find your way od defining an army somewhat simplistic e devoid of any of the other more important characteristics that makes a group of soldiers into a real "National Army". But I won't get into that for being a long discussion and for fear that it may just go over you head.
And this following statement of yours just proves how simple minded you really are. In other words, you are the dumbo!
I quote:
"The difference is that the soldiers that went to Taci-Tolo had orders to go there (regardeless of the orders being legal or illegal)."
Your reasoning is that it does not matter if their actions resulted from a legal or illegal order as long as there was an order. In other words, it does not matter if a crime was commited because what really matters to you that an order was issued for that crime yo be committed.
I cannot think of a dumber statement as yours.
On the other hand Alfredo is not dumb and being a Military Police, which requires him to control the illegal actions of the regular army, decided to take action against it.
And you know what Mau Beick? Alfredo's "orders" came from the highest authority in Timor. No! not the President but the CONSTITUTION OF RDTL which says:
Section 28
(Right to resistance and self-defence)
1. Every citizen has the right to disobey and to resist illegal orders or orders that affect
their fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees.
2. The right to self-defence is guaranteed to all, in accordance with the law.
Regarding the weapons not belonging to Alfredo I have never said they did. But they don't belong to the others either and they were used illegaly to cause the deaths of timorese civilians in Tasitolo.
But I think you said previously that you were a soldier (correct me if I'm wrong) in the past and that is perhaps what's clouding your judgement because you probably never went past being a corporal.
An officer nowadays however is required not just follow orders blindly but to look at the correctness, validity and legality of an order. That is why there many cases in world history of desobedience to orders which was not invented by Alfredo Reinaldo. There has been many instances in the history of the armies where superiors have even been stood down by their subordinates on ground of incapacity to discharge their duties and .
As for you age your response confirms my previous suspicion of your senility because since you are so much older that I am (as you claim) and knowing how my own age I now know that you are definitely in the age group where senility and dementia begin to take a hold.
Mr Mau Beick. Your thickness is rather difficult to get through.
But since you say that an army is "a group of soldiers" would you consider the 15 odd soldiers from the Military Police that defected with Alfredo as being a "group of soldiers"?
And if you concede that they are a "group of soldiers" do I now have you permission to define them as being part of the army?
Although I myself find your way od defining an army somewhat simplistic e devoid of any of the other more important characteristics that makes a group of soldiers into a real "National Army". But I won't get into that for being a long discussion and for fear that it may just go over you head.
And this following statement of yours just proves how simple minded you really are. In other words, you are the dumbo!
I quote:
"The difference is that the soldiers that went to Taci-Tolo had orders to go there (regardeless of the orders being legal or illegal)."
Your reasoning is that it does not matter if their actions resulted from a legal or illegal order as long as there was an order. In other words, it does not matter if a crime was commited because what really matters to you that an order was issued for that crime yo be committed.
I cannot think of a dumber statement as yours.
On the other hand Alfredo is not dumb and being a Military Police, which requires him to control the illegal actions of the regular army, decided to take action against it.
And you know what Mau Beick? Alfredo's "orders" came from the highest authority in Timor. No! not the President but the CONSTITUTION OF RDTL which says:
Section 28
(Right to resistance and self-defence)
1. Every citizen has the right to disobey and to resist illegal orders or orders that affect
their fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees.
2. The right to self-defence is guaranteed to all, in accordance with the law.
Regarding the weapons not belonging to Alfredo I have never said they did. But they don't belong to the others either and they were used illegaly to cause the deaths of timorese civilians in Tasitolo.
But I think you said previously that you were a soldier (correct me if I'm wrong) in the past and that is perhaps what's clouding your judgement because you probably never went past being a corporal.
An officer nowadays however is required not just follow orders blindly but to look at the correctness, validity and legality of an order. That is why there many cases in world history of desobedience to orders which was not invented by Alfredo Reinaldo. There has been many instances in the history of the armies where superiors have even been stood down by their subordinates on ground of incapacity to discharge their duties.
As for you age your response confirms my previous suspicion of your senility because since you are so much older that I am (as you claim) and knowing how my own age I now know that you are definitely in the age group where senility and dementia begin to take a hold.
Enviar um comentário