Bombs in London (England)

[Ali]

Tube and bus explosions (http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/misc/print.php?artid=611958)
LONDON'S entire Tube network has been closed after blasts at Underground stations while a double decker bus has been ripped apart by a bomb.

Several casualties were taken to hospital after an explosion at Liverpool Street station that emergency services say could have been caused by an electrical power surge.

But transport experts now claim the events pointed to a coordinated terrorist attack.

A bus is reported to have been torn apart by a bomb blast in Tavistock Place.

Police said there had also been a "major incident" at Aldgate station at 8.50am and that there were further reports of explosions in "multiple locations".

Police are investigating incidents at Edgware Roadd, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, Russell Square, Aldgate East and Moorgate Tube stations.

A spokesman said it was too early to say what caused the explosions.

One Tube passenger said: "People started screaming and there was what appeared to be smoke and soot everywhere. It was all over our clothes and our hands. Nobody knew what was going on.

"People started screaming, everyone felt uncomfortable. Some people started grabbing hammer trying to smash windows and open doors. No one had any idea what was going on."

Tube bosses said the network had been suspended and stations were being evacuated.

Eye witnesses said there were walking wounded. A London Ambulance Service spokeswoman said: "We have just sent some resources out to the scene. We have sent a number of vehicles to Liverpool Street station."

10:07am today

[chromium05]

one small thing I just heard

I was watching Sky News 2 minutes ago and they were interviewing the chief of the metropolitan police. The newsreader said to the police chief that he had just been handed a fax from the Isreali Intelligence agency which stated that they had been warned about the bombs by Scotland Yard (the Met) 5 minutes before they happened. At this point the police chief terminated the interview.

Don't know what could be read into that, but sounds a little bit wierd????

[franscar]

Four confirmed bombs. Everything is still incredibly hazy at the moment. There have been a number of fatalities though.

A sad, sad day.

[valvano]

so you all still want to keep terrorist locked away in gitmo or let them free??
:D

[D_Raay]

so you all still want to keep terrorist locked away in gitmo or let them free??
:D
You're a moron. If you nothing constructive to add on this day just keep quiet.

[D_Raay]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_explosions_1

JERUSALEM - British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

Israeli Finance Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.

---
Okay, here we are. Netanyahu knew he had to stay in his hotel room to be safe from the explosions. His explanation was that British police gave the Israeli embassy a warning about possible terror attacks about to happen, a warning apparently not made available to the public.

Now Israel is saying they received no advance warning and the British authorities are saying they had no advance intelligence of a pending attack.

SO HOW DID NETANYAHU KNOW?

[valvano]

you liberals hate it when ironic thought is runs the other way...

can dish it out, but cant take it

:p

[valvano]

well, sadly...the treatment of innocent men in GITMO will more than likely turn them into terrorists when they are released.


there not in gitmo for being innocent

[EN[i]GMA]

there not in gitmo for being innocent

Excepting the ones that are.

If they are guilty, why not try them?

[D_Raay]

you liberals hate it when ironic thought is runs the other way...

can dish it out, but cant take it

:p
Actually, us "liberals" have sense enough not to make ridiculous unfounded comments when so many people have just died and don't mind pointing out what a moron people are that do. That's the problem with you right wing idiots, you're all a bunch of hypocrites. Two weeks from now you'll be exploiting this tragedy.

[valvano]

but d raay, i dont understand,

we just had a huge concert series that was supposed to fix all the worlds problems, france and spain have sucked up to the terrorists, the dnc and michael moore have shown the terrorist that we "feel their pain",

i dont get it, why are they still attacking???

:confused:

wait, maybe terrorist REALLY are evil and REALLy want to kill people, no matter who they are

:eek:

i guess the terrorist have never learned what happens when you screw around with britain, maybe they should read up on the history of Dresden

(y)

[valvano]

Actually, us "liberals" have sense enough not to make ridiculous unfounded comments when so many people have just died and don't mind pointing out what a moron people are that do. That's the problem with you right wing idiots, you're all a bunch of hypocrites. Two weeks from now you'll be exploiting this tragedy.

you mean like that liberal wack job professor in colorado?

:D

[D_Raay]

If Bush told you to jump from a bridge, would you?

Who benefits? Who gets what they want?

The mainstream media is no longer going to be looking at Tony Blair and George Bush's lies that tricked this nation into war.

The mainstream media is no longer going to be looking at Karl Rove as Valerie Plame's leaker.

And note how closely this "attack" followed Great Britain's announcement that they were pulling their troops out of Iraq.

[QueenAdrock]

so you all still want to keep terrorist locked away in gitmo or let them free??
:D

What's with the smile? This thread makes you laugh? Ha, ha. People dead.

If you're just trying to rub whatever it is you think you have in liberals faces by using the stupid laughing smiley, stop. It's a poor choice and tasteless for this thread.

[D_Raay]

Flashback from June 1 George Galloway

Galloway was confident that massively opposed public opinion would stop an attack from taking place, unless a staged terror attack carried out by the military industrial complex and blamed on Iran was carried out.
-Galloway speaking on Iran

[D_Raay]

Original reports stated that Binyamin Netanyahu was warned BEFORE the first blast, now all the Associated Press reports are being changed to say he was warned AFTER the first blast.

[D_Raay]

For example this article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-07-israel-londonblasts_x.htm?POE=NEW
ISVA)
The article linked below that I saved in my own format (and the website that carried it has strangely since crashed) said that Netanyahu was warned before the first blast.

Israel is now denying (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=122106240&p=yzzyx68zx)they got a warning.

BREAKING: Scotland Yard says it got a warning before the attack and told Israel.

"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."

Full article here (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2005/070705israelwarned.htm)

The warning contradicts the fact that the original explanation of a power surge went out for an hour or more. They knew it was an attack but put out a false explanation. Plus why did Netanyahu get a warning and the victims didn't?

We have been told that the events unfolding today were "inevitable", London's transport network has been hit with multiple explosions. Both the Underground and Busess have been hit. Events are still unfolding.

[valvano]

What's with the smile? This thread makes you laugh? Ha, ha. People dead.

If you're just trying to rub whatever it is you think you have in liberals faces by using the stupid laughing smiley, stop. It's a poor choice and tasteless for this thread.

the smile is directed to those who wish to pacify and cuddle up to the terrorists, those who protest against the war against terrorism, they who wish to understand and justify terrorism, those who blame the us and the uk for the terrorists,

i wonder if michael moore is now looking to film a movie "Big Ben 7-7"

[DroppinScience]

so you all still want to keep terrorist locked away in gitmo or let them free??
:D

Completely inappropriate. Even sisko wouldn't stoop THAT low. Well, maybe he would, but he certainly doesn't smile at death. (n)

[WhoMoi?]

the smile is directed to those who wish to pacify and cuddle up to the terrorists, those who protest against the war against terrorism, they who wish to understand and justify terrorism, those who blame the us and the uk for the terrorists,

i wonder if michael moore is now looking to film a movie "Big Ben 7-7"

Being against the war does not mean that one wishes to "cuddle up" to terrorists. It means one is intelligent enough to see that bloodshed is not avenged or decreased by further bloodshed.
Trying to understand terrorism is actually imperative to decreasing it; if one does understand it, they know that going to war is likely to increase terrorism, and is actually a terrorist act itself in many ways.

[marsdaddy]

This is horrible news. My heart goes out to the people in the UK and particularly the victims and their families.

I guess I really want to believe that authorities can somehow stop people from blowing shit up, but they can't. The headline on Yahoo is, "London-like attacks not expected in US." Whew, I feel much better, now.

Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe has claimed responsibility and experts say it has all the markings of 9/11 and the train bombings in Madrid. :(

[valvano]

Being against the war does not mean that one wishes to "cuddle up" to terrorists. It means one is intelligent enough to see that bloodshed is not avenged or decreased by further bloodshed.
.

tell you what, lets ship you off to an al-qeida camp where you can learn and understand them, and then write up a full report and let us all know what they want so we can better learn to live with them.

:rolleyes:

the only force they understand is a greater force. ever heard of nagasaki or hiroshima?

(!)

[QueenAdrock]

the smile is directed to those who wish to pacify and cuddle up to the terrorists, those who protest against the war against terrorism, they who wish to understand and justify terrorism, those who blame the us and the uk for the terrorists,

i wonder if michael moore is now looking to film a movie "Big Ben 7-7"

Please tell me who on this board wants to pacify or cuddle up to the terrorists. I certainly know that you don't mean the liberals in this country support terrorism, because no one's that stupid enough to believe that. Disagreeing with the country's policies doesn't mean you're FOR the enemy. As Thomas Jefferson once said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

And I don't know what war you're talking about because the Iraqi war is not against terrorism. It's created terrorism where it didn't exist before. I'm for the war on terror; I think we should have increased homeland security and not waste our money building other countries up when we don't have enough protection at our own home. Have you tried to get something illegal onto the DC metro? No checkpoints, nothing. London could happen here, anytime.

And it may interest you to see what the far right wingers are saying (www.godhatesamerica.com) about the war in Iraq.

[marsdaddy]

the only force they understand is a greater force. ever heard of nagasaki or hiroshima?So, now you're comparing terrorists to Japan in WWII? So we should nuke 'em? Where?

Why don't you just keep your rhetoric to a minimum today and let the liberals grieve for their fellow man?

[WhoMoi?]

tell you what, lets ship you off to an al-qeida camp where you can learn and understand them, and then write up a full report and let us all know what they want so we can better learn to live with them.

Lamest response ever.



the only force they understand is a greater force. ever heard of nagasaki or hiroshima?

(!)

Are you using those incidents to argue something??
And that "greater force" is obviously not helping, given all the terrorist incidents that have occurred since the war began.

[WhoMoi?]

And I don't know what war you're talking about because the Iraqi war is not against terrorism. It's created terrorism where it didn't exist before. I'm for the war on terror; I think we should have increased homeland security and not waste our money building other countries up when we don't have enough protection at our own home. Have you tried to get something illegal onto the DC metro? No checkpoints, nothing. London could happen here, anytime.


Agreed, on all points. (y)

[Canibal-7]

If it was Al-Qeida, once again it has something to do with the support of the U.S and it's shady war (Iraq).

[valvano]

Lamest response ever.




Are you using those incidents to argue something??
And that "greater force" is obviously not helping, given all the terrorist incidents that have occurred since the war began.


Lame but true. Put your money where your mouth is and go on down to Gitmo and show those guys some compassion and try to understand them.
Go ahead..

And in case it wasnt clear enough to you, the use of a greater force than your enemy is what ends wars PERMANENTLY, not a bunch of touchy feely fuzzy agreements, etc.

[Canibal-7]

Lame but true. Put your money where your mouth is and go on down to Gitmo and show those guys some compassion and try to understand them.
Go ahead..

And in case it wasnt clear enough to you, the use of a greater force than your enemy is what ends wars PERMANENTLY, not a bunch of touchy feely fuzzy agreements, etc.



Valvano, terrorism can be fought with more terror. It only makes things worse. Terrorsim cannot be caught, captured or arrested. It is like a ghost, invisible. I honestly do not think it can be fought through arms.

[valvano]

Valvano, terrorism can be fought with more terror. It only makes things worse. Terrorsim cannot be caught, captured or arrested. It is like a ghost, invisible. I honestly do not think it can be fought through arms.


Then the terrorists have already defeated you.

[valvano]

by continueing to fight them,
not by making agreements with them

[WhoMoi?]

Lame but true. Put your money where your mouth is and go on down to Gitmo and show those guys some compassion and try to understand them.
Go ahead..

First of all, the reason that your response was lame was because doing something like that is unnecessary and not what I was getting at at all. If you just think about current and past events you can at least get a sense of what motivates them to do these things, and realize the appropriate course of action from there.
Also, "understanding" terrorists does not mean "showing them compassion." I want to vomit when I think about what terrorists have done and certainly feel the opposite of compassion for them. Understanding them means learning about what motivates them to do what they do, so that we can figure out how to prevent it/protect people from it.


And in case it wasnt clear enough to you, the use of a greater force than your enemy is what ends wars PERMANENTLY, not a bunch of touchy feely fuzzy agreements, etc.
Yeah but the problem here, as marsdaddy indicated, is that the terrorist attacks on our nation weren't performed by Iraq. They were performed by Al-Qaeda, which is not one nation, but rather a group interspersed throughout many locations. Nagasaki/Hiroshima were not very good comparisons, because it's not like you can take out a group that is spread out throughout the world all at once.

[Canibal-7]

Then the terrorists have already defeated you.



I did not say it was easy, but bombing a country (civilians included) back to the sotne age is not the answer. It's things like that that activates (more) hate.

[valvano]

and this is why the war will never end


i'd rather be at war AGAINST them than living UNDER them.....

(lb)

[franscar]

So 37 people are dead. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters.

May they be allowed to rest in peace, rather than have their mortalities turned into a political battleground.

[Canibal-7]

I don't care how many terrorists you kill or torture, as long as we continue living in fear (and don't tell me you're not, becasue if it happened once it can happen again) then the terrorists are winning.

[Medellia]

Valvano it's disgusting the way you are gloating about this. Just give it a rest for one fucking day.

[valvano]

hey, i am just taking a cue from such reactionary left wing groups as peta, moveon, now, unions, etc

i thought you left wingers loved in your face stuff....except for when it hits home...

:rolleyes:

[ms.peachy]

i thought you left wingers loved in your face stuff....except for when it hits home...

:rolleyes:
hey yeah, you know what was'in my face' and 'hit home' today?

The fact that if I'd just left my house two minutes later this morning, I could be dead right now.

So go roll your fucking eyes all you like, pally.

[Medellia]

Yeah, and PETA has what to do with this? Most of the people on this board think PETA are fucking bonkers. And NOW, because women's rights are just sooo awful. Even worse than, oh I don't know, people dying.

Wow, you conservatives really are so fucking compassionate. You clearly care about your fellow humans.

[Medellia]

hey yeah, you know what was'in my face' and 'hit home' today?

The fact that if I'd just left my house two minutes later this morning, I could be dead right now.

So go roll your fucking eyes all you like, pally.
Damn, I'm glad you're not hurt. I gotta admit, when I first heard about this I was really worried about all of the Londoners on the board. :o

[D_Raay]

Damn, I'm glad you're not hurt. I gotta admit, when I first heard about this I was really worried about all of the Londoners on the board. :o
ditto...

[guerillaGardner]

the smile is directed to those who wish to pacify and cuddle up to the terrorists, those who protest against the war against terrorism, they who wish to understand and justify terrorism, those who blame the us and the uk for the terrorists,

i wonder if michael moore is now looking to film a movie "Big Ben 7-7"

Did 9/11 fill you with such glee? Your joy at this whole thing is really twisted. I hope you get enough sense one day to feel ashamed.

Nobody here tries to justify terrorism; they just understand what's going on and they know it's not what they are told to believe. They know that there are no good guys in this situation - it's the blind leading the blind.

[franscar]

Did 9/11 fill you with such glee? Your joy at this whole thing is really twisted. I hope you get enough sense one day to feel ashamed.

Guerilla, what's the latest in Scotland? My ex works in Edinburgh and she said there had been a controlled explosion in Princes Street, but I haven't heard anything since. I know she's safe, just wondered what the latest news was.

[Parkey]

so you all still want to keep terrorist locked away in gitmo or let them free??
:D
TWAT

[Burnout18]

[QUOTE=guerillaGardner]Did 9/11 fill you with such glee? [QUOTE]

i remember when i first joined this site, some motherfucker posted a mock beastie boy album cover.... it was the plane from LTI crashing into the world trade centers (a 9/11pic). A lot of ppl thought it was very funny, and when i expressed the fact that i thought it was disgusting i was told to lighten up and fuck off.

Now this shit happens on the other side of the pond and everyone's roles are reversed.


I am very sorry for what happened in London today, i hope none of our british friends on this site lost a loved one.

[valvano]

To My BBPMB friends,

I would like to say that thanks for helping me prove my point, by being absurb over the bombings today in London I brough out the absurdity in the views of the liberals/anarchists/left wingers who dominate this place.

Obviously the terrorists did not do their homework, because today was nothing compared to what the Nazis, Irish, etc have thrown at London and the UK. I suggest they check out the history of the Dresden Bombings to see how the UK hunts down her enemies and puts its on touch in revenge.

This again proves that this war against terrorism is not like normal wars in history, and as a result it can not be fought through conventional methods such as treaties, agreements, armistice, etc. You may think you have appeased terrorists and escaped their wrath, until they hunt you down and kill you too. Terrorist dont play by the normal rules of engagement that we are used to, something that the left needs to learn quickly. France has probably already sent secret messages to Binladen's hideout to remind him that they have opposed the actions of the US and the UK in an effort to save their asses.

The nations of the world must unite and flush out these bastards from their hiding spots. Sacrafices must be made to win this war, but freedom will prevail.

To all of those demanding the closing of Gitmo, hopefully today will remind them of the big picture. I too have issues with Iraq and W in general (massive deficits under his watch, govt expansion, etc), but whomever is th e COC, we need to support them.

:)

[Medellia]

All you have proven is that you are completely cold and heartless.

[synch]

Valvano, so what you are saying basically is that you don't mind the president blowing up foreign countries as long as he doesn't spend too much doing so?

Oh and it has been blatantly obvious who the cock is for a long time.

[valvano]

if the country is harbors and protects terrorists, i don't mind

maybe if we shut down gitmo as all you left winger wants, we can ship them to amsterdam since you want to protect them so much??? :confused:

[Freebasser]

Valvano, I'm so sorry the guy hired to shoot you at birth didn't turn up for work that day.

Really I am :(

[synch]

if the country is harbors and protects terrorists, i don't mind

maybe if we shut down gitmo as all you left winger wants, we can ship them to amsterdam since you want to protect them so much??? :confused:
Sure, we can smoke weed and wear cloggs together.

It's going to be super!

[valvano]

Valvano, I'm so sorry the guy hired to shoot you at birth didn't turn up for work that day.

Really I am :(

yeah, he was english and the govt didnt trust him with a gun....

dont you have a fox hunt to go protest??

[franscar]

Valvano. Are you actually happy about what happened in London today?

What are your feelings about it, without hiding behind political rhetoric, how did it make you feel?

[synch]

dont you have a fox hunt to go protest??
Which can also be substituted with:

... teeth to neglect.

... a queen to go visit.

... to go eat marmite.


You really are an ignorant little man aren't you.

[Echewta]

I'm assuming those terrorist that conducted the operation in London today were in Cuba and set free hense valvano's comment/argument.

[synch]

No, I think it was a plea to get all muslims locked up.

[franscar]

No, I think it was a plea to get all muslims locked up.

They can't though, the Blues have just spent £3million on one. :(

[synch]

Locked up, sent to Birmingham, I think valvano won't appreciate the difference.

[Jasonik]

Being against the war does not mean that one wishes to "cuddle up" to terrorists. It means one is intelligent enough to see that bloodshed is not avenged or decreased by further bloodshed.
Trying to understand terrorism is actually imperative to decreasing it; if one does understand it, they know that going to war is likely to increase terrorism, and is actually a terrorist act itself in many ways.So the terrorists make the terms? Just bend over and take it.
Why don't you [Valvano] just keep your rhetoric to a minimum today and let the liberals grieve for their fellow man?So grief and inaction are the only acceptable responses?


Valvano, terrorism can be fought with more terror. It only makes things worse. Terrorsim cannot be caught, captured or arrested. It is like a ghost, invisible. I honestly do not think it can be fought through arms.
Then the terrorists have already defeated you.This is an extremely lucid response to an excuse for inaction.
Also, "understanding" terrorists does not mean "showing them compassion." I want to vomit when I think about what terrorists have done and certainly feel the opposite of compassion for them. Understanding them means learning about what motivates them to do what they do, so that we can figure out how to prevent it/protect people from it. So is there a way to make people like yourself immune from terror - the emotion, not the danger? It seems like a gov't sanctioned war terrifies most people here more than a few guys with bombs.
Nobody here tries to justify terrorism; they just understand what's going on and they know it's not what they are told to believe. They know that there are no good guys in this situation - it's the blind leading the blind.Some people are terrified sitting on their heels and not going on the offensive, some people are terrified of offending someone that might become an enemy. The first position acknowledges an enemy exists, the second is so self important it supposes that another's actions are caused by something they did.
There may be wiser ways to fight terrorism than on the ground in Iraq, but for the first group, they're not terrorized anymore.
Valvano. Are you actually happy about what happened in London today?

What are your feelings about it, without hiding behind political rhetoric, how did it make you feel?Is this what you would say to someone who just blew up your best friend with a subway bomb? "I want to know your feelings, I want to know why you did it, I want you to think about your feelings so you will know you were misguided." To comitted killers your compassion (I suspect feigned in this case) is your biggest weakness.

[WhoMoi?]

So the terrorists make the terms? Just bend over and take it.
It's not letting the terrorists make the terms. It's doing whatever causes the least lives to be lost; I mean that's the ultimate goal, right? It's being a realist, knowing that invading another nation - who in and of itself hasn't really provoked us at that point in time - will not even come close to eliminating the targeted terrorist group, and will probably cause more terror attacks, rather than achieve the ultimate goal of protecting us from them. It's putting more focus on improving things that would protect us from potential terrorist threats, like national intelligence and homeland security. It's sucking up your prideful thoughts of "I'm not letting terrorists make the terms!" to do what will save more lives in the end.



So is there a way to make people like yourself immune from terror - the emotion, not the danger? It seems like a gov't sanctioned war terrifies most people here more than a few guys with bombs.
Of course no one is immune to the emotion of terror. But what is your point there? Obviously the danger of terror is the issue.
A government sanctioned war is of course terrifying, but the one that is being waged now is terrifying the following:
- a handful of people who have terrified (or been linked to those who have terrified) Americans
- a handful of people who have terrified people in their nation but really had nothing to do with what's happened in the U.S.
- a whole lot of innocent civilians whose suffering makes the whole thing not worth it, in my opinion



Is this what you would say to someone who just blew up your best friend with a subway bomb? "I want to know your feelings, I want to know why you did it, I want you to think about your feelings so you will know you were misguided." To comitted killers your compassion (I suspect feigned in this case) is your biggest weakness.
Franscar wasn't even arguing about terrorists. The only comments he or she has made in this thread have been ones of compassion for the victims of today's bombings. Don't argue with someone who's not even making the point you're trying to debate.

[Documad]

Fucking Hell!

Our local news just did a report about a Minnesota couple who took a cab instead of the tube to get to the airport and leave London. So they were safe!

Because we apparently can't feel anything for the horror Londoner's are experiencing without that Minnesota connection -- however slim. Every single time.

[Medellia]

Yeah, they're doing that here in Tulsa. "An Oklahoman was ONE BLOCK AWAY!!!!"

[Documad]

What is wrong with Americans? We are clearly the most self obsessed people.

I'm strangely reassured knowing that it's not just Minneapolis though. :o

[Medellia]

Yeah, I'm glad it's not just here. But it doesn't make it any less sick that we as a country need to have some sort of connection before we allow ourselves to feel bad about it.

[WhoMoi?]

What is wrong with Americans? We are clearly the most self obsessed people.

I'm strangely reassured knowing that it's not just Minneapolis though. :o

Yeah we are. I've only realized this in the past couple years, though, which means I must have been really "U.S.-obsessed" (saying self obsessed would make me sound like I was literally obsessed with myself) before that time.

[Jasonik]

I guess an innocent bystander got caught in the crossfire while I was making my point... anyway...

What's that FDR quote about fear?

[QueenAdrock]

We have nothing to fear but fear itself?

Wait no. It's "Fear is patriotic." Duh.

[D_Raay]

Just what is your point Jasonik?

Should we all just drop what we are doing and go fight terrorists somewhere?
You assume we all sit cowering in the dark afraid to act on something, just what should we be acting on? Reason should be replaced by savagery maybe? Revenge is a dish best served cold?

The point of this thread I believe was to let the Brits on this board know that we are here with them and and anguishing with them, after all it HAS already happened to us and comforting words from foreigners were much appreciated.

Valvano, regardless if he has any legitimate points to make or not, was being an idiot, plain and simple.

[yeahwho]

The difference between GWB & FDR is GWB's quote is, "Got Fear"


There is way too much wealth involved for elites and wannabe elites on either side to give up the fight. It's not like Tanzania or Chad, say, where the Western powers were glad to give up what had become (for the elites) a cash sinkhole.

Propaganda from all involved will soon permeate the media, "freedom"-"national liberation", about "justice" and "jihad". More people who want nothing to do with any of these people will die....

Think just how easily and consistently all these lies work. Over and over. Always one upping current events. Always. I have to sleep. Godspeed to all the innocent victims of this tragedy.

PS I'm going to keep my eye on the ball, Sure would like to have ACE42's take on all this.

[ms.peachy]

:)
You know, I still haven't been able to get home or see my husband since yesterday. So how's about you take your smiley face and shove it up your ass sideways. I'll be damned if I let events like this make me less of a human being.

[D_Raay]

The difference between GWB & FDR is GWB's quote is, "Got Fear"


There is way too much wealth involved for elites and wannabe elites on either side to give up the fight. It's not like Tanzania or Chad, say, where the Western powers were glad to give up what had become (for the elites) a cash sinkhole.

Propaganda from all involved will soon permeate the media, "freedom"-"national liberation", about "justice" and "jihad". More people who want nothing to do with any of these people will die....

Think just how easily and consistently all these lies work. Over and over. Always one upping current events. Always. I have to sleep. Godspeed to all the innocent victims of this tragedy.

PS I'm going to keep my eye on the ball, Sure would like to have ACE42's take on all this.

Well said yeahwho, and yeah where are you Ace? Wouldn't be the BBMB without you.

[Ali]

And in case it wasnt clear enough to you, the use of a greater force than your enemy is what ends wars PERMANENTLY, not a bunch of touchy feely fuzzy agreements, etc.You stupid, callous, evil FUCK! You are actually gloating over the fact that people have lost their lives and loved ones and that London's been brought to a standstill.

This shit is a DIRECT RESULT of the use of "greater force" by the US and UK governments. Violence begets violence. The harder you hit them, the harder they hit back.

I sincerely hope that something very, very shitty happens to you or a member of your family very soon and that you remember the things you've said here. CUNT!

[Freebasser]

yeah, he was english and the govt didnt trust him with a gun....

dont you have a fox hunt to go protest??

You're an imbecile.

I don't know what's sadder: Your immature xenophobic comments, or the fact that you expect people to laugh at them.

As for your theory of going into a country and using great force to kill terrorists; it doesn't work that way.

You think rolling into foreign countries all guns blazing will stop the terrorist threat? Yeah, that really worked in Afghanistan and Iraq. All it did was escalate the violence to even greater heights, as proven yesterday. The likelyhood is, that the people who planted those bombs, and any suicide bombers involved, probably had British passports and had lived in Britain for many years. In fact, they'd have to have lived in London for some time to know the whereabouts of easy targets. So by your definition of how to deal with terrorists I suppose we should just nuke London? That'll solve the problem.

I suggest returning to this board when you've grown some pubic hair.

[FearandLoathing]

And in case it wasnt clear enough to you, the use of a greater force than your enemy is what ends wars PERMANENTLY, not a bunch of touchy feely fuzzy agreements, etc.

Who do you suppose we use extra force on? Iraq- which had no international terrorist links? WHO is the enemy?- that's the key goddamned question. The thing is, this terrorism cannot be ended by traditional methods like war- because there is no-one to wage war on! Goddamn.

[Ali]

Britain to pull 5,500 troops out of Iraq (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/nirq03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/03/ixnewstop.html)

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 03/04/2005)

Defence chiefs are planning to reduce the size of the British military force in Iraq from 9,000 to 3,500 troops within 12 months as part of a phased withdrawal from Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal.

In the first stage of Britain's "exit strategy", troops will be withdrawn from three of the Army's five military bases in southern Iraq by April 2006
Strange how bombs start going off in countries when they decide to withdraw from Iraq?

Isn't it?

The people claiming to have done this say that it's vengance for the UK's role in the occupation.

What are the chances of the UK withdrawing now?

Seems to me that these bombs are having an opposite effect to their supposed intention, galvanising the country into the 'war on terror'.

[synch]

Interesting point.

Scary implications.

[synch]

I suggest returning to this board when you've grown some pubic hair.And don't start a sure shots thread about it valvano.

[franscar]

Is this what you would say to someone who just blew up your best friend with a subway bomb? "I want to know your feelings, I want to know why you did it, I want you to think about your feelings so you will know you were misguided." To comitted killers your compassion (I suspect feigned in this case) is your biggest weakness.

No. I was asking why someone would choose to hurl smug political rhetoric about when 50 people are dead. Why he would throw loose, misguided rubbish at the citizens of a country that are now dead, dying, wounded, because their government followed the will of Bush that he seems to support.

I notice that as soon as he's asked for his own thoughts, his own opinions and his own feelings, he disappears.

[Parkey]

Is this what you would say to someone who just blew up your best friend with a subway bomb? "I want to know your feelings, I want to know why you did it, I want you to think about your feelings so you will know you were misguided." To comitted killers your compassion (I suspect feigned in this case) is your biggest weakness.

You do talk some bollocks. If that's how you wish to operate, I suppose we should dispense with a judicial system as it looks on murders etc. with the detachment of an onlooker rather than those involved. In future let's allow a murdered individual's family decide what should happen to the murderer.

Utter wank.

[valvano]

This shit is a DIRECT RESULT of the use of "greater force" by the US and UK governments. Violence begets violence. The harder you hit them, the harder they hit back.



so, we need to just sit still when terrorist hit, or maybe we can get the UN to pass a resolution....yeah, those resolutions work great, terrorists have a great history of honoring them

[Parkey]

so, we need to just sit still when terrorist hit, or maybe we can get the UN to pass a resolution....yeah, those resolutions work great, terrorists have a great history of honoring them
The utter lack of compassion you showed yesterday for the people of London, getting all high and mighty whilst a nation was reeling from shock, has rendered everything you have to say on the matter totally empty.

So to paraphrase your above statement; "I'm a wanker, oh yes I am!"

[synch]

And there were tied between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
No there weren't, assuming you are saying that there were ties between them.

Thanks to you lot there are now though.

[synch]

Could you direct some proper insults towards me please? You are merely confusing me with that and I have no clue how to retort against such nonsense.

[Jasonik]

Strange how bombs start going off in countries when they decide to withdraw from Iraq?

Isn't it?

The people claiming to have done this say that it's vengance for the UK's role in the occupation.

What are the chances of the UK withdrawing now?

Seems to me that these bombs are having an opposite effect to their supposed intention, galvanising the country into the 'war on terror'.

Yeah, trying to understand why muslim extremists would bomb London doesn't seem too promising.

Fearful? Confused? Suspicious?

Give into it or not, they will do what they do. Your response is all you can control.

Hate, anger and frustration are what we're fighting.

[WhoMoi?]

Ha!

Hasn't provoked us? What are you talking about? They broke over 11 UN resolutions. And there were tied between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

We are talking about terrorism here.
Iraq didn't terrorize us. I was arguing with someone who seems to think that invading Iraq was a great response to us being terrorized on 9/11.

I'm aware that Hussein was an awful, sick person who was terrible to his people and those of nearby nations, and did not adhere to UN resolutions. It's probably true that the Iraqi people will be better off with their new government and without his messed up regime, in the (very) long run.
But saying we went there in the name of fighting terrorism is not true, and does not make sense. It was Al Qaeda that terrorized us, and Al Qaeda and Iraq are not one in the same; Al Qaeda has cells in and links to many other nations, and aside from Afghanistan, we've not attacked those nations.

[valvano]

maybe to fight terrorism we should:
1. ask starbucks to create a coffee to raise awareness of it
2. get moveon.org to organize a concert ala live-8
3. get harvard to create a special studies program
4. create some blogs
5. tell peta that terrrorists practice their weapons on dogs and get them to send pamela anderson over there to protest it
6. tell anarchist that the terrorists secretly control the numerous franchises of mcdonalds and gaps, that will get them to start protesting the terrorists instead of protesting those fighting the terrorists

and, if all else fells,
we can tell Jesse Jackson that the terrorists refuse to give money to his rainbow coalition

since you all are opposed to actually fighting the terrorists head on since it only makes them madder :eek: maybe we should try some of these non-violent methods

(y)

[synch]

Invading Iraq because of al quaeda is like invading finland because of abba.

[Burnout18]

Strange how bombs start going off in countries when they decide to withdraw from Iraq?

Isn't it?



No, not really.... i don't there is a conection.

Cause if there was a connection between the statements on 3/4 and the actions on 7/7, then where was the attack in America. The article you posted reports an American general says pullout from american troops can fall within the same time fromae as british troops.

[Qdrop]

maybe to fight terrorism we should:
1. ask starbucks to create a coffee to raise awareness of it
2. get moveon.org to organize a concert ala live-8
3. get harvard to create a special studies program
4. create some blogs
5. tell peta that terrrorists practice their weapons on dogs and get them to send pamela anderson over there to protest it
6. tell anarchist that the terrorists secretly control the numerous franchises of mcdonalds and gaps, that will get them to start protesting the terrorists instead of protesting those fighting the terrorists

and, if all else fells,
we can tell Jesse Jackson that the terrorists refuse to give money to his rainbow coalition


gotta admit...

that's pretty funny stuff....and accurate.

while i find sisko to be a complete fucktard...and valvano is 80% off the mark and a simplistic jingoist.....

i do understand the rights anger toward the left surrounding instances like these.

Liberals never DO or want to DO anything about such events.
they want to point fingers...wag fingers (told you so...violence begets violence!), put the blame everywhere EXCEPT on the actual perpatrators, and start some more blogs about conspiracy theories....
-which is maddenning.

while the right's responses are usually knee jerk and dangerous...they are still ACTIONS. they are attempts to DO something...

but i usually find both sides to be way off the mark....

[Qdrop]

That's the problem with you right wing idiots, you're all a bunch of hypocrites. Two weeks from now you'll be exploiting this tragedy.


i wonder if michael moore is now looking to film a movie "Big Ben 7-7"

[D_Raay]

maybe to fight terrorism we should:
1. ask starbucks to create a coffee to raise awareness of it
2. get moveon.org to organize a concert ala live-8
3. get harvard to create a special studies program
4. create some blogs
5. tell peta that terrrorists practice their weapons on dogs and get them to send pamela anderson over there to protest it
6. tell anarchist that the terrorists secretly control the numerous franchises of mcdonalds and gaps, that will get them to start protesting the terrorists instead of protesting those fighting the terrorists

and, if all else fells,
we can tell Jesse Jackson that the terrorists refuse to give money to his rainbow coalition

since you all are opposed to actually fighting the terrorists head on since it only makes them madder :eek: maybe we should try some of these non-violent methods

(y)

Suit up then brother and stop wasting our time with your hyperbolic rhetoric. Don't preach to people with reason and common sense. Our government (and others) have put us in this position. You either put up or shut up, so to speak. If you believed what you expect us to believe you wouldn't be posting on the BEASTIE BOYS message board.

Personally, I would have no faith in humanity if no one in power sought peaceful non violent solutions to the problem of terrorism.

BTW, wtf does live 8 have to do with terrorism? It was organized to help with starvation in Africa.

[Qdrop]

The mainstream media is no longer going to be looking at Karl Rove as Valerie Plame's leaker.
.

very tragic...that fuckin snake.

[D_Raay]

Fox on London Attacks:

Brit Hume thinks it's time to invest:
I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."

Kilmeade thinks the attacks were a good thing for the Western world:
And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

The day before the attack, Fox's Gidson wrote:
So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.

Which is why he wrote yesterday that it would be good if France was bombed:
The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

Even though the attacks were targeted at Arab areas of London, finally Fox assures us that Arabs living in London are not real Londoners:
these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of nonarab people living in London.
This is about as offensive as coverage can get.

[valvano]

Personally, I would have no faith in humanity if no one in power sought peaceful non violent solutions to the problem of terrorism.

BTW, wtf does live 8 have to do with terrorism? It was organized to help with starvation in Africa.

Because peaceful non violent solutions to terrorisms are about as effective as Live 8 will be (and Live Aid was) in solving the problems of Africa.......


Guess what, terrroist only understand one thing, bloodshed.

[D_Raay]

Because peaceful non violent solutions to terrorisms are about as effective as Live 8 will be (and Live Aid was) in solving the problems of Africa.......


Guess what, terrroist only understand one thing, bloodshed.
So terrorists are somehow, sub human, you are saying? They have no thoughts, no feelings, no reason, just mindless ORGANIZED bloodshed and mayhem?
Can you prove to me that Al-Quaeda even exists? That Bin Laden is not dead? That Zarquawi is really the boogeyman?

If we don't question the how's and why's of these tragedies we let the "real" terrorists win, whoever they may be, be it really AL Quaeda or something much more disturbing.

[Qdrop]

Because peaceful non violent solutions to terrorisms are about as effective as Live 8 will be (and Live Aid was) in solving the problems of Africa.......


Guess what, terrroist only understand one thing, bloodshed.

i really hate agreeing with this fucker....

but shit.....


there really isn't going to be any quick or bloodless solution to the growing terrorist threat.

electing a democrat and getting an ALL democrat congress wouldn't fix it either.

the entire country switching to hydrogen fuel in the next 25 years wouldn't fix it either.

pulling every american military post out of foriegn land wouldn't stop it....nor would closing down every foriegn McDonalds....

i really feel like Liberals are way off base when they think they understand why terrorists do what they do....
they think that the western world purely brings this upon ourselves through our own selfish actions...and now we pay the price.
if we just fixed our foreign policies....terrorism would disapear....

they so OVERestimate terrorists intentions....and UNDERestimate thier resolve...

terrorists (particulary the sects we are dealing with) are FAR more primal then any liberal humanist would dare to believe....

[Parkey]

I can now see why the death penalty has lasted so long in the US whilst dissapearing in almost every other 'Western' country.

[valvano]

So terrorists are somehow, sub human, you are saying? They have no thoughts, no feelings, no reason, just mindless ORGANIZED bloodshed and mayhem?
Can you prove to me that Al-Quaeda even exists? That Bin Laden is not dead? That Zarquawi is really the boogeyman?

If we don't question the how's and why's of these tragedies we let the "real" terrorists win, whoever they may be, be it really AL Quaeda or something much more disturbing.

you know, when the allies defeated the axis in wwii, truman didnt say "death to all the germans and japanese, praise God, may our enemies blood run in the streets"

I don't give a fuck what their thoughts and feelings are, all I know is that they want to kill whomever doesnt agree with them. If you want to have a warm and fuzzy strategy to terrorism, you will be cleaning up your guts of the streets of wherever you live. You really want to get cozy up to those who send others to be human bombs (especially children) and try to understand them and come to an agreement with them? If so, you are a dumb mf.

And yes, I'dsay right now terrorists are the closest thing we have to a real life bogeyman, (next to the IRS)

[Qdrop]

I can now see why the death penalty has lasted so long in the US whilst dissapearing in almost every other 'Western' country.

american culture is unlike any other in the world....for better or worse.

we are more violent...and quite knee-jerk in reaction....

but we also have rather engrained instinct to react, unite, and attack...be it militarily or economically...

this is why we are violent and abrasive.....this is also why we are the lone superpower in the world...and have been for almost 100 years.

we are like Mike Tyson of the 87-91....brutal, dangerous, not overly intelligent....but supremely successful.

[Freebasser]

this is also why we are the lone superpower in the world...and have been for almost 100 years.

Ever heard of a magical land called China? Or the fable of the USSR?

[Parkey]

american culture is unlike any other in the world....for better or worse.

we are more violent...and quite knee-jerk in reaction....

but we also have rather engrained instinct to react, unite, and attack...be it militarily or economically...

this is why we are violent and abrasive.....this is also why we are the lone superpower in the world...and have been for almost 100 years.

we are like Mike Tyson of the 87-91....brutal, dangerous, not overly intelligent....but supremely successful.
I think that's a very fair generalisation and I don't want anyone thinking I'm some kind of Anti-American knobhead. I really do pride having such close relations with America, on a personal and national level.

But sometimes I just don't understand you all!

[franscar]

Ha!

Hasn't provoked us? What are you talking about? They broke over 11 UN resolutions. And there were tied between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Regardless of the fact you are talking out of your back end regarding Al Qaeda's links to Iraq, you've spent nearly four years blowing up two countries and yet STILL there are people out there who can blow up my capital city.

You're* supposed to be the army of the richest, mightiest, most powerful nation on earth, and you're letting a bunch of towel-headed infidels make you look like a set of incompetent retards. The man you seem to hold in such high regard is being made to look like a fool by a Saudi Arabian in a cave. And the citizens of my country, old and young, rich and poor, black and white, religious and couldn't give a toss-us, are paying the price. So yeah, you're right, lets keep blowing shit up, it's worked like a charm so far.

*by this I mean you, as a supporter of the U.S. policies vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan, not the sane, moral Americans of which there are many. Thankfully.

[valvano]

hey Parkey,
If it werent for us death penalty loving gun toting Yanks, you guys and the French would be goosestepping right now. along with the rest of Europe.

Thanks God WWII ended the way it did, otherwise I would never have been able to enjoy my favorite British export.....

THE WHO

:)

[Qdrop]

Ever heard of a magical land called China?

and they're doing what they're doing by economically mimicking the US and our free market system....and exploiting thier massive human resources....

they are still lightyears behind us and everyone on technology....

and they are so intertwined with us financially and economically....you could never really call either the US or China the "winner".....we've become 2 heads on the same beast....

[Parkey]

hey Parkey,
If it werent for us death penalty loving gun toting Yanks, you guys and the French would be goosestepping right now. along with the rest of Europe.

Thanks God WWII ended the way it did, otherwise I would never have been able to enjoy my favorite British export.....

THE WHO

:)
Ha!

[valvano]

Ever heard of a magical land called China? Or the fable of the USSR?

You mean China, whose power is built upon the supression of its people,

or the USSR, that was built upon a failed social/economic scheme?

the USA aint perfect, but all these countires that diss us, which country do they turn to when the shit hits the fan? thats right....

[Freebasser]

hey Parkey,
If it werent for us death penalty loving gun toting Yanks, you guys and the French would be goosestepping right now. along with the rest of Europe.

Thanks God WWII ended the way it did, otherwise I would never have been able to enjoy my favorite British export.....

THE WHO

:)

You're a complete tool.

The U.S. was too scared to enter the war, even though they knew Hitler had long term plans to invade. The UK sat freezing it's arse off all alone for the best part of the war, and you guys show up and "save the day", or rather Japan wouldn't listen to Germany, got greedy and bombed you, and that scared your government out of hiding.

Fuck - the Russians did more than you did, and lost millions more people in the process.

[Qdrop]

hey Parkey,
If it werent for us death penalty loving gun toting Yanks, you guys and the French would be goosestepping right now. along with the rest of Europe.

Thanks God WWII ended the way it did...


the US is the reason it ended the way it did.

and this is why:
american culture is unlike any other in the world....for better or worse.

we are more violent...and quite knee-jerk in reaction....

but we also have rather engrained instinct to react, unite, and attack...be it militarily or economically...

this is why we are violent and abrasive.....this is also why we are the lone superpower in the world...and have been for almost 100 years.

we are like Mike Tyson of the 87-91....brutal, dangerous, not overly intelligent....but supremely successful.

sometimes, our crazy, violent american ways....can come in handy.

[Qdrop]

You're a complete tool.

The U.S. was too scared to enter the war, even though they knew Hitler had long term plans to invade. The UK sat freezing it's arse off all alone for the best part of the war, and you guys show up and "save the day", or rather Japan wouldn't listen to Germany, got greedy and bombed you, and that scared your government out of hiding.

Fuck - the Russians did more than you did, and lost millions more people in the process.

you just gotta love the "ungrateful europeon" speech about WW2.

"we would have won anyway...without you yanks...Russia would have taken care of it..."

whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Qdrop]

Fuck - the Russians did more than you did, and lost millions more people in the process.

since when does a higher body count on your own side make you a better military?

[Freebasser]

Putting words in my mouth again Bradddd?


I'm thankful for the US help in the Western push, but at the same time the fact is your Government refused to enter the war, whilst innocent people died, and knowing that Hitler had plans to invade your shores.

[franscar]

you just gotta love the "ungrateful europeon" speech about WW2.

"we would have won anyway...without you yanks...Russia would have taken care of it..."

whatever helps you sleep at night.

But it's true. By invading Russia Hitler over-extended his supply lines. He couldn't possibly keep two fronts operating, he lacked the manpower and the resources. Once Stalingrad was held, the war was over.

The U.S.' role in bringing the war to a conclusion in Europe is appreciated, but it certainly is incredibly overstated.

[bb_bboy]

there really isn't going to be any quick or bloodless solution to the growing terrorist threat

I really don't understand how there is going to be any solution at all, no matter what the approach is. People talk about "terrorists" and "terrorism" as if there is some central headquarters, mainframe, etc. that could be destroyed and cause all future attacks to cease. I think that this is obviously not true. The hierarchy seems to be poorly understood, and the hierarchical structure seems to usually be inapplicable. Violent means of dealing with terrorists are certainly going to breed new violence. Non-violent approaches towards the same goal are usually laughable. Intelligence gathering appears to be the most appropriate route to take in order to prevent/avoid these attacks. But, we've seen how well that that works.

[Parkey]

The problem with the WW2 issue is that America only got involved when they were threatened. It was done out of the good of their hearts.

[Freebasser]

since when does a higher body count on your own side make you a better military?

I really am getting fed up of you putting words in my mouth in an attempt to disprove what I say.

Where did I say this?

LOL our military was b8r than urs cos we lost mor men.

I said the Russians lost more people than anyone to prove that the U.S. wasn't the only reason WW2 wasn't won by the Axis.

[Qdrop]

Putting words in my mouth again Bradddd?


I'm thankful for the US help in the Western push, but at the same time the fact is your Government refused to enter the war, whilst innocent people died, so do you support military action when a dictator attacks foriegn lands (saddam-persian gulf war), or when they kill innocents in thier own country (saddam again)...or no? or should one stay neutral?

should a country take a stand?....or keep our yanky grubby hands out of it?

which is it?

and knowing that Hitler had plans to invade your shores. interesting....show me where you got that....

[Qdrop]

The problem with the WW2 issue is that America only got involved when they were threatened. It was done out of the good of their hearts.

i ask you as well:

should america get involved in worldly affairs of other dictators...or should we stay out of it and not be so "imperialistic"?

my point here is that europeans (not necessarily you) seem to talk out of both sides of there mouths historically on this issue.

they say that we were cowardly and neutral in the face of a dangerous dictator in WW2 until we were forced into it with pearl harbor.

then they talk about how any pre-emptive strikes against foriegn dictators is just an excuse to imperialize the world.

which is it?

[Freebasser]

so do you support military action when a dictator attacks foriegn lands (saddam-persian gulf war), or when they kill innocents in thier own country (saddam again)...or no? or should one stay neutral?

should a country take a stand?....or keep our yanky grubby hands out of it?

which is it?

interesting....show me where you got that....

Try reading "The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich" by William L. Shirer.

He was a historian who gained full access to the secret German Archives which the Allies captured post-war and was present at the Nuremburg Trials.

He basically explains how Germany had signed a treaty with Japan to keep America at bay whilst they dealt with the Russians and the Brits and how America knew this.

[bb_bboy]

The U.S. was too scared to enter the war, even though they knew Hitler had long term plans to invade.

They used to call this isolationism. It would be nice if we still followed it to to a small degree.

[Burnout18]

Keep in mind that in America in the late 30's and early 40's, there was an anti-war population (kind of like the anti-war population today). Which is why America had waited (or even allowed itself) to be attacked.

Also, The extent of the disgusting atrocities going on the concentration camps was not fully realised until after WWII when the camps were liberated. So that crosses out that reason to join the war.

[bb_bboy]

... (or even allowed itself) to be attacked.

That seems like a stretch but my ears are open as to your thoughts on this. I don't think you would have snuck it in the parentheses without some conviction behind it...

[franscar]

That seems like a stretch but my ears are open as to your thoughts on this. I don't think you would have snuck it in the parentheses without some conviction behind it...

There's a school of thought that seems to have gained more credibility in the last few years that claims that the U.S. government wanted to enter the war, but feared the popular reaction at the time, and hence they either engineered the Pearl Harbour attack or at least had prior knowledge of it, thus swinging popular consensus among Americans and allowing the U.S. to enter the war in Europe.

[bb_bboy]

There's a school of thought that seems to have gained more credibility in the last few years that claims that the U.S. government wanted to enter the war, but feared the popular reaction at the time, and hence they either engineered the Pearl Harbour attack or at least had prior knowledge of it, thus swinging popular consensus among Americans and allowing the U.S. to enter the war in Europe.

I think that I had heard that but forgotten it. A stimulus for the military-industrial complex, or something like that, I assume.

[franscar]

I think that I had heard that but forgotten it. A stimulus for the military-industrial complex, or something like that, I assume.

Sceptics believe the only reason the Americans wanted to get involved was so they could have a say in the affairs of Europe after the war was over. Them pesky Commies etc etc.

[Qdrop]

yeah...jesus.
fuck both of you if you beleive that shit.

people like you make me want to be a republican sometimes...

[franscar]

yeah...jesus.
fuck both of you if you beleive that shit.

people like you make me want to be a republican sometimes...

Who said anything about believing it? Looks like you read what you want to read from anyone's posts from the state of this thread. Good luck with that.

[Qdrop]

Who said anything about believing it? Looks like you read what you want to read from anyone's posts from the state of this thread. Good luck with that.

right.
so classic.

"hey..i didn't say that i beleive it...i was just bringing it up....you're putting words in my mouth."

people should just say what they think instead of hiding behind thinly vieled conversation, inuendos, and loose diatribe.

it's like Foxnew's "people are saying...." bullshit.

[valvano]

Intelligence gathering appears to be the most appropriate route to take in order to prevent/avoid these attacks. But, we've seen how well that that works.

I agree whole heartedly. Touchy feeling approaches will not work, and head to head fighting will only keep things in place due to the underground nature of terrorists.

If a marketer in Oregon knows the deodarant preferences of 1000 shoppers in New Jersey, then why in the hell can't our stupid govt do more effective intelligence on these animals instead of sitting around with their tumbs up their ass?

:mad:

[franscar]

right.
so classic.

"hey..i didn't say that i beleive it...i was just bringing it up....you're putting words in my mouth."

Someone asked about the theory that someone else bought up. I expanded on the original comment for them. Does this present a problem to you?

I have no idea why the U.S. entered the war, I learned about the British role in the war at school, I prefer to read up on the Russian side of the conflict myself, so I have no cast iron opinions on why the U.S. entered the war. My knowledge is incomplete. Happy enough with that?

[Qdrop]

Someone asked about the theory that someone else bought up. I expanded on the original comment for them. Does this present a problem to you?

I have no idea why the U.S. entered the war, I learned about the British role in the war at school, I prefer to read up on the Russian side of the conflict myself, so I have no cast iron opinions on why the U.S. entered the war. My knowledge is incomplete. Happy enough with that?

plenty.

is that your dog in your avatar?

[franscar]

plenty.

is that your dog in your avatar?

No. My dog is a cross-alsatian, this one I just use for the internet. Chicks dig it.

[Freebasser]

right.
so classic.

"hey..i didn't say that i beleive it...i was just bringing it up....you're putting words in my mouth."

people should just say what they think instead of hiding behind thinly vieled conversation, inuendos, and loose diatribe.

it's like Foxnew's "people are saying...." bullshit.

Your whole argumentative schtick revolves around your constant distortion of people's views, picking out the parts you like, that you believe you can twist around to make it seem like people are saying things they quite clearly aren't.

Do you think perhaps that maybe people suggest you put words in your mouth because that's what you actually do?

Other people can quite clearly see that you are doing this. You must really be blinkered if you can't see this. We all know how much you think of your own opinions, as you regularly state that they are the only ones that matter.

[synch]

right.
so classic.

"hey..i didn't say that i beleive it...i was just bringing it up....you're putting words in my mouth."

people should just say what they think instead of hiding behind thinly vieled conversation, inuendos, and loose diatribe.

it's like Foxnew's "people are saying...." bullshit.

I've highlighted the key words for you Q.

There's a school of thought that seems to have gained more credibility in the last few years that claims that the U.S. government wanted to enter the war, but feared the popular reaction at the time, and hence they either engineered the Pearl Harbour attack or at least had prior knowledge of it, thus swinging popular consensus among Americans and allowing the U.S. to enter the war in Europe.
I know people often do as you describe but don't jump on everyone as if they are an idiot and give 'em the benefit of the doubt. He didn't say anything about believing it, someone asked a question and he answered it.

Chill out man, you are being a bit of an ass in this thread. I'm used to you being opinionated but you usually are in a way that makes sense.

[Qdrop]

Your whole argumentative schtick revolves around your constant distortion of people's views, picking out the parts you like, that you believe you can twist around to make it seem like people are saying things they quite clearly aren't.

Do you think perhaps that maybe people suggest you put words in your mouth because that's what you actually do?

Other people can quite clearly see that you are doing this. You must really be blinkered if you can't see this. We all know how much you think of your own opinions, as you regularly state that they are the only ones that matter.

you're like a broken record man. you bring this same retort back everytime we argue..."i didn't say that...you're putting words in my mouth..blah blah..."
when you've only to go back a few posts and see exactly what you said.

i mean, shit...do i seriously have to go back to your quotes about the russian army and re-post them to show where you clearly implied what i said?

synch: i'm just reacting to what i'm reading...whenever shit like this goes down...the liberals and europeans start the bush/blair/conservative bashing and the american bashing...and start spouting off about what should be done about the terrorists and who really is to blame...
it always "hey what the terrorists did was terrible, HOWEVER..." then on the anti-american imperialism diatribe.

is that what everyone in this thread is saying?
no.
but i can see it starting to boil up again....

it forces you take a side and not want to take any shit from people....
if i come off as being an aggressive cock...i really don't care.
you know by now i couldn't give 2 shits about making friends or keeping the peace on this board.

[Freebasser]

i mean, shit...do i seriously have to go back to your quotes about the russian army and re-post them to show where you clearly implied what i said?


Go for it.

[synch]

synch: i'm just reacting to what i'm reading...whenever shit like this goes down...the liberals and europeans start the bush/blair/conservative bashing and the american bashing...and start spouting off about what should be done about the terrorists and who really is to blame...
it always "hey what the terrorists did was terrible, HOWEVER..." then on the anti-american imperialism diatribe.

is that what everyone in this thread is saying?
no.
but i can see it starting to boil up again....

it forces you take a side and not want to take any shit from people....
if i come off as been an agressive cock...i really don't care.
you know by now i couldn't give 2 shits about making friends or keeping the peace on this board.My post wasn't about "making friends" or "keeping the peace".

Like I said, I'm used to you being arguementative, sometimes leaning left, sometimes leaning right, usually making sense. In essence we probably still agree on most of this but I'm pretty dissapointed to see you join the "you'd be goose stepping and speaking german if it wasn't for us" choir. You are normally smarter than that.

[Qdrop]

Go for it.

oh for the love of god...

--------------




Fuck - the Russians did more than you did, and lost millions more people in the process.

since when does a higher body count on your own side make you a better military?

I really am getting fed up of you putting words in my mouth in an attempt to disprove what I say.

Where did I say this?


umm....gee...hold on:




Fuck - the Russians did more than you did, and lost millions more people in the process.

only to be accented by franscar:

But it's true. By invading Russia Hitler over-extended his supply lines. He couldn't possibly keep two fronts operating, he lacked the manpower and the resources. Once Stalingrad was held, the war was over.

The U.S.' role in bringing the war to a conclusion in Europe is appreciated, but it certainly is incredibly overstated.

[Freebasser]

Congratulations - you just made yourself look stupider than I think you've ever done before.

[Qdrop]

Like I said, I'm used to you being arguementative, sometimes leaning left, sometimes leaning right, usually making sense. In essence we probably still agree on most of this but I'm pretty dissapointed to see you join the "you'd be goose stepping and speaking german if it wasn't for us" choir. You are normally smarter than that.

while i don't think that the US could have beaten Hitler on thier own...
i do not believe that the allied powers would have won with US intervention...
it's wild speculation....but even IF russia had managed to turn the tied...it's doubtful that they would have pressed on to Berlin.

and need we forget the other extremely important aspect of the US inolvment....our virtual OWNING of the rebuilding process in europe.

i mean, fucking A...france got thier asses whipped in like a week....Britian was just a sitting duck under bombing barragment....I mean, for a time Russia was an enemy by arrangment (or neutral to britian anyway)....until hitler turned on them...

[Qdrop]

Congratulations - you just made yourself look stupider than I think you've ever done before.

you got owned. (but i can't WAIT to see you wiggle your way out of it: "what i meant by my statement was...blah blah...." )
shut up and swallow it.

i'm off for the weekend, you little crossdresser...

talk to you on monday...

oh, and for the onlookers:


I said the Russians lost more people than anyone to prove that the U.S. wasn't the only reason WW2 wasn't won by the Axis.

^ that was added well after the fact to cover his ass.

[franscar]

Well that was a pointless little bluster completely off the topic.

[Qdrop]

Well that was a pointless little bluster completely off the topic.
you're absolutely right.

this is about terrorism in london...and we we're being selfish.
sorry.

[Freebasser]

That's what happens when right wingers get rattled (y)

I'm such a cross dresser that my girlfriend put the make-up on my face and we laughed and took a photo and then I wiped the make-up off and said "haha that was stupid".

Fucking hell I'm such a homosexual. I'm so sorry, Bradd, that you wouldn't be able to put make-up on as a joke with your girlfriend because you'd instantly turn into a gay.

FUCK I NEED TO GO OUT AND BUY PLATFORM BOOTS LOL.

I seriously can't believe you're older than me.

[synch]

while i don't think that the US could have beaten Hitler on thier own...
i do not believe that the allied powers would have won with US intervention...
it's wild speculation....but even IF russia had managed to turn the tied...it's doubtful that they would have pressed on to Berlin.

and need we forget the other extremely important aspect of the US inolvment....our virtual OWNING of the rebuilding process in europe.

i mean, fucking A...france got thier asses whipped in like a week....Britian was just a sitting duck under bombing barragment....I mean, for a time Russia was an enemy by arrangment (or neutral to britian anyway)....until hitler turned on them...
Jesus Q, I'm not talking about whether it's true or not, I'm talking about how it's a typical anti-european bullshit arguement that idiotic americans pull out of the closet (and I'm being nice here) in order to prove a point when that entire topic normally has a marginal relevance to the subject at hand.

[D_Raay]

Q you are deliberately putting words in people's mouths and taking them out of context. No offense but true.

I understood what free meant the first time I read it and you interpreted it differently for your own (amusement?).

Perhaps you are a fan of Mike Tyson?

[D_Raay]

I agree whole heartedly. Touchy feeling approaches will not work, and head to head fighting will only keep things in place due to the underground nature of terrorists.

That's not what you said before...

If you had , I wouldn't have argued with you.

[D_Raay]

Even if one accepts the London attacks at face value, the only conclusion that one can come to is that Bush and Blair have totally failed to make our nations safer. All the harassment, intrusive searches, confiscated nail clippers, loss of civil rights, titty-gropes, looted luggage, ALL of it, is totally ineffective. None of it works. Despite all the TV cameras all over London, the"terrorists" (if that's what they were) walked right onto that bus and those trains, set their bombs down on the floors and seats, and walked right off without being seen.

Bush and Blair have failed in their promise that a war on terror would make us safer. Clearly, it has not,and the time has come to dump both Bush and Blair and seek an alternative.

The fastest way to stop terror is to quit screwing around with other peoples' countries

[Burnout18]

That seems like a stretch but my ears are open as to your thoughts on this. I don't think you would have snuck it in the parentheses without some conviction behind it...

What i meant by "allowing itself to be attacked" was FDR did know about some sort of hawaiian attack but did nothing to prevent the attack and used it as an excuse to get into WWII....im not saying it was a crazy conspiracy theory because thats what they are teaching now in school..... but you all have a grasp of world history you can make your own assumptions (thats why i left it in parentheses)

[yeahwho]

London can stage a massive demonstration of conscience, win the Olympics, get blown up, chair the G8 and still report to work on Friday.

Plus take the time to tell the US to fuck off.

Fuck You Fox News Homos.

This is about a bunch of Greedy MF's who want to take over the Middle East, from within (House o' Saud) and without (everyfuckingbody else).

I'm still trying to figure out how Saddam ordered these attacks imprisoned in his Dorito tainted undies?

[Documad]

There's a school of thought that seems to have gained more credibility in the last few years that claims that the U.S. government wanted to enter the war, but feared the popular reaction at the time, and hence they either engineered the Pearl Harbour attack or at least had prior knowledge of it, thus swinging popular consensus among Americans and allowing the U.S. to enter the war in Europe.
It's not a new school of thought. My elderly mom has always believed it. There were a bunch of conspiracy-minded books that trashed FDR many decades ago. They say FDR knew about the impending attack and did nothing, he could have somehow stopped the banks from failing before he was president but did nothing, and that he drank the blood of babies or something. Strikingly similar stuff to the anti-Clinton nonsense books that had Hilary murdering Vince Foster. I've never seen anything to back up the Pearl Harbor stuff.

The US was a complete mess when WWII started and WWI was incredibly unpopular. Once the allies got going it was amazing. It could not have been done without any of the three. The US paid the smallest price and gained the most, but we still fucking rocked (once we got there). :D Eddie Izzard does a hilarious bit on this.

I still get choked up when I think of what England went through in the blitz, and what Russia went through (from the Nazis and her own sick leader who starved his people). My favorite footage from World at War is when those Russian skier soldiers all dressed in white come to the rescue of Stalingrad. That and any time Churchill spoke.

Anyhow, I haven't been able to watch much news and I didn't read the paper. I tend to go into a shell for a few days when I can't deal. When I do think about it, I can't help but flashback on the footage of London during WWII and Churchill walking amid the ruins. I know it's insane but it makes me feel better because London's been through worse. I feel guilty too, because this wouldn't have happened if you Brits weren't our best friends.

I hope you all keep your wits about you. We did better than I thought we would. Shame on anyone who tries to take political advantage of this.

[Documad]

London can stage a massive demonstration of conscience, win the Olympics, get blown up, chair the G8 and still report to work on Friday.

Plus take the time to tell the US to fuck off.

Fuck You Fox News Homos.
:) I didn't think I could laugh about this, but now I did.

[yeahwho]

:) I didn't think I could laugh about this, but now I did.

I Love LONDON! I'm booking my next holiday there. Those Londonders are awesome.

[ms.peachy]

London can stage a massive demonstration of conscience, win the Olympics, get blown up, chair the G8 and still report to work on Friday.

Plus take the time to tell the US to fuck off.

Fuck You Fox News Homos.


Ha ha, too right!

Watching CNN coverage last night was doing my head in. If they are typical of how this episode is being reported in the US, what whacked picture you guys are getting. Everything was being told with all the syrupy sentimentality of the most cloying Hallmark card. One fellow by the name of Anderson Cooper seems to be particularly useless toolhead, in his 'reporting from the street' about how London is 'struggling back to normality'. People here have a much more sanguine attitude (it ain't called "bloody mindedness" for nothing, you know) and don't go in for that "On that day we were all British" crapola. There's no need for soft focus, slow motion photo montages either. What a bunch of tripe.

[Mr_Complex]

What a completely digusting topic. It seems like not one thought was spared for the missing and the dead. This was just an excuse for a petty, pointless argument.

A good friend of mine has a brother missing in London. I knew Rich, but I didn't know him well but we've spoken a few times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4664633.stm

He only lives down the road. It is such a tragedy. I am praying for him.

[ms.peachy]

What a completely digusting topic. It seems like not one thought was spared for the missing and the dead. This was just an excuse for a petty, pointless argument.

A good friend of mine has a brother missing in London. I knew Rich, but I didn't know him well but we've spoken a few times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4664633.stm

He only lives down the road. It is such a tragedy. I am praying for him.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend's brother.

But I think in regard to this thread, you may be overreacting. This is a political discussion forum, and there is no reason why people can't argue about the politics of this situation here. Yes some people have been less than sensitive in their responses but that's life. No point in getting upset about people having stupid arguments or being thoughtless in this forum, else we'd all just be uspet about it all the time. Let the little things go, mate - life's too precious.

[Mr_Complex]

I'm not angry over the thread at all. I know better than getting worked up over something on the internet. It's just that my mate must be going through hell. Rich is connected to me and even my fiance, so a lot of people must be agonising about his whereabouts. We live in a relatively small community and it's such a shock when someone is involved in something like this so close to home.

[ms.peachy]

I'm not angry over the thread at all. I know better than getting worked up over something on the internet. It's just that my mate must be going through hell. Rich is connected to me and even my fiance, so a lot of people must be agonising about his whereabouts. We live in a relatively small community and it's such a shock when someone is involved in something like this so close to home.

It's fair enough to be concerned about your friend and how this affects your community and all, and of course that is only right. But your first statement was
What a completely digusting topic. It seems like not one thought was spared for the missing and the dead. This was just an excuse for a petty, pointless argument.

which I think is unfair. Are people supposed to not talk about it? Or only talk about it in a way that suits how you personally are feeling? You don't know that no one had a thought for the dead, missing and injured - all you know is that it isn't the focus of this particular discussion, at least not all of the way through. Kind of a rush to judgement, is all I'm saying.

I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just pointing out that that first outburst seemed to be a bit of an overstatement.

I do hope your friend's family gets good news soon.

[yeahwho]

I'm not angry over the thread at all. I know better than getting worked up over something on the internet. It's just that my mate must be going through hell. Rich is connected to me and even my fiance, so a lot of people must be agonising about his whereabouts. We live in a relatively small community and it's such a shock when someone is involved in something like this so close to home.

Mr._Complex, my deepest sympathy and apoligies if my bombast in anyway offended you, once again I realize how my flippant disregard for those who are directly affected can bite me on the ass. It is easy to sit here in the comfort of my home and armchair the events thousands of miles away.

If I offended you or any your friends and family who must actually live this tragedy, I am truly sorry and apologize.

[Mr_Complex]

Maybe I did over-react and, to be honest, I didn't really read the whole thread. Just scanning over it. It is freedom of speech, of course.

yeahwho, don't worry about your comments. It's just that a lot of people in Southampton and people who are close to me are effected by this at the moment.

[venusvenus123]

i'm sure you didn't overreact. i'm very sorry for your loss Mister C and i can understand your deep feelings of shock over the event.

the BBMB probably isn't the best place to come to make yourself feel any better...there are a lot of petty arguments going on in this thread, which seemed to go completely off topic somewhere in the middle.

i appreciate (all of) yeahwho's comments tho, especially the one about London telling the US to fuck off ... it IS easy to have lofty ideals when you're a million miles away in a location which is very unlikely to have any terrorist attacks, ever. London has been the victim of a lot of attacks over the years and we get used to the fact that you can't dispose of your litter on the underground, because a while back the bins were potential hiding places for IRA bombs. there isn't a lot that security can do to stop a person loaded with explosives strapped to his body walking on a bus tho.

sadly there also isn't a lot we can do to change the direction of global politics right now. even in our general election, it was tony, or the tories who definitely would be towing the bush line.

at least since thursday tony made some sensible comment about understanding one another's ideologies being the only way forward in this world.

[franscar]

20,000 people enjoying their Saturday night out in Birmingham have been evacuated from the major entertainment areas of the city after police received a "credible threat".

4 controlled explosions including one no more than 400 yards from where my ex-girlfriend is supposed to be at work right now.

:(

[DroppinScience]

Maybe I did over-react and, to be honest, I didn't really read the whole thread. Just scanning over it. It is freedom of speech, of course.

yeahwho, don't worry about your comments. It's just that a lot of people in Southampton and people who are close to me are effected by this at the moment.

I really hope he's okay. :( All the best, Mr_Complex!

[sam i am]

First and foremost, let me say how truly sorry I am for all of those who are survivors of the dead or missing. Also, for those that were injured, my heart goes out to you and my prayers are for your quick recovery.

That being said, the best way we can all honor those who have paid the ultimate price for their sacrifice is to keep on with our lives and to run EVERY SINGLE ONE of those who are terorists into the ground.

The Nazi's, to utilize another part of the ongoing argument on this thread, had at least one thing right : when Heydrich was killed in Czechoslovakia in 1942, the Nazi's killed off entire towns full of people as retaliation. Not one German high commander was killed by assassination for the remainder of the war. The price in innocent blood was too high for those opposed to sustain. Now, before everyone jumps down my throat, I DO NOT condone this kind of violence or retribution now, but all of the civilized world, including Africa, Asia, North and South America, Australia, and much of the Middle East needs to wake up and realize that we are in the midst of a WAR.

Not the kind of war that is occuring in Iraq, which at least means armed soldiers are usually the targets, but an ideological war that is akin to the Nazi-Communist struggle of the 1930's and 40's. The Muslims who are willing to commit terrorist acts cannot be reasoned with. They are incapable of compassion towards our way of life. They view us as the Dark Side and we can only be destroyed. Unless we get our heads out of our collective asses and begin to fight back in like kind, we will not have our way of life.

Looking forward to the bombs coming my way. If you have any serious historical criteria to go by in your response, it would be greatly appreciated...

[sam i am]

Hey rhythm, you don't have anything better? I clearly stated that I did not condone those actions nor did I "imply" that we should wipe out major sections of towns.

What I did imply was that the methodology we are employing now is truly only useful on the Iraq/Afghanistan level. Having our volunteer military handle the fighting while we remain free from terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 is the whole point.

Bring the terrorists to us. Let our well-armed military slowly but surely kill them off.

In Europe, you have a much larger problem. 15-20 million indigenous Muslims presents huge problems. They have not been integrated into Western style democracy or even socialism. They have Imams that preach hatred, jihad, and violence against Western culture. Europeans should come up with their own solutions. We don't have the political will or capital available for another Marshall Plan if the jihadists take out major portions of Europe. We'll kill them off for you in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you have to take care of your own backyard.

Next stop? Iran maybe?

[synch]

We'll kill them off for you in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you have to take care of your own backyard.
Gee thanks, it's your "killing them off" that has caused them to blow up shit over here in the first place.

[yeahwho]

In Europe, you have a much larger problem. 15-20 million indigenous Muslims presents huge problems. They have not been integrated into Western style democracy or even socialism. They have Imams that preach hatred, jihad, and violence against Western culture. Europeans should come up with their own solutions. We don't have the political will or capital available for another Marshall Plan if the jihadists take out major portions of Europe. We'll kill them off for you in Iraq and Afghanistan (with a little help from, just enough to get your ass in big trouble), but you have to take care of your own backyard and use less oil.

In the USA, you have a much larger problem. 15-20 million religious fundamentalist's presents huge problems. They have not been integrated into Middle Eastern style culture or even socialism. They have Ministers that preach hatred, forced democracy, Energy looting and violence against Eastern culture. Westerner's should come up with their own solutions. We don't have the energy sources or bravery available for another form of thought so we take the oil out of major portions of the Middle East. We'll kill them off for you in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you have to take care of your own backyard.

what type of garbage are you talking about sam?

[Documad]

How will our government ever pay for this Nazi-style extermination of US citizens? Or will it be more of a volunteer thing?


Ooooh, I know some black Muslims who've lived here all their lives, had kids and sent them to expensive private schools, yet worked in the inner city with poor kids, and supported lots of nutty local arts projects. I knew their vegan, hippie bullshit was all a front. Where do I report them?

[D_Raay]

In the USA, you have a much larger problem. 15-20 million religious fundamentalist's presents huge problems. They have not been integrated into Middle Eastern style culture or even socialism. They have Ministers that preach hatred, forced democracy, Energy looting and violence against Eastern culture. Westerner's should come up with their own solutions. We don't have the energy sources or bravery available for another form of thought so we take the oil out of major portions of the Middle East. We'll kill them off for you in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you have to take care of your own backyard.

what type of garbage are you talking about sam?
Excellent response Yeah :D

[Ali]

never forget (http://www.neonbubble.com/a/never-forget-tony)

[Ali]

Cause if there was a connection between the statements on 3/4 and the actions on 7/7, then where was the attack in America.9/11

[sam i am]

I want it noted that my quotes on the previous page were altered. Look at my original comments. When I'm questioned as to what I am talking about, again look at my ORIGINAL statement, not the fabricated one that was quoted.

The bottom line is this : religious fundamentalists founded the USA. They created democracy as a means to control the "mob" (not the Sopranos type). This is not what has happened in the Middle East. In Europe, to again reiterate my point (and I am deliberately being repetitve here), there is a large Muslim population that does not believe in the tenets of democracy or socialism. They are solely trained to follow religious (Mohammadean) facism. They do not believe in private property, women's equality, minority rights, et al.

At least in the USA, we all follow the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution. We do not have religios leaders issuing fatwas that call upon killing off individuals. If they do have that kind of influence, they are tried and convicted in secular courts.

Learn what you are speaking about before you attempt to mock me or counter my arguments.... (!)

[synch]

Learn what you are speaking about before you attempt to mock me or counter my arguments.... (!)
Do you consider yourself unmockable and your arguements uncounterable?

Just curious...

[sam i am]

I love good mocking and good counterargument....the key words there being "good." Those who are completely, or mostly, uninformed and have not studied the subject of which they speak do not embody the capability to effectively convey their low aptitude for spot-on mocking and counterargumentation.

Clear now? :rolleyes:

[SobaViolence]

can someone tell me how exactly you punish a suicide bomber?

or fight terror...which is intangeable, that lives in a vaccuum until it actually occurs?


you can not fight fire with fire. So you can not fight terrorism with militarism. You fight fire with water. Figure out what i mean on your own.


'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
Benjamin Franklin

'The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.'
William Hazlitt

'The only alternative to coexistence is codestruction.'
Jawaharlal Nehru

[sam i am]

It's not about punishment....it's about survival. The suicide bomber is dead but those who sent him to (take your choice) Valhalla or whatever, are not.

Terror is not intangible. We know the organizations that fund it. We know the leaders. Destroy those two pillars and the individual has little power to cause terror. Instead of thousands being killed at time, you only have hundreds or 10's. I'll choose less death over more death against innocents every day.

You can fight fire with fire. Two burns that come together have no more fuel to burn. That's why firefighters use backburns and not just water to douse fires. Therefore, as I outlined in the previous paragraph, you can fight terrorism with militarism. Did I figure it out to your mocking satisfaction?

Nice quotes by Franklin, Hazlitt, and Nehru. Way to think for yourself... :rolleyes:

Is this really the best all of you out there can muster? I thought this bulletin board might have some REAL debaters out there who actually believe in what they are saying and can back it up with precise, cogent arguments. Anyone? :confused:

[franscar]

We know the organizations that fund it. We know the leaders. Destroy those two pillars and the individual has little power to cause terror.

Isn't that what the whole point of invading Afghanistan was? Or did I miss something along the way?

[synch]

It's not about punishment....it's about survival. The suicide bomber is dead but those who sent him to (take your choice) Valhalla or whatever, are not.

Terror is not intangible. We know the organizations that fund it. We know the leaders. Destroy those two pillars and the individual has little power to cause terror. Instead of thousands being killed at time, you only have hundreds or 10's. I'll choose less death over more death against innocents every day.

You can fight fire with fire. Two burns that come together have no more fuel to burn. That's why firefighters use backburns and not just water to douse fires. Therefore, as I outlined in the previous paragraph, you can fight terrorism with militarism. Did I figure it out to your mocking satisfaction?

Nice quotes by Franklin, Hazlitt, and Nehru. Way to think for yourself... :rolleyes:

Is this really the best all of you out there can muster? I thought this bulletin board might have some REAL debaters out there who actually believe in what they are saying and can back it up with precise, cogent arguments. Anyone? :confused:
You kill one fundamentalist and you'll make him a marter which will breed a whole bunch more fundamentalists. You can't keep blowing them up because it doesn't work that way. You can't strike fear into people that aren't afraid to die for what they believe in. That's where they have the edge, we fear death more than they do.

[Documad]

Is this really the best all of you out there can muster? I thought this bulletin board might have some REAL debaters out there who actually believe in what they are saying and can back it up with precise, cogent arguments. Well, you figured WRONG! This whole board fucking sucks.


I don't have an argument to make. Frankly, I read your posts a few times and had a very difficult time understanding them. I agree that terrorism is a huge problem and I certainly don't have a solution. You seem to be saying that you have a solution, but I'm not sure what your solution is. A million years ago when I took political science classes, the thought was that terrorists are terrorists because they have no legitimate power and that if they had a legitimate outlet they would stop with the violence against innocents. The thought was that trying to fight them with conventional military tools was pointless. It still makes a lot of sense to me. (Still, I'd take out Bin Laden myself if I could. But I wouldn't take out his neighbor's kids, for instance. If he had neighbors in whatever cave he lives in. I always figured that was the kind of thing that made me and my nation better, but then I'm a pretty big fool sometimes.)


Anyhow, in my first homage to qdrop, it would help if you answered some questions about your argument:

What I did imply was that the methodology we are employing now is truly only useful on the Iraq/Afghanistan level. Having our volunteer military handle the fighting while we remain free from terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 is the whole point.

Bring the terrorists to us. Let our well-armed military slowly but surely kill them off.
I don't understand how you propose to fight terrorism. You want other countries to round them up and bring them to Iraq/Afghanistan so the US Army can kill them there? I'm not kidding, it's the only thing I can read from this.


At least in the USA, we all follow the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution. We do not have religios leaders issuing fatwas that call upon killing off individuals. If they do have that kind of influence, they are tried and convicted in secular courts.
Are you saying that Muslim religious leaders have been convicted in US criminal courts for issuing fatwas? If so, I'd be interested to hear the details.

Terror is not intangible. We know the organizations that fund it. We know the leaders. Destroy those two pillars and the individual has little power to cause terror. Instead of thousands being killed at time, you only have hundreds or 10's. I'll choose less death over more death against innocents every day.

You can fight fire with fire. Two burns that come together have no more fuel to burn. That's why firefighters use backburns and not just water to douse fires. Therefore, as I outlined in the previous paragraph, you can fight terrorism with militarism.
I get that you think it's cool that the USA is killing terrorists in Iraq (and I presume you think it's okay that the USA is killing lots of non-terrorist/innocent children too), but what is your solution to the terrorists who aren't located in Iraq or Afghanistan. What about the ones in Asia for instance? If there are a few terrorists in the Phillipines, should our army invade there too?


P.S. I've always been a huge Dr. Seuss fan and that particular book was a big favorite because I used to read it to my niece and even though she now has a kid of her own she still says "I do not like it Sam I am" when I offer her food.

[Burnout18]

you can not fight fire with fire. So you can not fight terrorism with militarism. You fight fire with water. Figure out what i mean on your own.


do you know what you mean?

[SobaViolence]

i am sure all those highly trained and highly educated culturally sensitive 18-30 year old GIs in the middle east can really tell the difference between Iraqi insurgents and fleeing civilians.

not to mention tribal tensions, ethnic diversity/turmoil and the almighty religiosity problem.

look at the seal of the usa. the eagle is holding, in one claw, a bundle of arrows and in the other an olive branch. your eagle is looking towards the olives. shame on your leaders. they failed.

if you don't find war disturbing, that's your fucking malfunction, but talking, listening and understanding someone helps change the notions in your petty little mind and may stop further bloodshed.

and if the words of one of your founding fathers' doesn't fit because you are so much more enlightened, then you are just too patriotic i guess.

[yeahwho]

Is this really the best all of you out there can muster? I thought this bulletin board might have some REAL debaters out there who actually believe in what they are saying and can back it up with precise, cogent arguments. Anyone? :confused:

There is no argument, you are obviously brilliant! If I were you I would be doing everything in my power to sign up to the military today. Get your ass over where we the Coalition of the Willing are doing the work. Get the hell off of this site and get your ass into action. What could be stopping you? I can google you up all the precise cogent information you need to continue on with your winning ideas.

[Burnout18]

so the water to put out the fire is peace

[D_Raay]

That's where they have the edge, we fear death more than they do.
Insightful.

[D_Raay]

It's not about punishment....it's about survival. The suicide bomber is dead but those who sent him to (take your choice) Valhalla or whatever, are not.

Terror is not intangible. We know the organizations that fund it. We know the leaders. Destroy those two pillars and the individual has little power to cause terror. Instead of thousands being killed at time, you only have hundreds or 10's. I'll choose less death over more death against innocents every day.

You can fight fire with fire. Two burns that come together have no more fuel to burn. That's why firefighters use backburns and not just water to douse fires. Therefore, as I outlined in the previous paragraph, you can fight terrorism with militarism. Did I figure it out to your mocking satisfaction?

Nice quotes by Franklin, Hazlitt, and Nehru. Way to think for yourself... :rolleyes:

Is this really the best all of you out there can muster? I thought this bulletin board might have some REAL debaters out there who actually believe in what they are saying and can back it up with precise, cogent arguments. Anyone? :confused:

Your argument holds no water and is fundamentally flawed. Fighting a war on terror is like fighting against an enemy that hasn't been born yet.

[sam i am]

Too late for any further education tonight, little ones. More to come tomorrow.... :)

[Medellia]

Whatever, Mr. 9 Posts. :rolleyes:

[synch]

Your whole "HA! I'm so much smarter than you guys and you can never match my intellect! Check out my abs!" attitude got old really fast. If you were as good at this debating thing as you think you are you'd know that respecting the person you debate with is a fundamental part of it.

P.S. I've always been a huge Dr. Seuss fan and that particular book was a big favorite because I used to read it to my niece and even though she now has a kid of her own she still says "I do not like it Sam I am" when I offer her food.
His name could be a "Serious Sam" reference. A game in which you basically blow shit up from start to end.

[Ali]

We know the organizations that fund it. We know the leaders. Destroy those two pillars and the individual has little power to cause terror. Instead of thousands being killed at time, you only have hundreds or 10's. I'll choose less death over more death against innocents every day.
So why don't "you" (whoever you mean by "we") go and destroy those pillars (of Islam?) instead of the thousands of innocent people in Iraq who have been killed, maimed, bereaved and left homeless, without sanitation, electricity, roads, schools, food, shelter, etc as a DIRECT RESULT of the type of attitude you endorse?

Why don't YOU go to Iraq and get yourself killed, maimed or seriously fucked up for this cause you so vehemently believe in, instead of sitting there behind your computer, safe and sound.

[ms.peachy]

Too late for any further education tonight, little ones. More to come tomorrow.... :)
How nice of you to take this opportunity, whilst rescue workers are still busily scraping the blood and tissue of my neighbours and fellow commuters off of the twisted metal wreckage in a hole deep below ground, to feel superior and smug and just oh so very clever. What a shining example you are to all of us.

[Parkey]

Too late for any further education tonight, little ones. More to come tomorrow.... :)
Wanker.

[Documad]

His name could be a "Serious Sam" reference. A game in which you basically blow shit up from start to end.
THANK YOU! Because I'd like to think that all the kids I read Dr. Seuss to turned out to be healthy and happy.

Dr. Seuss had that book where the one race had stars on their bellies and the other didn't and they felt bad. It had to be one of the first books for kids on the evils of racism. And Horton Hears a Who (my personal favorite) is about standing up for other people no matter how weak they are. Plus they had the best illustrations. :)

[Freebasser]

It's not about punishment....it's about survival. The suicide bomber is dead but those who sent him to (take your choice) Valhalla or whatever

So we're dealing with viking suicide bombers?

What are you? 12?

[Qdrop]

Q you are deliberately putting words in people's mouths and taking them out of context. No offense but true.

I understood what free meant the first time I read it and you interpreted it differently for your own (amusement?).


then people need to be clearer.
Freebaser meant it just as i interpreted it....he just went back a post or 2 later and covered his ass...then tried to spin it.-- and you swallowed it.

D, you never pass up a chance to jump on my back....your skepticism doesn't hold much water any more with me.

Freebaser is typical of many "one timers" on this section....all bark, no bite.
he spends most of his time complaining about someone elses's fantasy strawman arguments against him...rather than actually defending or explaining his own side.
probably because he can't .....

american-bashing and eurocentrism are hot buttons for me....
if either are even hinted at...i don't pussy foot around.

[Qdrop]

That being said, the best way we can all honor those who have paid the ultimate price for their sacrifice is to keep on with our lives and to run EVERY SINGLE ONE of those who are terorists into the ground.

The Nazi's, to utilize another part of the ongoing argument on this thread, had at least one thing right : when Heydrich was killed in Czechoslovakia in 1942, the Nazi's killed off entire towns full of people as retaliation. Not one German high commander was killed by assassination for the remainder of the war. The price in innocent blood was too high for those opposed to sustain. Now, before everyone jumps down my throat, I DO NOT condone this kind of violence or retribution now, but all of the civilized world, including Africa, Asia, North and South America, Australia, and much of the Middle East needs to wake up and realize that we are in the midst of a WAR.

Not the kind of war that is occuring in Iraq, which at least means armed soldiers are usually the targets, but an ideological war that is akin to the Nazi-Communist struggle of the 1930's and 40's. The Muslims who are willing to commit terrorist acts cannot be reasoned with. They are incapable of compassion towards our way of life. They view us as the Dark Side and we can only be destroyed. Unless we get our heads out of our collective asses and begin to fight back in like kind, we will not have our way of life.



i am with you in sentiment...
though i really don't know if this approach is the best.

i do NOT think, and have stated before, that changing our foreign policy and giving in to terrorist demands will bring any kind of peace....it would be irresponsible, impractical, and supremely dangerous.
there is a reason you don't give-in to terrorists....

to assume that pulling out of iraq and changing our foreign policy would cure terrorism is to assume that we are dealing with sound-minded, rational individuals with clear cut demands.
if you think that...you seriously overestimate thier rationale....and seriously underestimate their resolve...
diplomacy is not an option.

[Freebasser]

Freebaser is typical of many "one timers" on this section....all bark, no bite.
he spends most of his time complaining about someone elses's fantasy strawman arguments against him...rather than actually defending or explaining his own side.
probably because he can't .....

In terms of backing up arguments in this thread Qdrop, it's 1-0 to me, because I backed up my statement that the US knew Hitler would invade by giving you some recommended reading. I backed up an opinion with evidence, which is more than you've done this whole thread long. In fact, whenever I have a discussion on this board, I always try to back up my viewpoints with evidence, which is something you rarely do.

You PRESUMED I said something and gave no evidence to back it up. Because it was your OPINION. You cannot PROVE I said what you believe I said, not to mention the fact that 2 other boardmembers said they had no problems with the way I phrased my post about the American inclusion in the war and called you out on putting words in other people's mouths.

Oh wait I forgot, your opinion is the only one that matters, even if 3 or 4 people try to tell you you're acting like a complete right-wing, pro-American, anti-European tool

then people need to be clearer.
Freebaser meant it just as i interpreted it....he just went back a post or 2 later and covered his ass...then tried to spin it.-- and you swallowed it.

You took my comment about the Russian losses in WW2, and completely ignored the main part of my post. MY post was about the American reluctance to join WW2. YOU had said not a few posts earlier, that the US won the war all by itself. I was showing how the Russians had a mighty influence on the outcome of the war, but you twist it round to make it look like I'm bragging about thier bodycount. My post was a statement about how other countries had major casualties, and perhaps it wasn't just America that won the war. As for me BACKING MYSELF OUT OF A HOLE, let's look at this shall we?

Thanks God WWII ended the way it did...

the US is the reason it ended the way it did.

only for you to weasel yourself out of an argument 2 minutes later:

essence we probably still agree on most of this but I'm pretty dissapointed to see you join the "you'd be goose stepping and speaking german if it wasn't for us" choir.

while i don't think that the US could have beaten Hitler on thier own...


Oh dear - am I putting words in your mouth? So sorry.

While we're addressing your avoidance of the fact that you're a hypocritical fuck-up, let's review shall we?

american-bashing and eurocentrism are hot buttons for me....

only to be followed by:

and need we forget the other extremely important aspect of the US inolvment....our virtual OWNING of the rebuilding process in europe.

i mean, fucking A...france got thier asses whipped in like a week....Britian was just a sitting duck under bombing barragment....I mean, for a time Russia was an enemy by arrangment (or neutral to britian anyway)....until hitler turned on them...

and

you just gotta love the "ungrateful europeon" speech about WW2.

"we would have won anyway...without you yanks...Russia would have taken care of it..."

whatever helps you sleep at night.

and

my point here is that europeans (not necessarily you) seem to talk out of both sides of there mouths historically on this issue.





How's the blatant homophobia going by the way?

[Qdrop]

You PRESUMED I said something and gave no evidence to back it up. Because it was your OPINION. You cannot PROVE I said what you believe I said, not to mention the fact that 2 other boardmembers said they had no problems with the way I phrased my post about the American inclusion in the war and called you out on putting words in other people's mouths.
baloney. you went back and edited that post about the russian casualties. you covered your ass.

Oh wait I forgot, your opinion is the only one that matters, even if 3 or 4 people try to tell you you're acting like a complete right-wing, pro-American, anti-European tool now who's putting words in people's mouth?

You took my comment about the Russian losses in WW2, that's what i was arguing about.

and completely ignored the main part of my post. MY post was about the American reluctance to join WW2. a separate argument all together. which, AGAIN, you and half of the anti-yanks on this board are completely hypcritical about..when comparing the US's foreign policies throughout the years.

YOU had said not a few posts earlier, that the US won the war all by itself. no i didn't.
again, NOW who's putting words in people's mouths?

I was showing how the Russians had a mighty influence on the outcome of the war, which i never disputed. they certainly were huge part of the outcome... but would never have defeated Hitler on thier own (with out US intervention). at best, they would have halted hitler (and did)....but not defeated him.

but you twist it round to make it look like I'm bragging about thier bodycount. dude, you said it. plain as day.

My post was a statement about how other countries had major casualties, and perhaps it wasn't just America that won the war. first, i certainly don't beleive that america won the war by itself and stated that in this thread. but I DO believe that not for US intervention, the war would not have ended the way it did (with hitler being defeated)...at best, he would have been halted for a time.

as for the rest of your post:

jesus, you couldn't have shot yourself in the foot any worse.
you proceed to call out my own supposed strawman, but creating several of your own and making yourself look like an idiot.
i have never seen anyone actually employ a reverse pot-kettle-black manuever like that.
it's like cutting your nose to spite ....me.

yeah...that works.

the US is the reason it ended the way it did. damn right.



while i don't think that the US could have beaten Hitler on thier own... correct. no contradiction.

the US was a vital element to defeat hitler...he could not have been defeated without US intervention.
but i do not believe the US could have done it alone.

it's pretty simple, man.


Oh dear - am I putting words in your mouth? So sorry.
yeah.
and apparently you think this is some form of brilliant debate tactic.

"i will prove you're creating a strawman...by...ummm...creating some of my own."

wow. somebody call MENSA....


american-bashing and eurocentrism are hot buttons for me.... yep.



and need we forget the other extremely important aspect of the US inolvment....our virtual OWNING of the rebuilding process in europe. accurate.

i mean, fucking A...france got thier asses whipped in like a week....Britian was just a sitting duck under bombing barragment....I mean, for a time Russia was an enemy by arrangment (or neutral to britian anyway)....until hitler turned on them... crude, i admit. but accurate.
please argue the accuracy of those statments.

(yeah...France lasted longer than a week..)

[sam i am]

First of all, I wanted to thank Qdrop and valvano for continuing this thread.

It's great to find that there is a healthy debate occurring, worldwide, about all of the major issues of the day.

I made damn sure I acknowledged the suffering, pain, and death in London on my very first post but I will apologize to Ms. Peachy if she felt offended - no direct disrespect is ever meant or intended. The event that occurred, however, does not afford us (by "us" I mean all thinking human beings) the opportunity to stop figuring out the best way forward to dealing with one of the most pressing issues of our time : the war on terrorism.

Yes, we should go on with our lives, and events like "Live 8" if you believe that makes a real difference, but we should all also be questioning what we and our governments are doing.

I was challenged, several times on this thread, to go out and do something myself, as if I have to prove some macho image that left-wingers think all us right-wingers envision ourselves having. Well, to answer that begging of the question, I contribute in my own way to killing off the terrorists : by paying my taxes and helping to fund the ongoing war effort; additionally, by voting for those I believe will most vigorously prosecute said war. All of us have our part to play. If I were younger and didn't already have a family to support, I would consider a military career. Hope this addresses those who feel oh so superior bashing our young men and women fighting the fight that they are afraid to go out and fight. If you don't want to go fight for our culture, what ARE you willing to fight for? Did you knuckle under to every bully when you were in school? Do you glowingly reminisce about your lack of courage?

Quickly, Freebasser, when I referred to Valhalla, I was demonstrating absurdity : what do Muslims believe about the afterlife? That they will have concubines without end and that they will be exalted for their deaths whilst "jihading." Unlike you, I have studied the Koran and know the face of my enemy. Try looking up the word "satire" in the dictionary someday : it may enlighten you a bit. :)

Now, as to DRay - just because you state that my "...argument holds no water" does not make it so. Just as just because I state something does not make it so. We should all be reasonably thinking human beings with the intellectual capacity to research our points of view and amicably debate them. If we do not exercise our rights to speech, we have truly lost to those who would take that right from us. Do any of you truly believe that this kind of debate could exist in countries like Iraq under Sadaam Hussein or Afghanistan under Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden? Even in China, they watch and edit the internet, and they are good communists!

My favorite argument thus far, just like DRay's, was we fear death more than they do. This is a seriously strong point that not many have addressed. So, the query then becomes, what do we do in the face of such fanaticism? What did our forefathers and foremothers do when they were faced with Nazi's who so devalued human life that they killed millions in gas chambers? What did our predecessors do when they faced down German bombers as they Blitzed London indiscriminately? What did generations before us do when faced with nuclear annhiliation during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did we try to "understand" our enemies? Did we get out of their way or leave the areas our enemies demanded in order to placate them so they would leave us alone? Oh yes, some of us did - think Neville Chamberlain in Czechoslovakia in 1938 with his famous "peace in our time." Then, think Churchill with his "we will fight them on the beaches..." speech.

Give me liberty or give me death! Who said that again? :confused:

Thank you for putting up with a newbie thus far. It has been enjoyable meeting all of you via this forum and I look forward to the continued ongoing debate and banter...

[Qdrop]

sam i am: i hope you stick around here.

i don't agree with 100% of what you say...but i do share alot of your sentiments (so far anyway)...but i do seriously appreciate your love for debate...

don't be bullied off by the ardent liberals on this section...just continue to show some spine...

expect thoughtful, but purely ideological retorts from D_raay...
expect caustic, ignorant jibes from Ali....

and be aware....virtually all of us are "archavists" and detailed oriented: your posts and your views will be scrutinized beyond belief. people will attempt to look for the tiniest flaws or contradictions..and expliot them with witty, snarky jibes...and make a case for you there-by being an idiot and not worthy of attention.

hell, i do the same.




most of them are decent people...but they costantly confuse ideology with reality...or pragmatism- a common plight of many liberally minded people.

[sam i am]

Thanks Qdrop.

Let the lovefest begin!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.... ;)

Don't worry about me : I'm as detail-oriented as anyone. I'll stick around until every last liberal is coverted through the judicious application of fact.

[ms.peachy]

sam i am: i hope you stick around here.

Yeah. Cuz we really need another patronising twat. There's not nearly enough of those here.

[Qdrop]

I'll stick around until every last liberal is coverted through the judicious application of fact.

well, i'm not sure if we share that sentiment....

while i usually find self-proclaimed liberals to be rather annoying...
i am no conservative....and i find republicans to be far more dogmatic and terrifying...
i'm an independant...centrist...rational pragmatist....take your pick.

i appreciate the progressive thought that most liberals show.....put i loathe the ideology over reality, the sensitivety over truth....

[Freebasser]

no i didn't.
again, NOW who's putting words in people's mouths?

It's called irony and sarcasm. The whole "sorry am I putting words in your mouth?" was intended as a piss-take, because it's such a running theme in our "discussions". Sorry, I should have realised that irony and sarcasm are beyond you.

Secondly, in the post about the Russians, the only thing that changed was a comma that I took out because I realised I'd made a grammatical error. But as we all know, grammar and spelling aren't exactly high up on your list of priorities. But oh wait, I must have edited to stop myself looking bad, because we all know you are right. If you're so sure that what YOU say is right, then please tell me how I edited the post to make myself look better (apart from the removed comma of course).

Oh, and if I'm so anti-American (even though I said I was thankful for the US intervention in WW2) then why do I have so many American friends on this board? It is YOU who thinks I'm anti-American, because that's what you want me to be. If you are seriously suggesting I'm anti American, then it is you who's just gone and blown a big meaty chunk of flesh out of your lower leg, idiot.

[Qdrop]

freebaser: it's over. drop it.

[Burnout18]

Oh, and if I'm so anti-American (even though I said I was thankful for the US intervention in WW2) then why do I have so many American friends on this board? .


Oh can i try to awnser that.... because many americans hate the politics of this administration so much that they are beginning to have a disgust for the nation. (ie. "come on blue states lets form our own nation :rolleyes: ...") Now i dont know who exactly your friends with, but not everyone that i am friends with is so proud to be living here right now and in fact would rather be overseas.

[D_Raay]

then people need to be clearer.
Freebaser meant it just as i interpreted it....he just went back a post or 2 later and covered his ass...then tried to spin it.-- and you swallowed it.

D, you never pass up a chance to jump on my back....your skepticism doesn't hold much water any more with me.

Freebaser is typical of many "one timers" on this section....all bark, no bite.
he spends most of his time complaining about someone elses's fantasy strawman arguments against him...rather than actually defending or explaining his own side.
probably because he can't .....

american-bashing and eurocentrism are hot buttons for me....
if either are even hinted at...i don't pussy foot around.

Really wasn't my intention at all Q. Just thought Free was right about the context. You have earned my respect a while ago, hence I don't usually ruffle your feathers anymore.

[D_Raay]

Don't worry about me : I'm as detail-oriented as anyone. I'll stick around until every last liberal is coverted through the judicious application of fact.
So you are going to be another who claims fact, but in fact shows none at all.
Now, as to DRay - just because you state that my "...argument holds no water" does not make it so. Just as just because I state something does not make it so. We should all be reasonably thinking human beings with the intellectual capacity to research our points of view and amicably debate them. If we do not exercise our rights to speech, we have truly lost to those who would take that right from us. Do any of you truly believe that this kind of debate could exist in countries like Iraq under Sadaam Hussein or Afghanistan under Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden?

I could show you facts that Bush's war has indeed created more terrorists. Alot of his own cabinet would admit to such. I wasn't merely "stating" anything, I was telling the truth. What difference at all does it make whether there is debate going on in Iraq under Saddam or Afghanistan after the fact of a US invasion?

"Reasonably thinking human beings" , huh? Well there are quite a few very intelligent and reasonable people who think this situation we are in is similar to Vietnam despite the guffaws from the right wing crowd. How will you "convince" these folks that thousands of innocent lives are worth following lame duck leadership blindly into a war we cannot win?


expect thoughtful, but purely ideological retorts from D_raay...

Thank you and bite me... ;)

put i loathe the ideology over reality, the sensitivety over truth....
Hate to put you on the spot Q, but I would like you to explain how "liberals" are somhow the ones disconnected from reality in this whole mess.

[Qdrop]

Really wasn't my intention at all Q. Just thought Free was right about the context. You have earned my respect a while ago, hence I don't usually ruffle your feathers anymore.

fine.

*hugs*

[Qdrop]

Hate to put you on the spot Q, but I would like you to explain how "liberals" are somhow the ones disconnected from reality in this whole mess.

perhaps i should be more inclusive....

i think many from both sides are disconnected from reality.

i stated a few times in this thread that i just don't like the left's response to these kind of events.... too much finger wagging and blaming of foreign policy rather than annalyzing the more likely (and simpler) reasons behind such attacks.
they blog instead of bomb...

the right, on the other hand....well, they are usually just deviod of thought all together...and just want to kill some muslims...."THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!" and all that...

while i prefer action to inaction...particularly in situations like this....i DO think we need to understand the terrorists...but just think that the left is over thinking it....and the right MAY be more correct by default (and through no thinking on thier own).

i think it IS correct to say such terrorists *cannot* be negotiated with or appeased...nor should they.

right wingers have been screaming that for 4 years now...but out of ignorant bloodlust...

i say it out of a more cultural, psychological understanding of the "enemy".

[franscar]

This is a seriously strong point that not many have addressed. So, the query then becomes, what do we do in the face of such fanaticism? What did our forefathers and foremothers do when they were faced with Nazi's who so devalued human life that they killed millions in gas chambers? What did our predecessors do when they faced down German bombers as they Blitzed London indiscriminately? What did generations before us do when faced with nuclear annhiliation during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did we try to "understand" our enemies? Did we get out of their way or leave the areas our enemies demanded in order to placate them so they would leave us alone? Oh yes, some of us did - think Neville Chamberlain in Czechoslovakia in 1938 with his famous "peace in our time." Then, think Churchill with his "we will fight them on the beaches..." speech.

Like I said before and got ignored, wasn't that the whole point of invading Afghanistan? Ask the people of Madrid, Istanbul and London how that decision's working out for them.

[valvano]

i think our approach to terrorism should be similar to fighing organized crime aka the mafia. yeah, you fight in the war front, but you need use good old fashioned intelligence work, included infiltration from inside. that and technology is what has killed the influence of the mafia. it still exists, but not to the extent that it once did. its just that terrorists arent as eager to rat out others as the mob is when facing time, etc.

[Qdrop]

Like I said before and got ignored, wasn't that the whole point of invading Afghanistan? Ask the people of Madrid, Istanbul and London how that decision's working out for them.

that's assuming that if we had NOT torn down a hotbed for al-queda/terrorist training in Afganistan, that such attacks would NOT have happened. or would not have been worse and in greater frequency.

it is unfair to point to later attacks by terrorists as proof of failure on the ongoing war against terrorism.



people still die in car wrecks when they wear their seatbelts...does that mean seat belts are useless?
how many more could have died if they HADN'T worn seatbelts?

[Qdrop]

i think our approach to terrorism should be similar to fighing organized crime aka the mafia. yeah, you fight in the war front, but you need use good old fashioned intelligence work, included infiltration from inside. that and technology is what has killed the influence of the mafia. it still exists, but not to the extent that it once did. its just that terrorists arent as eager to rat out others as the mob is when facing time, etc.

apt.

[Documad]

sam i am: i hope you stick around here.

i don't agree with 100% of what you say...but i do share alot of your sentiments (so far anyway)...but i do seriously appreciate your love for debate...

don't be bullied off by the ardent liberals on this section...just continue to show some spine...

expect thoughtful, but purely ideological retorts from D_raay...
expect caustic, ignorant jibes from Ali....

and be aware....virtually all of us are "archavists" and detailed oriented: your posts and your views will be scrutinized beyond belief. people will attempt to look for the tiniest flaws or contradictions..and expliot them with witty, snarky jibes...and make a case for you there-by being an idiot and not worthy of attention.

hell, i do the same.




most of them are decent people...but they costantly confuse ideology with reality...or pragmatism- a common plight of many liberally minded people.
I still don't know who you think you are. Whatever.

Because you apparently understand sam i am's posts, would YOU please tell me what he thinks the solution to worldwide terrorism is? Because I don't get how killing everyone in Iraq is going to stop another incident in the USA. Or in London. Or in Africa. And he's not answering. Maybe you both have me on ignore.
:(

[sam i am]

Qdrop - continued much respect. your pragmatism may be wearing off a bit!

Now, as to part of your missive - the right is not devoid of ideas. As a matter of fact, the "action" part is only a fragment of the puzzle. The remainder is spreading democratic (or republican) ideals throughout the Middle East and Africa. Asia will have to wait - fighting in jungles sucks.

Look at our own country (the USA) : we are not a "democracy," as many would like to think. We are a Republic, more akin to the Roman Republic. We have a powerful Senate, a President (akin to a Consul in ancient Rome) and a House of Representatives (akin to the ancient Plebians). We have stability and the rights of minorities are more protected than under any under system of government ever invented by man.

Now, as the Iraqi and Afghanistan elections prove, those types of ideals, that co-opt and undermine the terrorists, EVENTUALLY (and it takes a long time because the results are not immediate but gradual). In the U.S., the Constitution did not come along until 1787 - 11 years after independence. It worked out pretty well for us, but we still had to fight a horrible war over slavery from 1861-1865 in order to have most of what we have now. Women could not vote in the U.S. until 1920. True civil rights for all citizens did not come along until 1965. All of these ideas are frothing around the world now. Communism, except for "managed, capatilistic" communism as practiced by the Chinese, has been entirely discredited. Fascism has been mostly discredited or destroyed, except for cults of personality like N. Korea. The biggest remaining bugaboo of a "political" ideology remaining that can challenge Western-style democracy (I'll be gracious and include socialist Europe and Canada here ;) ) is Fundamentalist Muslim Fascism. This is the great war of the first half of this century and it will likely take 30-50 years to have it be won by us.

But win we will, because people genuinely strive for more freedom and liberty when given the opportunity.

So, please don't denigrate the right for lack of ideas. We are not just lumbering bulls breaking the china. We are also the engines of freedom and democracy for oppressed peoples throughout the world.

[sam i am]

Hey Documad - sorry. I didn't mean to ignore you. Ironically, my above answer was written prior to seeing yours.

Is it a little more clear now? We promote democracy. We change the hearts and minds of those who want to have freedom. We kill off those who would oppress those around them (especially those who oppress women and minorities). The more we make them like us, the more they will value what they have and go to work to be productive members of society.

Now, some may argue that we shouldn't make everyone else like us. Some would argue that certain peoples are incapable of democratic self-rule. some would say that chronic poverty and internecine warfare have sapped the will of the common man and woman to strive for better.

To those who would argue that point, I say : bull! Look at what the U.S. did to Germany and Japan after WWII. Look at the progress of liberty in places like Mexico, where the PRI lost for the first time in 70 years a few years ago. Look at Ireland and N. ireland, which has transferred itself into one of the most highly-technical societies around : people who have jobs and freedom don't go around killing off innocents from other societies. Certainly those of us in the US and Europe have not hijacked planes and flown them into buildings. We VALUE life and want to keep our freedom to pursue it. Anyone remember "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or, if you're French, "life, liberty and fraternity?"

Give people freedom, economic prosperity follows, and terrorism SLOWLY dies. Those who benefitted from terrorism or the old system, though, are not going to give up without a fight. The ONLY thing they are afraid of is that our IDEAS will win. They might not care about dying for their repressive ideologies now, but when their neighbor buys a new TV and a car and their children aren't starving because the grocery stores are full, THEN they'll rejoin the human race or they will die.

Pretty simple and elegant, eh?

Hopefully, this clarifies for those who did not understand what I have been driving at this whole time. (y)

[yeahwho]

I was challenged, several times on this thread, to go out and do something myself, as if I have to prove some macho image that left-wingers think all us right-wingers envision ourselves having. Well, to answer that begging of the question, I contribute in my own way to killing off the terrorists : by paying my taxes and helping to fund the ongoing war effort; additionally, by voting for those I believe will most vigorously prosecute said war. All of us have our part to play. If I were younger and didn't already have a family to support, I would consider a military career. Hope this addresses those who feel oh so superior bashing our young men and women fighting the fight that they are afraid to go out and fight. If you don't want to go fight for our culture, what ARE you willing to fight for? Did you knuckle under to every bully when you were in school? Do you glowingly reminisce about your lack of courage?


Do you actually expect me to buy that? What your saying above goes about six different ways from Sunday, go sign up, get busy and support your Country. Do you think this is a young mans war? Your not going to sign up because your beliefs outweigh your convictions. Armchair away, but your credibility is weak.

Your bashing my patriotism because you won't sign up?

How does this statement, "Do you glowingly reminisce about your lack of courage?" equate into your lack of actually signing up? It doesn't make any sense. You just slammed me. I asked you why you avoid following your beliefs and rhetoric and you insult me. I am bashing troops by asking you to help them out? Your just an argumentive frustrated jerk is the drift I'm getting.

Now go pay your taxes.

[sam i am]

Lead by exampe I always say Yeahwho....if you're willing to ask others to go fight and die, you should be willing to do so yourself. Why should I save your sorry ass?

I can't meet the requirements at my age to join the military. Clear enough for you? Am I not allowed to have an opinion if I can't go?

Could you BE any more of a hypocrite?

All that being said, I understand that you cannot follow my complex thought patterns. In simple terms, read all of the posts and realize that there is a thoughtful, insightful, not single-minded, non-monolithic brain behind it. Behind that is a man with four children who would love to see them never have to experience a 9/11 or 7/7 again.

At least there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 and we have the current administration to thank for that. Clinton had his chance at Osama and passed him up. :eek:

[Documad]

sam i am, thanks for answering my post. But your last post to me has left me more confused than ever. It sounds much like a speech I heard Bill Clinton give here. He thinks that giving people hope and economic help is the answer. He has a story about leaving a happy kid in Africa. That seems to be at odds with your earlier posts where you seemed to think that violence is the answer--and violence against people living in Europe no less, solely on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The legacy of Japan and Germany and the US government's involvement in rebuilding them is a lovely concept and one of the US's smarter moves. A lot of people thought it was a bad idea at the time. But those countries, their people, and the situation were very different from the US's current involvement in Iraq. There was no question that they were the aggressors and that they were wrong. From what I hear, they also had citizens with a completely different make up, different values, etc.

I am frankly torn by much of what I read in modern politics. I'd like to think that if I had been alive I would have supported US involvement in Europe prior to Pearl Harbor, but I doubt that I would have. Knowing what we now know, it's obvious. But no one knew it then. And anyways that was a conventional war.

The Irish comparison is interesting. I've been to government supported seminars after 9/11 about how we're handling this and there have been British experts who were involved in the Irish situation and they've all said we're doing exactly the wrong thing in following the British example and jailing people indefinitely without charges, attorney, etc. It seems like the British hard ass method didn't work, and that it was the end of the hard ass method. But despite my efforts, my knowledge of that situation is minimal and I'll probably be ripped apart by someone. My most vivid memories of that stuff is hearing the testimony about human rights violations when I was in school.

What I can't wrap my head around is how anyone thinks that weren't not making more terrorists every day. The prison photos alone -- which I saw in a museum and the worst ones were not published. And that documentary The Control Room was nothing new, but it was pretty interesting. For instance it showed a normal man who went to work and came back and his wife and children were all dead because the US had blown up his house. I think about him a lot. I can't see him being thankful for our involvement anytime soon. I also remember an old lady screaming for us to leave them alone. It's the truth and a huge portion of the world is watching it. We don't see it here. And I don't think W is pure evil, in fact I think he's smarter than most people think and that he simply has a very different set of values from me. I also think he just can't for one second put himself in the shoes of anyone else. Such as a child whose mom was killed by W's army.

And of course, this helping the Iraqis and spreading our freedom is the reason the adminstration gave us AFTER they didn't find the WMD that were supposed to be the real reason we went. So forgive me if I'm skeptical. 'Cause W is also against nation building, right?

And are we seriously going to send our army to invade every country where women have it bad? Believe me, I love having a male feminist here, but I don't think we've got the resources for that.

Oh, and I don't get why we're not starting with our buddies in Saudi Arabia.

[Documad]

Lead by exampe I always say Yeahwho....if you're willing to ask others to go fight and die, you should be willing to do so yourself. Why should I save your sorry ass?
Here's the thing. I really dislike W. A lot. But if another country invaded and took him out, I'd be fighting with every means possible to revenge that. And so would my liberal buddies. I don't get why we think no one else has the right to feel that way about their country and their people.

[yeahwho]

sam i am, you are an angry person who once again insulted my intelligence.

Continue to pay your taxes and have your opinion.

Without a doubt I've risked more in the war on terrorism today than you will in a lifetime You have no idea what I do for a living or what my priorities in life are. All you have is some big ideas on how "We" will prevail. Yet you lashout at the slightest provocation and disagree at the drop of a hat.

[sam i am]

Documad - thank heavens for you!

What a nuanced reply. It's amazing to think that I may have a bit of Bill Clinton in me and you may be willing to concede that I have a few valid points.

This is what makes America great.

I am disappointed, however, that you are that confused by my previous reply. In it's simplest terms, more freedom = less terrorism. More prosperity = more to lose.

It's not really that difficult to build up others, but you often have to excise a cancer before the surrounding tissue can heal. That's what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's probably what's next in Iran.

Did you follow my example that all of this takes a lot of TIME? Did you read my example about the U.S. itself? Did you know that France still had an EMPEROR in 1870? Did you realize that Switzerland is not a democracy? Did you know that Great Britain still has a KING?

We're better off than that and we'll get the Middle East there too....that's what great countries do, they make other countries and their people better (y)

[SobaViolence]

Qdrop, you are a pretentious, pompous, arrogant, self-involved little fuck.

good riddance.


ps. edit. Sam i am: 'Did you know that Great Britain still has a KING?'

really.....

[sam i am]

yeahwho....

you have no idea what I do either. I'll tell you what, I'll call it even with you because I've made sacrifices you can't envision as well. Just like the rattlesnake, don't tread on me or you'll get bit.

Like qdrop, I have some knee-jerk reactions, but it doesn't detract from the other posts I've made. I happen to believe differently than you do and have the wits and intelligence to make lucid arguments to support my argumentation.

Debate is enjoyable and can often convey strong convictions. Take it all in that vein and neither one of us will be insulted or have our blood pressures rise. Agreed?

:confused:

[sam i am]

actually, the king cross-dresses and now he's the queen. Sorry, I was tired and distracted when i wrote that....Thanks for catching it....

:o

[Documad]

Did you follow my example that all of this takes a lot of TIME? Did you read my example about the U.S. itself? Did you know that France still had an EMPEROR in 1870? Did you realize that Switzerland is not a democracy? Did you know that Great Britain still has a KING?
Yeah, I'm a big history buff. I don't get the comparison with the US because my understanding is that most of the colonies started as business ventures, some of the business ventures changed hands, and eventually a group of the wealthier colonists decided they were sick of financing wars in Europe. I don't know much about French history except that the French people also threw over their own king. Neither the US colonies nor France was invaded by a hostile nation seeking to impose its own values and ruling junta by force.

And again, forgive me for doubting the sincerity of the present US government because we have a spotty record of supporting so-called democracies. Historically, we've tended to prefer friendly dictatorships.

[sam i am]

Yeah, I'm a big history buff. I don't get the comparison with the US because my understanding is that most of the colonies started as business ventures, some of the business ventures changed hands, and eventually a group of the wealthier colonists decided they were sick of financing wars in Europe. I don't know much about French history except that the French people also threw over their own king. Neither the US colonies nor France was invaded by a hostile nation seeking to impose its own values and ruling junta by force.

And again, forgive me for doubting the sincerity of the present US government because we have a spotty record of supporting so-called democracies. Historically, we've tended to prefer friendly dictatorships.

Documad - most of the colonies did not start as business ventures. They were set up by the King of England or France or the Netherlands or Sweden, or Portugal, or Spain to go out and find gold and/or other resources that were plentiful to create goods and sell them to other countries. BUT, they also wanted more territory to settle people in and it became a religious undertaking for many people to set up their churches without having to bow to the king or queen.

The wealthier colonists did not start the Revolution to stop financing wars in
Europe - they mostly started it to stop taxation that didn't benefit them. when they wrote the Constitution, they only allowed property owners to vote : not women or blacks or indians or even most white men - only property owners. Senators weren't directly elected : they were selected by the state legislatures.

The French people had their revolution, but within a few years they had Napoleon as Emperor and endless war in Europe. Then they had more kings until the Prussians kicked their butts in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Only after WWI did they begin a "democracy."

Both the US and France did have hostile countries invade them and try to impose their own rule with their own rulers upon both countries. The British sure liked Benedict Arnold and, if they had won the War of 1812, don't think for a moment they wouldn't have taken back all our "free" territory. France, as reckoned above, had the Prussians, then the Germans twice kick their asses and they only got bailed out the second two times by the U.S. and Britain. the Germans had Vichy France with that damn collaborator Petain as their "Grand Marshal." He sent more French Jews and Resistance fighters to German concentration camps than you'd care to imagine.

So....make sure you have your facts a bit more straight before you are so sure of where you are basing your arguments.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but even though you doubt the U.S. goverment's, realize that we have also stood for almost all of our history for freedom. Look up the Monroe Doctrine, which guaranteed South and Central America that they would not remain colonies of European powers. Witness the US support for Castro in 1959. Look at Africa, where Eisenhower demanded that France and Portugal, et al, get out and let those countries create their own societies (although they've kinda flubbed it and could probably use a bit of our intervention).

During the Cold War, we did have a more spotty record for supporting friendly dictatorships...why? Because we had a greater enemy to fight in the USSR. Just like those who say we should be going after Saudi Arabia, the greater fight right now is with Terrorism, especially Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia will have it's day when freedom blooms in the desert of the Middle East, especially Iraq.

:cool: (lb)

[Documad]

Documad - most of the colonies did not start as business ventures. They were set up by the King of England or France or the Netherlands or Sweden, or Portugal, or Spain to go out and find gold and/or other resources that were plentiful to create goods and sell them to other countries. BUT, they also wanted more territory to settle people in and it became a religious undertaking for many people to set up their churches without having to bow to the king or queen.
You've been reading different history books than I've been reading. In case I missed something, which of the original 13 colonies were set up by each of the countries you named? I know that New York was originally set up by a trading company and named New Amsterdam until England took it over and renamed it for instance. As far as I can remember the others had a similar set up. Except maybe PA? (Some of this I'm remembering from Colonial House on PBS :o I haven't read colonial history in ages :)) I'm probably going to be really embarrassed, but I don't remember Portugal or Spain or Sweden running any of the 13 colonies.

As for the revolution, even with the simplified answer of the colonists didn't like taxes: Why was England taxing the shit out of them? I thought it was to pay for England's wars.

Anyhow, my point was that Italy, for instance, did not invade the US colonies and "rescue" them from the British. The US people (and only a portion of them) decided they wanted some more control over their government. Yeah, they got some help from France, but it wasn't France invading the country to establish a French-friendly government. This is one huge difference with Iraq.

Isn't some of what we're seeing today the result of our government's decision to back dictators over more popular governments? Again, I'm sometimes torn because perhaps the lifestyle I have today is due in part to some pretty shady shenanigans of Kissinger, et al. But I can't help wondering what would have happened if we had backed a few different horses early on--before they became enemies. In Vietnam, Cuba, South America. Eh, I'm talking out of my ass again, and that's usually a bad thing.

It's fun talking about this stuff, and I have thick skin, but you're not doing yourself any good talking down to people. I'll admit that I don't know everything about everything, but I'm not stupid. And yeahwho is one of the smarter people here. If I'm not understanding everything you're saying, it's probably not because of my stupidity.

P.S. Did you really name yourself after a game and not Dr. Seuss? Because the Dr. Seuss answer is cooler.

[sam i am]

Documad, just as an FYI, apologized to yeahwho both publicly on this thread and privately.

I don't mean to talk down to y'all, but it's hard for me take a lot of other peoples' historical points of view for what they believe now when they don't really know it. Unfortunately, I happen to have History degrees and studied especially World War II, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, American History, Chinese History, and European History.

It's difficult when you have a plethora of specialized knowledge and those who don't are trying to outmaneuver you for their own agendas....hope you understand.

Now, I wasn't referring to the 13 Colonies when I was talking about those European countries who were involved in North America during the founding years of the USA. I'm sure you can recall that Spain and France had huge holdings in N. America (that's why Quebec speaks French and we purchased the Louisiana Territory from France, previously Spanish territory, in 1803). The British were terribly afraid of French influence in the new USA. Jeffereson lived in Paris and was encouraged by the French government to return to the US.

The American Revolution was not as homegrown as most would assume. Indian nations, Spain, Frnace, England, and even Russia had great roles in determining the outcome of "our Revolution." Like the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, other countries came in and tried to wipe us out (again, reference the War of 1812). Even Lenin was encouraged to go back to Russia by the Germans!

My point is : no other country in history has done as much as the US to promote freedom and democracy around the world for such a long period of time. We are a great nation that deserves respect and honor for NOT being imperialists. The greatest difference of all between us and those we fight now and in the past is that WE ALWAYS LEAVE. We don't conquer, occupy, and never leave. We leave swiftly when the job is done.

This is what will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq within the next year...bank on it.

Finally, I'm not really sure if I should reveal this, but "sam i am" is a Dr. Seuss reference via "Eggman" off "Paul's Boutique." I just love that riff.......

Sam I am
Down with the Program
Green Eggs and Ham
Yosemite Sam :D

[Documad]

"sam i am" is a Dr. Seuss reference via "Eggman" off "Paul's Boutique." I just love that riff.......

Sam I am
Down with the Program
Green Eggs and Ham
Yosemite Sam :D
That's the best possible reason to have picked the name! :)

There are a lot of smart people on the board. We all have different backgrounds and if we find a way to talk to each other it makes things interesting. I think it's refreshing to have a newbie like you because it adds to the debate. I'd note that there is a danger in thinking that you know more because you have more education. (Believe me, I've made that mistake before.) It might be true in your case, but it leads to sloppiness. Sloppiness is fine on a message board I guess. Many interested people are self taught. I don't have much of a liberal arts education myself but I've spent a long time in my half-assed pursuit of all things that interest me. There are things I know really well and there are a lot of embarrassing major holes in my education. I read history purely for fun. Until recently, I avoided the American Civil War like crazy, but now that I finally started I can imagine an obsession developing.

I'm aware of how various European countries sent explorers out to "discover" new countries and why. What you said was that the kings of those countries set up colonies here which somehow became the basis for our government, and obviously you misspoke. You earlier indicated I think that the basis of our country was some fundamentalist religion. Now you're talking about explorers instead of founding fathers, and you're talking about gold in central america instead of what went down in our Revolution. I'm guessing that wasn't where you intended to go at all. Unless I'm missing something, you're getting far afield from the point you started to make. And our example doesn't compare to Iraq at all. So my confusion has ended and I can sleep. :)

Anyhow, welcome. And I'm glad you named yourself after a terrific BBs song.

[sam i am]

Yeah, I'm a big history buff. I don't get the comparison with the US because my understanding is that most of the colonies started as business ventures, some of the business ventures changed hands, and eventually a group of the wealthier colonists decided they were sick of financing wars in Europe. I don't know much about French history except that the French people also threw over their own king. Neither the US colonies nor France was invaded by a hostile nation seeking to impose its own values and ruling junta by force.

And again, forgive me for doubting the sincerity of the present US government because we have a spotty record of supporting so-called democracies. Historically, we've tended to prefer friendly dictatorships.

Ok, Documad, here's what you said.

You were referring to colonies (note the little "c"). I was also referring to colonies, as in any outpost established in another territory. Now, when we start talking about the 13 Colonies (note the big "C"), this is what they usually talk about in History books. I guess I was being a bit too precise.

Also, you still haven't acknowledged that we WERE invaded by a hostile nation seeking to impose its own values and ruling junta by force : England in the War of 1812. We also had war declared on us by Spain in 1898 and by Germany in 1941 (December 11 to be precise) and Italy the next day. Even Vichy France declared war on us. If he had the chance and Russia, us, and England hadn't beaten him, we eventually would have had Hitler breathing down our necks.

Thank God we beat him off.

Again, the point is that we've had foreign powers do to us what we are "doing" to Iraq. Heck, even the South during the Civil War invaded Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington DC, Missouri, Kansas, etc. So, your argument is off base there.

The final point is that we LEAVE when we are done accomplishing what we came to do. We don't establish colonies. We don't impose a particular government. We might groom someone, but in Iraq, they have to be elected by the PEOPLE of Iraq...not by us.

Hope some of that helps.....again..... :D

[Ali]

I don't mean to talk down to y'all, but it's hard for me take a lot of other peoples' historical points of view for what they believe now when they don't really know it. Unfortunately, I happen to have History degrees and studied especially World War II, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, American History, Chinese History, and European History.

It's difficult when you have a plethora of specialized knowledge and those who don't are trying to outmaneuver you for their own agendas....hope you understand.OMG! LOL! It's like having a conservative ace42!
Gee, thanks guy, it's so good to have an edumercated poster here at last. I'm sure we will all learn a lot from you. Thanks for dropping by.

[sam i am]

no problem.....glad to oblige.....

oh......

wait.......

you were being.....wait, I'm not sure.......oh, wait.....yep......

SARCASTIC :eek:

Gosh....you really had me....


Grow up

[Documad]

You were referring to colonies (note the little "c"). I was also referring to colonies, as in any outpost established in another territory. Now, when we start talking about the 13 Colonies (note the big "C"), this is what they usually talk about in History books. I guess I was being a bit too precise.
Yeah, it sounds to me like you're talking down to me again. I know enough about history to get that you're saying things here and there that make sense, but what I don't get is how you're trying to string together all these little tidbits into some sort of theory or plan re terrorists in 2005. I know about the War of 1812 (I love the story of Washington being invaded and Dolly saving the portrait of Washington and Maryland withstanding it and the national anthem getting written, and awesome naval battles in the great lakes, and I still don't understand why no one knew that our state militias would refuse to invade Canada) and the Monroe Doctrine and all the stuff you mention, but you have never explained what that has to do with Iraq.

You started this by saying "The bottom line is this: religious fundamentalists founded the USA" as if that explained something. So ever since then, I've been asking about our founding fathers. You're acting like I'm an idiot because of a capitalization thing. But the history books I have read don't call the 13 colonies "the Colonies" and it seems to me that it would be bad grammar. You would capitalize Virginia Colony but not "the colonies" right? But I guess that's just a misunderstanding that's gone waaaaay to far. I'm sure in old English texts they would capitalize every other word anyway.

Yeah, I'm sure that if we had been successfully conquered the new leader would have imposed all kinds of shit on us. But the government we have today was not imposed on us and it was not a result of a foreign invasion. It was a result of compromises made by mostly rich learned white men who bargained to further their particular interests with some greater good in mind.

Before you explain the US Constitution to me again I'll just say that US legal history is to me as ancient history is to you. I can't and won't post my resume but you get the idea. ;)

[D_Raay]

Hey sam- I can understand what you are saying and don't doubt your sincerity in wishing for the best to come of this whole situation. That being said, however, the current administration is certainly NOT the one to be undertaking such a monumental task for obvious reasons. They seek division at every turn, they have poisoned real American ideals at the base and have no hope of gaining the support to carry out the aforementioned task.

You can argue against that , but you will be just trying to put 50 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag...

[sam i am]

Ok, Documad.....good points.

I guess the bottom line is that you can read the thread of my posts.

To sum up : promotion of freedom via democracy will change the way those who live in Iraq and Afghanistan think. They will not support terrorists or religious fundamentalists, just as we don't support them here, when they are empowered via the vote to set the direction of their country.

The USA did not impose a government on Iraq or Afghanistan : there were free elections and new governments are writing constitutions. Today there were announcements that the US is pulling troops out of 22 provinces in Iraq. We'll be out of there by next year and we won't have imposed anything. All we did was get rid of Sadaam Hussein and Mullah Omar so that the people of those countries could determine their own courses. This has already had benefits with Syria backing out of Lebanon, no serious terrorist attacks in Israel since September '04, Libya giving up it's goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, and pissing off the French (does ANYONE really like the French anyway?).

Killing off the terrorists in the meantime while our military is there is the most effective way to stop them from flying planes into our buildings here. It's a lot shorter trip and a lot less expensive to have them dying by the droves trying to kill off our well-armed military than it is having thme come over here and kill us off by thousands as innocent civilians.

Those two objectives have been the entire point of my joining and arguing in this thread. I have also attempted to address other peoples' counterarguments through the utilization of historical illustrations so that I am not just spouting off the top of my head.

That's the fact, jack.......Thank you Bill Murray (!)

[sam i am]

Hey sam- I can understand what you are saying and don't doubt your sincerity in wishing for the best to come of this whole situation. That being said, however, the current administration is certainly NOT the one to be undertaking such a monumental task for obvious reasons. They seek division at every turn, they have poisoned real American ideals at the base and have no hope of gaining the support to carry out the aforementioned task.

You can argue against that , but you will be just trying to put 50 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag...

D_Raay....first of all, welcome back to the discussion. I heartily disagree with you, but that's the point. We all have our positions and we're not going to change each other, but it never hurts to have more information. I've learned stuff already on this thread and I appreciate everyone's ability to put their ideas forward.

I respectfully disagree that "they have poisoned real American ideals at the base and have ni hope of gaining the support to carry out the aforementioned task." It's already almost done. We announced today we're probably getting a large percentage out by next year. Our agenda is blooming over there among the ordinary citizens and the terrorists have mostly lost. They may be the German Werhmacht in 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge and have a few desperate, final challenges, but they've already lost and the weight of history is against them, just like it was against the Soviet Union. Remember when we were all afraid of them in the 1980's, then, poof!, they fell apart? It's happening to the terrorists now.

I truly do appreciate your point of view.

[Ali]

and pissing off the FrenchHow so? :confused:

[sam i am]

How so? :confused: this was in reference to my stating that we had "pissed off the French," BTW

Beacuse we didn't surrender like them. Ever read The Onion? : "We have your beds all made just like in 1918....come right in" :)

[Ali]

this was in reference to my stating that we had "pissed off the French," BTW

Beacuse we didn't surrender like them. Ever read The Onion? : "We have your beds all made just like in 1918....come right in" :)Old and lame.

Got any more French surrender jokes?

Grow up.

[Ali]

And back to the POINT!

Expert fears explosives came from military (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=787542005)

THE bombs which blew apart three Tube trains and a bus in London last week were probably made from military explosives, a senior French counter-terrorism official claimed yesterday.

Christophe Chaboud, the head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit, said the explosives could have come from the Balkans or may have been sourced from a military establishment by someone on the inside. I seriously doubt anybody managed to smuggle that amount of explosives into the country, UK customs are VERY thorough.

So that leaves only once source for the explosives...

[sam i am]

Ok, Ali....serious reply.

From what I can gather, the French are pissed off at us Americans, and particularly at the Bush administration, for not waiting longer for another resolution in the UN to tell Sadaam to pretty pretty please let us know what you have. Also, because the French are not the power brokers over there anymore. Finally, because all the money that is owed to French banks by Sadaam is now not going to be repaid because we went there and kicked his ass out of power. I do believe that the French, in general, would like more say in how the world runs, but they do not currently have the power to impose their will due to the primacy of the US at this juncture in history.

[Ali]

Ok, Ali....serious reply.

From what I can gather, the French are pissed off at us Americans, and particularly at the Bush administration, for not waiting longer for another resolution in the UN to tell Sadaam to pretty pretty please let us know what you have. Also, because the French are not the power brokers over there anymore. Finally, because all the money that is owed to French banks by Sadaam is now not going to be repaid because we went there and kicked his ass out of power. I do believe that the French, in general, would like more say in how the world runs, but they do not currently have the power to impose their will due to the primacy of the US at this juncture in history.I can seriously tell you that the French do not give one single flying fuck about the US, nor do they let themselves be pushed around by Boeing, Microsoft or any other US corporation which tries.

When all that Freedom Fries bullshit was going on in the US, the French certainly didn't retaliate. They don't care about you enough to hate you, that's an historical fact.

What you gather is what you want to gather. Your arrogance blinds you. The truth (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html) is somewhat different.

[sam i am]

Ali,

Ok. I read every word of your link under "truth." The major problem I have with that article is that there are a number of quotes that are uncited (i.e. there are quotation marks without anyone to attribute them to) and that the author explicitly states his bias at the very beginning of the article : that he is setting out to discredit a case for war. Instead of the unbiased use of objective rhetoric, he reveals his bias and then expects the reader to believe his arguments.

This is not good research, it is a political diatribe. Plus, he never makes a convincing case for a linkage between the petrodollar to the euro and and any US government documentation to back up his assertions that that was the driving force behind the decision-making. As a matter of fact, he admits that their is little likelihood that this will occur!

You need to do more "truth" research before such a half-baked article that you cited will even begin to start convincing me. Why would we be pulling out troops now if we wanted to control the oil revenues as your author has posited? Why wouldn't we simply confiscate the means of production and NEVER let them go? Because we don't HAVE to. We'll buy it on the open market, just like every other country in the world, and PAY for it. The revenues will go to rebuilding Iraq.

If we wanted to, we could go take over all the oil fields in the world and run them solely for our own use. We have the military might. Why don't we just do that and be done with all this endless wrangling? I'll tell you why, because we don't have the machiavellian machinations that you believe we do. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT....and we've proven it throughout history : read my previous posts....

[D_Raay]

D_Raay....first of all, welcome back to the discussion. I heartily disagree with you, but that's the point. We all have our positions and we're not going to change each other, but it never hurts to have more information. I've learned stuff already on this thread and I appreciate everyone's ability to put their ideas forward.

I respectfully disagree that "they have poisoned real American ideals at the base and have ni hope of gaining the support to carry out the aforementioned task." It's already almost done. We announced today we're probably getting a large percentage out by next year. Our agenda is blooming over there among the ordinary citizens and the terrorists have mostly lost. They may be the German Werhmacht in 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge and have a few desperate, final challenges, but they've already lost and the weight of history is against them, just like it was against the Soviet Union. Remember when we were all afraid of them in the 1980's, then, poof!, they fell apart? It's happening to the terrorists now.

I truly do appreciate your point of view.

I hope you are right Sam... Every instinct I have tells me you are not though.

[D_Raay]

Ali,

Ok. I read every word of your link under "truth." The major problem I have with that article is that there are a number of quotes that are uncited (i.e. there are quotation marks without anyone to attribute them to) and that the author explicitly states his bias at the very beginning of the article : that he is setting out to discredit a case for war. Instead of the unbiased use of objective rhetoric, he reveals his bias and then expects the reader to believe his arguments.

This is not good research, it is a political diatribe. Plus, he never makes a convincing case for a linkage between the petrodollar to the euro and and any US government documentation to back up his assertions that that was the driving force behind the decision-making. As a matter of fact, he admits that their is little likelihood that this will occur!

You need to do more "truth" research before such a half-baked article that you cited will even begin to start convincing me. Why would we be pulling out troops now if we wanted to control the oil revenues as your author has posited? Why wouldn't we simply confiscate the means of production and NEVER let them go? Because we don't HAVE to. We'll buy it on the open market, just like every other country in the world, and PAY for it. The revenues will go to rebuilding Iraq.

If we wanted to, we could go take over all the oil fields in the world and run them solely for our own use. We have the military might. Why don't we just do that and be done with all this endless wrangling? I'll tell you why, because we don't have the machiavellian machinations that you believe we do. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT....and we've proven it throughout history : read my previous posts....

What's with the blind faith? History has shown otherwise that dissent and speculation of our foreign policy is the path in which the truth lies. Do you not think our government (especially this one) is capable of lying to it's people for it's own gain?

[sam i am]

What's with the blind faith? History has shown otherwise that dissent and speculation of our foreign policy is the path in which the truth lies. Do you not think our government (especially this one) is capable of lying to it's people for it's own gain?

D_Raay - I don't think it's blind faith. I am quite confident that I cited numerous examples throughout this thread of where we voluntarily left countries after invading them and mostly making them over.

Here's a few examples off the top of my head :

-The Dominican Republic in the 1920's
-Cuba in 1898
-Panama in 1989 (and before that with the Panama Canal)
-Western Europe after World War II
-The Phillipines after World War II
-Japan after World War II
-France after World War I
-Grenada in the 1980's
-The American South after Reconstruction after the American Civil War
-Mexico after the Mexican-American War of 1848 (we invaded and captured Mexico City)

This is just a partial list. The point is that we have ALWAYS gotten out of other countries after accomplishing what we set out to do. Sometimes, we've had to go back in, as in Panama, because circumstances changed and we were the ones who had to fix it. Who else in the world has stepped up to make these historic changes? France and England were bankrupt colonial powers after WWII.

Finally, to address your point of is our government capable of lying to us for it's own gain? I know that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING is capable of lying for their own gain. Therefore, it is completely plausible that our government could do the same. It is mad up of human beings.

However, liars invariably get caught : Nixon got himself impeached and was forced to resign. Kennedy got himself shot. Hitler lost a war and an ideology and ended up blowing his own brains out. Stalin died a bitter and paranoid old man. Mussolini got strung up and gutted. For you Liberals for whom Reagan was the anti-Christ : Reagan got Alzheimers and forgot who he was (not many fates worse than that).

So, it's possible, but we have a society and free debate and the ability to band together if and/or when our basic liberties are infringed upon. Trust me, us Conservative Republicans still believe in the Constitution and we'll be there with our Liberal friends if ever there is a government that truly exceeds it's rights to our liberties. That's a promise! :cool:

[Schmeltz]

If we wanted to, we could go take over all the oil fields in the world and run them solely for our own use. We have the military might.


Talk about your half-baked diatribes! I admire your idealism, especially your belief in a better way, but you most certainly do not have even a fraction of the military might it would require to gain control of the world's oil fields, let alone hold them and draw off their production afterwards. Your military is already stretched perilously thin after invading and occupying two backwards third-world countries - you can't seriously think it could simultaneously launch operations against nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, let alone Russia, the world's largest oil producer.

There is no doubt in my mind that the PNAC architects would indeed take over all the oil fields in the world if they thought they had the ability. But even taking Saddam's oil, it turns out, was a serious misadventure; the pipelines are attacked every day and taking and holding the means of production simply isn't viable. Still, the Bush administration can content themselves with their cushy reconstruction contracts.

[sam i am]

I hope you are right Sam... Every instinct I have tells me you are not though.

I'm sure you have excellent instincts, but try not to let them overwhelm your capability for reasoned, thorough, impassioned thought. Without using our brains as the ultimate arbiters of reality, we're no better than the animals (they have only instincts)....fair?

[sam i am]

Talk about your half-baked diatribes! I admire your idealism, especially your belief in a better way, but you most certainly do not have even a fraction of the military might it would require to gain control of the world's oil fields, let alone hold them and draw off their production afterwards. Your military is already stretched perilously thin after invading and occupying two backwards third-world countries - you can't seriously think it could simultaneously launch operations against nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, let alone Russia, the world's largest oil producer.

There is no doubt in my mind that the PNAC architects would indeed take over all the oil fields in the world if they thought they had the ability. But even taking Saddam's oil, it turns out, was a serious misadventure; the pipelines are attacked every day and taking and holding the means of production simply isn't viable. Still, the Bush administration can content themselves with their cushy reconstruction contracts.

Schmeltz, you made my point. Thank you. Of course it's ridiculous to posit a takeover of oil fields around the world and completely control the means of production. But, this is what the Bush Administration and Halliburton are accused of everyday in the media and by Liberals in the US.

Either we're the ultimate boogeyman and have all the answers or we're the bumbling, inept USA, bludgeoning its way around the world. Both images are extremes and not conducive to reasoned discourse. But, many think this way and need to be dissuaded.