[N8 v2.0]

And you need to tweak your auto-reply. You tried to say something substantive not too long ago. You should look into that.

..and you couldn't handle it, remember?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

al-Q exacted these attacks on the embassies (killing mostly brown indigenous types; "lesser" people). a few dozen between khobar towers & the uss cole was 17 or so. but let's also look at the situations of these attacks: they were ambushes, plain & simple, outside of the theater of war. is this how you'd rather have it? a few dozen expected yet "tolerable" deaths? (OLGF, before you jump on my hump about false dichotomy, recall you have no recourse to counter terrorist groups but to hunt them down; sanctions don't work on people who have no use for UN-distributed powdered goats' milk)

but since we also care about browns, let's also factor this, if you will allow: i believe this is germaine to the topic:

in iraq, we targeted bad guys, w/ admitted collateral damage, but pales in comparison (recalling that we're comparing scale) to attacks carried out by terrorists using suicide truck bombs at the markets, bombing mosques of the "wrong kind of muslims", busloads of iraqi cop-trainees, and labor-queues
so, abdul hung up his felefal stand to join the fight? and that's somehow that's our fault & not that of the imam during friday prayers calling for jihad? my, you do have a measurable amount of self-loathing. by that logic, we shouldn't kill them: we created them!! we're the bloody problem!! if we would go away, they would just be peace loving rug-traders.
you seem to think we should go after people, and not an ideology being lived out through people. i think this may be the fundamental disagreement we have. and i'm cool with it.

You're kidding, right? Right?!?!

Of course we created them. We ARE the problem.
I'll even define 'we' for you so there's no mistake:
we = the elected (and people appointed by said electees) officials that made the decision to actually do these deeds.

This has become one giant clusterf*ck with no end in sight. It started out with the best intentions; we're going to get the people that fell the towers. Great. Go get 'em, tiger.

Then it turned into knowingly lying to the American public about, what lately appears to be, everything. You seem to have bought it hook, line, and sinker. No WMD's like W said?? No problem, we have to eradicate those bastards that fell the towers....What? They had no ties....hmmm....Well, on to Iran, cause those f*ckers are the REAL problem...

I can't wait.

I have lost all respect, trust, etc. in the office of the president and his advisors. If you have an agenda, fine. Lying about what is going on is unacceptable. Especially when you're causing the rest of the world to look at what you're doing with a look of absolute comtempt.

Why are the Imam's calling for jihad? Before, it would've been because the U.S. is powerful and we don't like that and blah blah blah....Now it's because we invaded and killed family members and they can put a face on "evil". And once you put a face on your enemy with 72 virgins waiting for you....boy, you better kiss you M4 Carbine-armed ass goodnight.


If this had been thought through in the first place, and, btw, people hadn't been so F*CKING complacent about what was going on, we wouldn't be in this mess. To eradicate terror we don't need to invade entire countries and throw the balance of power in the whole region into the wood chipper of 'justice'. Yeah, we can get the terrorists. But with how things have been done....doesn't look like it's working...no matter how hard bushie blows his own dick.

 

[$tinkle]

No, they had ties with a sovereign nation called Pakistan which installed the Taliban who in turn helped facilitate the training camps. Note, however, that Iraq was NOT part of the equation.

in simple terms - but not too simple to miss the point - explain how our elected officials acted fallibly in choosing to invade. that is, starting from 1998, when it became the policy of the united states under clinton to liberate iraq, how was our leadership wrong [either administration - you pick]?

Yet Afghanistan is still in shamble, Osama is still at large, and the Taliban is still around and causing trouble.

working on it...

...we should have done the job right

plz elaborate

If anyone didn't notice what happened in Afghanistan it was the administration.

i believe it was a "hey, that wasn't half-bad! let's go to the other side of this axis-of-evil country & try it"

Hell yeah people noticed. The radical muslims saw a power vaccuum and a chance to spread their influence to a place where they were largely shut out,

so shut out saddam was building the second larget mosque in the world (called the mother of all mosques); i guess he chose to dedicate it toward the wrong flavor of islam? that's my guess.

as well as a place to have live training camps against American soldiers who are at a distinct disadvantage in many instances.

no doubt, obl, et. al., would have been fools to pass up this opportunity to send jihadis for both training & propaganda.

Of course, the rise of radical Islam in all those places you cite should be disturbing, because how long do you think it will be before those new hot spots do become our problem. Add the rise of radical Islam in Iraq and them killing American soldiers, turning Iraq into a civil war and a blood bath, and you've got a pretty messed up situation. how long until it does spill over?

agreed, and the UN is not the answer. i hope reform within radical islam is, but i'm not too pollyanna on that.

 

[ohio]

recall you have no recourse to counter terrorist groups but to hunt them down; sanctions don't work on people who have no use for UN-distributed powdered goats' milk

agreed. we should hunt them down. covertly. so that no one notices but their own dwindling membership.

in iraq, we targeted bad guys, w/ admitted collateral damage, but pales in comparison (recalling that we're comparing scale) to attacks carried out by terrorists using suicide truck bombs at the markets, bombing mosques of the "wrong kind of muslims", busloads of iraqi cop-trainees, and labor-queues
so, abdul hung up his felefal stand to join the fight? and that's somehow that's our fault

Abdul wouldn't have hung up his falafel stand if we hadn't started the war, so yes that's our fault. Now we have no choice but to put hm down, but if we didn't breed him in the first place...

Terrorists wouldn't be bombing mosques in Iraq if we hadn't started a war, so yes that's our fault. We didn't bomb the mosques, but we created the situation that put all of those civilians in jeopardy. They're committing the homicide, but we committed the gross negligence.

you seem to think we should go after people, and not an ideology being lived out through people. i think this may be the fundamental disagreement we have. and i'm cool with it.

I think we should attack the ideology AND the people committing the crimes and recruiting modertes to their extremes. Go after the people covertly, without creating martyrs or a "cause." Go after the ideology through diplomacy, education, aid, infrastructure, a real economy. By providing a clear enemy and a conspicuous theatre for action we have done nothing but STRENGTHEN the ideology.

Did removing the 10 commandments from judicial buildings crush the extreme christian right, or does it mobilize them to action and recruit moderates who now feel threatened to their cause?

 

[$tinkle]

agreed. we should hunt them down. covertly. so that no one notices but their own dwindling membership.

so much for deterrence, eh? one day mahmoud fails to show up for his shift in the cave & they'll just assume...? just trolling. carry on.

Abdul wouldn't have hung up his falafel stand if we hadn't started the war, so yes that's our fault. Now we have no choice but to put hm down, but if we didn't breed him in the first place...

and what of the breeders? are we hoping for a specially-decorated thin pike on the WH lawn?

I think we should attack the ideology AND the people committing the crimes and recruiting modertes to their extremes. Go after the people covertly, without creating martyrs or a "cause." Go after the ideology through diplomacy, education, aid, infrastructure, a real economy.

so make it more like saudi arabia? i'm only 1/2 trolling.

 

[rockwool]

Now what specifically kills me about the profiteering in this case, is that it may well crush our economy and our security in the long run, and it results from a war entirely created, I would even say manufactured, by the US.

All this time the US has been in Iraq it has been taking oil from them without paying for it. No one knows how many barrels per day... With the current administratioin I won't be surprised if the profit saved from not having to pay for that crude oil, goes only to private companies and nothing to the US's purse.

 

[ohio]

so much for deterrence, eh? one day mahmoud fails to show up for his shift in the cave & they'll just assume...? just trolling. carry on.
and what of the breeders? are we hoping for a specially-decorated thin pike on the WH lawn?
so make it more like saudi arabia? i'm only 1/2 trolling.

kill the breeders. covertly. yes, let them assume. but don't let the guys in a different cave 3000 miles away know they've both got something in common.

saudi arabia is not the model I'm thinking of. it's not a real, sustainable, economy and the work we have done there was never designed to help create an educated middle class. japan, south korea, hell, even peru. Afghanistan was a golden opportunity to show that this could be achieved in the middle east. Squandered...

 

[kidwoo]

I guess divide and conquer alwas did have a better ring to it than unite and facilitate.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I guess divide and conquer alwas did have a better ring to it than unite and facilitate.

What about untie & flatulate?

 

[WheelieMan]

All this time the US has been in Iraq it has been taking oil from them without paying for it. No one knows how many barrels per day... With the current administratioin I won't be surprised if the profit saved from not having to pay for that crude oil, goes only to private companies and nothing to the US's purse.

And your proof for that is???

 

[Secret Squirrel]

And your proof for that is???

Swede's don't lie....at least that's what the bikini model told me last night.....hmmmm....come to think of it...I don't think she faked like she said she did.....

 

[Changleen]

and what of the breeders? are we hoping for a specially-decorated thin pike on the WH lawn?

What of them? If they were not so trumpetted by the western media and elevated to the status they currently have, they wouldn't have the 'power' they currently (don't actually) have. This whole thing is a self fulfilling joke/prophecy (same deal.)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

al-Q exacted these attacks on the embassies (killing mostly brown indigenous types; "lesser" people). a few dozen between khobar towers & the uss cole was 17 or so. but let's also look at the situations of these attacks: they were ambushes, plain & simple, outside of the theater of war. is this how you'd rather have it? a few dozen expected yet "tolerable" deaths? (OLGF, before you jump on my hump about false dichotomy, recall you have no recourse to counter terrorist groups but to hunt them down; sanctions don't work on people who have no use for UN-distributed powdered goats' milk)

OLGF? Is that supposed to be some subtle way of trying to make fun of me?

Those ambushes didn't quite accomplish the damage that they are doing now for one. They are still ambushing us, or do you see an army of terrorists lining up against our troops in Iraq for two. And third, you say that either we hunt them down or use sanctions, but there are many different ways that we could go about this. Also, hunting them down is not mutually exclusive with other options.

but since we also care about browns, let's also factor this, if you will allow: i believe this is germaine to the topic:

in iraq, we targeted bad guys, w/ admitted collateral damage, but pales in comparison (recalling that we're comparing scale) to attacks carried out by terrorists using suicide truck bombs at the markets, bombing mosques of the "wrong kind of muslims", busloads of iraqi cop-trainees, and labor-queues
so, abdul hung up his felefal stand to join the fight? and that's somehow that's our fault & not that of the imam during friday prayers calling for jihad? my, you do have a measurable amount of self-loathing. by that logic, we shouldn't kill them: we created them!! we're the bloody problem!! if we would go away, they would just be peace loving rug-traders.

Your racism aside, there's much more to it and I'll grant you that it isn't solely our fault, nor is it solely the fault of the current administration. This is something that's been brewing for many, many years, spanning many administrations. It is most certainly our fault that we are in Iraq. No one forced us to go in there.

you seem to think we should go after people, and not an ideology being lived out through people. i think this may be the fundamental disagreement we have. and i'm cool with it.

Nice straw man. No one is saying that we should only go after people and not the ideology that spawns terrorism. Going into Iraq, however, was not the way to do that. Instead of fighting the ideology, we simply helped it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

..and you couldn't handle it, remember?

Oh yeah, all I did was point out that it was one long logical error. My bad.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

in simple terms - but not too simple to miss the point - explain how our elected officials acted fallibly in choosing to invade. that is, starting from 1998, when it became the policy of the united states under clinton to liberate iraq, how was our leadership wrong [either administration - you pick]?

Gee, I don't know, maybe lying to the American people to commit troops to the ground in an effort that didn't need to be made that took our attention away from the other country we had just invaded? Yes, Clinton was seeking regime change, but I don't recall him putting our army in Iraq, or opportunistically using the USS Cole bombing (or any other terrorist act) as an excuse to go into Iraq.

working on it...

With much less of a force than what we have committed to Iraq.

plz elaborate

Well, for starters we could have gone in there with the force that we are using in Iraq. We could have stayed until the job was done, instead of pulling out in favor of invading another country that had nothing to do with what was going on. Maybe we could have put more pressure on Musharaf so that he would stop playing both sides. Should I go on?

i believe it was a "hey, that wasn't half-bad! let's go to the other side of this axis-of-evil country & try it"

Do you really believe that?

so shut out saddam was building the second larget mosque in the world (called the mother of all mosques); i guess he chose to dedicate it toward the wrong flavor of islam? that's my guess.
no doubt, obl, et. al., would have been fools to pass up this opportunity to send jihadis for both training & propaganda.
agreed, and the UN is not the answer. i hope reform within radical islam is, but i'm not too pollyanna on that.

Saddam was a megalomaniac. He craved power. Letting the radical fundamentalists in would have siphoned off some of his power and he wasn't about to do that. So he was going to build a huge mosque, so what? That doesn't mean that he was in league with the terrorists. You'll have to do much better than that, especially since Bush is now admitting that there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11 and the link they tried to establish between Saddam and Al Qaeda has been largely discredited.

The UN may not be the answer (I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the UN?) and it would be pollyanna-ish to think they will reform themselves. As Ohio said, we could be pushing for more reforms in a more peaceful way, however, and helping to bring about the changes that we seek, instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Yeah, miltary time doesnt count. Despite the fact that some people live off base, shop on the local economy, pay local taxes, send their kids to local schools, the kids learn to speak the local language fluently, play sports on the local teams, have babies in the local hospitals, make lifelong friends with local residents, discuss politics in both the local area and the world and generally try to assimilate into the area. No, it doesnt count.

US military bases abroad are american reservations.
saying living in them count as "living abroad" is like saying going to a different sandals every year makes you cosmopolitan.

 

[$tinkle]

OLGF? Is that supposed to be some subtle way of trying to make fun of me?

no, it was a typo

Those ambushes didn't quite accomplish the damage that they are doing now for one. They are still ambushing us, or do you see an army of terrorists lining up against our troops in Iraq for two.

again, this is in the theater of war, where this kind of action is expected

Your racism aside,

now i know you got nuthin'; seriously, once you start that just because i say we care about browns (i still believe we both do, and it's shorter than saying "residents living under oppressive &/or unstable governments of all countries ending in -stan, and of the middle east who are not jewish, because it goes without saying how deeply we care about the jews"), i'm not going to seriously consider much else of what you have to say, which is regrettable if you have anything of substance to offer. see ohio's posts for good examples. he probably thinks i'm a tool, but still offers reasonable discussion void of baseless ad-hominem snipes.

after all, if i'm racist, there's really no point responding to my posts, now is there?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

no, it was a typo

I thought maybe you were trying to substitute lady for man or something, as if it were some sort of clever joke or something. I'm glad, because it wouldn't have been that clever.

again, this is in the theater of war, where this kind of action is expected

Glad you aren't whining about the guerilla tactics at least.

now i know you got nuthin'; seriously, once you start that just because i say we care about browns (i still believe we both do, and it's shorter than saying "residents living under oppressive &/or unstable governments of all countries ending in -stan, and of the middle east who are not jewish, because it goes without saying how deeply we care about the jews"),

It was in response to referring to all Arabs as rug-traders and talking about Abdul and his "felefal" stand. I only mentioned it because it's part of what got us into this mess. We (the Western World) have treated the Arab world with disdain for decades now, and part of that is due to racist attitudes. But, what do I know. Maybe they are all just a bunch of towel-head camel jockeys, right?

i'm not going to seriously consider much else of what you have to say, which is regrettable if you have anything of substance to offer. see ohio's posts for good examples. he probably thinks i'm a tool, but still offers reasonable discussion void of baseless ad-hominem snipes.

I just gave you the basis of it. You said it, now deal with it. If you were being facetious then just tell me and I'll apologize.

As for saying that I have no substance, that's laughable coming from someone who has continually used logical fallacy. C'mon you can do better.

after all, if i'm racist, there's really no point responding to my posts, now is there?

Except that I believe that one has to stand up to bad arguments.

 

[$tinkle]

Gee, I don't know, maybe lying to the American people to commit troops to the ground in an effort that didn't need to be made that took our attention away from the other country we had just invaded?

and here i thought lying meant "knowing one thing to be true, yet purporting something in its stead to quite the contrary" (not "bending an itching ear towards piss-poor intelligence & being culturally ingorant").

Yes, Clinton was seeking regime change, but I don't recall him putting our army in Iraq, or opportunistically using the USS Cole bombing (or any other terrorist act) as an excuse to go into Iraq.

correct; he waited until he was getting impeached for lying before congress (since you take such an austere temperment toward those types) before he did such a reprehensible & dastardly thing. [as an aside, i'm not pointing this out b/c i'm truly passionate about his peccadilloes - it did little good for our country to humiliate the office in this manner - but i get a whiff of hypocrisy when "bush lied" gets echoed]

Well, for starters we could have gone in there with the force that we are using in Iraq. We could have stayed until the job was done, instead of pulling out in favor of invading another country that had nothing to do with what was going on. Maybe we could have put more pressure on Musharaf so that he would stop playing both sides. Should I go on?

we'll have to agree that while this may very well be the analysis now, i don't recall anyone who laid out this recipe at that time. let's recall the best military plan is out-of-date the instant fighting begins.

You'll have to do much better than that, especially since Bush is now admitting that there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11 and the link they tried to establish between Saddam and Al Qaeda has been largely discredited.

and you accuse me of setting up strawmen? also trying to find a link doesn't quite equal "trying to establish"

the link to saddam-to-terror however is rather strong, and was seen as a building threat (maybe not by you, but it was by both the executive & legislative branches, as well as security advisors, and former members of the aforementioned from previous office holders & the previous administration).

As Ohio said, we could be pushing for more reforms in a more peaceful way, however, and helping to bring about the changes that we seek, instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

about that false dichotomy: shooting first?

maybe we should have rallied international pressure via a UN resolution - or 14? [check] or maybe sanctions? [check] or maybe try our hand at internal support for regime change [check]

what else should we have tried? at 15th resolution? double secret probation?

i'm simply amazed at the pains you will take to ignore our previous efforts along the continuum spanning over a decade, all of which failed to produce the result of achieving regime change in iraq.

 

[$tinkle]

It was in response to referring to all Arabs as rug-traders and talking about Abdul and his "felefal" stand. I only mentioned it because it's part of what got us into this mess. We (the Western World) have treated the Arab world with disdain for decades now, and part of that is due to racist attitudes. But, what do I know. Maybe they are all just a bunch of towel-head camel jockeys, right?

i can see where you can reasonably infer that from my statements; apologies all around

Except that I believe that one has to stand up to bad arguments.

i think slapping fred phelps with a frozen cod is more effective.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

i can see where you can reasonably infer that from my statements; apologies all around

I wanted to address this comment before the previous one you wrote. It seems that I probably did misunderstand you and I apologize for making bad assumptions. You know what they say about when you assume....

i think slapping fred phelps with a frozen cod is more effective.

No arguments about that from me. If there is a hell, I hope there is a special place set aside for the likes of Phelps.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

and here i thought lying meant "knowing one thing to be true, yet purporting something in its stead to quite the contrary" (not "bending an itching ear towards piss-poor intelligence & being culturally ingorant").

You might be willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, but I am not. It was only recently that Bush finally admitted that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam, yet he was still spinning in saying that his administration never said that "Saddam ordered 9/11."

correct; he waited until he was getting impeached for lying before congress (since you take such an austere temperment toward those types) before he did such a reprehensible & dastardly thing. [as an aside, i'm not pointing this out b/c i'm truly passionate about his peccadilloes - it did little good for our country to humiliate the office in this manner - but i get a whiff of hypocrisy when "bush lied" gets echoed]

Clinton lied. He also launched missiles into Iraq to deflect attention away from his impeachment. Neither action was right or becoming of the office. I won't defend what he did, but I will say that Bush's lies are much worse. Clinton lied about getting his pecker whacked in the oval office, while Bush lied in order to get us into a war where people are dying. On the scale of things, both are wrong, but one has much harsher consequences than the other.

we'll have to agree that while this may very well be the analysis now, i don't recall anyone who laid out this recipe at that time. let's recall the best military plan is out-of-date the instant fighting begins.

If no one said that we should have a larger troop presence then our military advisors dropped the ball. I highly doubt that no one said we should finish what we started in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq, however.

and you accuse me of setting up strawmen? also trying to find a link doesn't quite equal "trying to establish"

It's not a straw man to point out that Bush and Co. tried to link Saddam to 9/11 and al Qaeda in order to sell the war. That is public record.

the link to saddam-to-terror however is rather strong, and was seen as a building threat (maybe not by you, but it was by both the executive & legislative branches, as well as security advisors, and former members of the aforementioned from previous office holders & the previous administration).

And the executive & legislative branches are controlled by the Republican party. Those people have seriously messed up and should be held accountable in the next elections, which is what Ohio was pushing for from the beginning. Also, there are reports that certain intel was suppressed in favor of intel that bolstered the Admin's arguments.

about that false dichotomy: shooting first?

We did shoot first and ask questions later. We were the ones who kicked the IAEA out of Iraq so that we could blow up Saddam. The IAEA correctly reported that they could find no traces of WMD and we went in anyway then sorted it out only to find that IAEA were right.

maybe we should have rallied international pressure via a UN resolution - or 14? [check] or maybe sanctions? [check] or maybe try our hand at internal support for regime change [check]

what else should we have tried? at 15th resolution? double secret probation?

i'm simply amazed at the pains you will take to ignore our previous efforts along the continuum spanning over a decade, all of which failed to produce the result of achieving regime change in iraq.

You take for granted that Saddam was first a danger and second needed to be removed. Saddam was a dictator, but there are other dictators out there as well. Surely you don't think we should take all of them out, do you?

And, yes, we should have striven for more international support. That doesn't necessarily mean that we try for another UN resolution (although it seems that since Saddam didn't have WMD that some of the resolutions were followed.) It does mean, however, that we don't simply thumb our noses at people who disagree with us and start chewing on "freedom" fries simply because we've got our panties all in a twist that they dare to disagree with us.

 

[JohnE]

US military bases abroad are american reservations.
saying living in them count as "living abroad" is like saying going to a different sandals every year makes you cosmopolitan.

Hey meat nipple, did you read the post?
Ahem..."some people live off base, shop on the local economy, pay local taxes, send their kids to local schools, the kids learn to speak the local language fluently, play sports on the local teams, have babies in the local hospitals, make lifelong friends with local residents, discuss politics in both the local area and the world and generally try to assimilate into the area."

Geez, when you have to quote yourself, this tells you that some people just arent paying attetion...

 

[DaveW]

Hey meat nipple, did you read the post?
Ahem..."some people live off base, shop on the local economy, pay local taxes, send their kids to local schools, the kids learn to speak the local language fluently, play sports on the local teams, have babies in the local hospitals, make lifelong friends with local residents, discuss politics in both the local area and the world and generally try to assimilate into the area."

Geez, when you have to quote yourself, this tells you that some people just arent paying attetion...

Having witnessed the behavior of such troops first hand the ones you speak of there are a very very very small percentage of the total.

Looking at it from my perspective of ex mil of another country.... The yanks are renouned for their insular behaviour patterns and outlook..... to the point of borderline self regulating into an internal apartheid social structure.
A mate Lance who was sent over to the States to train some marines was chastised by a marine captain for not hanging out with his own people when he was yakking some latinos in the mess..... The troopers of that outfit would split up into their own racical groupings as soon as off duty, which came as a surprise to Lance...Kiwi troops hang out with their unit and treat all unit member like their family with none of that sort of bullsh1t division.

 

[JohnE]

You are, unfortunately, right on the money. I have agreed to that before, many Yanks are very insular. But I simply object to the generalities that are accepted as fact by the masses. We are not all like that. One of the reasons I stay in the service is to see (whats left of) the world and expose my kids to other cultures outside of the US...

 

[rockwool]

here's what ohio said:the 3 terrorist acts i reminded us of happened before w was prez, & i fail to see how mass murder by al-queda (the tap root of terrorism) can be trivilialized as impotent. that w was culturally idiotic does not absolve the terrorists' ideology. [and please make no mistake, this is a war of ideology, promulgated through terror]

and another thing to you who espouse the idea that "iraq has become a magnet for terrorism". how do intend to keep the magnet charged? do you actually think containment can work ** this time **? why would it? we had 100 insurgents [sic] in our sights days ago, but refused to take them out for what amounts to be amnesia that we're at war.

* spit *

Al-Qaida the taproot of terrorism? Like there were no struggle against the empire before Al-Qaida was organized, or invented, as some say, by the US for reasons of needing an external enemy big enough to justify new wars and enourmus spending on weapons. Some these fractions found it to their benefit to use the name of Al-Qaida to unite them selves agaist the empire.

You're right about that this is a war of ideology. Islamic fundamentalism was created by Sayed Kutb, and the neo conservative fundamentalism by Leo Strauss, the philosophy professor of Irving Kristol's son William and Paul Wolfowitz, among others within the Bush administration.

But how current US foregn policies are practicezed are hardly or at all any different from any previous administration. They have always been outspokingly about "US interests" around the world, at the expens of the majority of the locals.

If any of you guys want to deepen your knowledge in Islamic/Neo Con fundamentalism and the terror both ideologies cause you should check out the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear" from 2004. It is in three pieces so its pretty long but defenetly worth watching as it is realy informative.
I only found the first of the three on google videos:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=The+Power+of+Nightmares,+The+Rise+of+the+Politics+of+Fear&hl=en

But, by and large, most of the terrorist cells were impotent and isolated. Now, due to the actions of our fearless leader, they are united against us and more powerful than before. We are creating more and more terrorists with our callous actions.

Yup, that is the way of nature, it and we humans adapt to our suroundings. The more people are treated like animals, the less like humans they are going to behave.

I'm not absolving anyone. We should wipe those ****ers off the face of the earth. But do you really insist that the best way to achieve that was to invade a country where they weren't?

You think they should be wiped ot the earth? They think the zionists should be wiped of the earth. Are you totaly 100% sure you are all good and all knowing to take the role of the arch angels? The US has never been an angel, and this administration is the least heavenly of them all. How can you trust the neo cons to do anything correct exept feed their greed? After invading Iraq for no legit reason at all, and Afghanistan on proof that was so ridiculous it wouldn't make to court, the US should have a resolution against it and the UN should be set to disarm it, only to allow a small force for defence like the one Japan is.
A win-win situation for your nation, as your taxes will go to better stuff than the shareholders of Raytheon, and for the world as a whole who will be left to be ruled by them selves and keep their natural resources.

it seems that for the purpose of this thread, "impotent & isolated" means "not within the lower 48", but what is minimized is they ran a sovereign nation (afghanistan). we kicked the camel $hi7 out of them, and do you think anybody else noticed? and after we toppled iraq, do you think anybody else noticed? do you see radical islam bloodying us up over here? please take note of this: 23 yala banks hit by bomb blasts in thailand - aug 31st & the mumbai bombings (w/ al-queda links), and the phillipines last summer, and in saudi arabia, and malaysia, spain, italy, germany, france, syria (yesterday), the UK, bali, ethiopia, morrocco, somalia, and oh-yeah i almost forgot about 1/2 of sudan. see a theme here? [hint: has nothing to do w/ our occupation of these named places].

for a group that is seemingly united against us, they sure behave like a bunch of keystone cops & can't seem to find the 4th biggest country in the world with what you seem to think has a big "kick-me" sign on it. or could it be that they know this is a fight that can't win over here, so they pick on children-of-a-lesser-god types elsewhere?
you're correct, i was being bizarre; i actually thought you wanted to do something about this pesky terrorism problem. (short of actually fighting it, that is)

The taliban was a product of the analphabetic ignaorance poor people live with, and a never ending war due to different occupations and destabilizing interest groups. $tinkle, you should be fighting poverty, diseases and analphabetism if you want to stop some of the extremism and terrorism.

You don't actualy have to occupy a country anymore to have all the influence you want over it. Occupying was the old way of colonialism to get what they wanted. Neo colonialism is subtle instead of brute, but its purpose is just the same. Only the means differ.
The US do have military precence in over 100 countries and that works as a threat as well.

You don't think the US has a big "kick-me" sign on it? It has been bullying the whole frikkin world since 1945 and the Americas for what, two centurys now?
If a country, or group of counties, invaded the US and did as they pleased with it and its people, would they deserve an asswoppin?

al-Q exacted these attacks on the embassies (killing mostly brown indigenous types; "lesser" people). a few dozen between khobar towers & the uss cole was 17 or so. but let's also look at the situations of these attacks: they were ambushes, plain & simple, outside of the theater of war. is this how you'd rather have it? a few dozen expected yet "tolerable" deaths? (OLGF, before you jump on my hump about false dichotomy, recall you have no recourse to counter terrorist groups but to hunt them down; sanctions don't work on people who have no use for UN-distributed powdered goats' milk)

Again you state that your countys leaders are the arch angels on earth. The actions of US soldiers, like the ones in Abu Ghraib, show that they consider arabs to be "lesser people". That type of "racism", where US citizens are considered to be worth more is obvious in everything from statments from politicians to what come out of Hollywood.

in iraq, we targeted bad guys, w/ admitted collateral damage, but pales in comparison (recalling that we're comparing scale) to attacks carried out by terrorists using suicide truck bombs at the markets, bombing mosques of the "wrong kind of muslims", busloads of iraqi cop-trainees, and labor-queues

Collateral damage is non acceptable. Politicians shruging their shoulders and saying "**** happens" is not acceptable. Shlt is not alowed to happen. You aren't alowed to attack if you know it's goning to cost lives of civilians.
From www.genevaconventions.org:
"collateral damage

Weapons, projectiles and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 35, Sec. 2)

See carpet bombing, civilian population, civilian property, environment."

The low frequent civil war that is going on in Iraq right now is the fruit of the coalitioins occupation. That isht wasn't there before the iinvasion.

so, abdul hung up his felefal stand to join the fight? and that's somehow that's our fault & not that of the imam during friday prayers calling for jihad? my, you do have a measurable amount of self-loathing. by that logic, we shouldn't kill them: we created them!! we're the bloody problem!! if we would go away, they would just be peace loving rug-traders.
you seem to think we should go after people, and not an ideology being lived out through people. i think this may be the fundamental disagreement we have. and i'm cool with it.

Your analysis of how things have come to be aren't that deep. Nobody leaves all he has and his family, to go jihad on team america, out of the blue.. That is a last solution to a never ending unbarable situation.

Your inability/unwillingness to critisize the US expresses its self in the same way as zionist Jews call non zionist Jews, critisizing Israeli actions, "self hating Jews".
And yes, if you don't poke the guy next to you in the eye, or mess with him in any other way, he won't mind you at all.

What is it that shows that the neo conservative ideology, or previous ideologies of the US, is a role model for the rest of the world no matter what other people think and get a chanse to vote for or against? In the US i see THE country that has the best means of taking care of its citizens interests, but instead there's an enourmous amount of missery. If its politicians treat its people that bad, how bad will they not treat other people?

 

[rockwool]

...no matter how hard bushie blows his own dick.

The prince of Wales blew another guy apparantly. Seems that angry Phelps preacher was right about that ending is near. Our leaders are Godless sodomites..

starting from 1998, when it became the policy of the united states under clinton to liberate iraq, how was our leadership wrong [either administration - you pick]?

I wonder, if a nation that was considered hostile by the US gave $8million to a "democratic oposition" in the US, would they be charged with treason? I could bet a nut that would be considered treason in peaceful little "Svedala" as well...

and the UN is not the answer.

It was people like you who had no faith in the democratic ways of the parliament that gave way for lord Sidious take-over... And now the Sith rule this planet...

agreed. we should hunt them down. covertly. so that no one notices but their own dwindling membership.

Do you want to hunt them down and kill them, or bring them to justice? If justice, do you settle with them new limited rights military courts or one that practices equal rights to all?

Go after the ideology through diplomacy, education, aid, infrastructure, a real economy. By providing a clear enemy and a conspicuous theatre for action we have done nothing but STRENGTHEN the ideology.

so make it more like saudi arabia? i'm only 1/2 trolling.

Saudi man, that place is your ally by your assurance, since 1945, to the royal family that they will stay in power. Another great democracy to stand up for...Just like liberated Quwait, why didn't they get to have democratic elections like the Iraqis did?!!

kill the breeders. covertly. yes, let them assume. but don't let the guys in a different cave 3000 miles away know they've both got something in common.

Mirror that, the radical islamists doing that to the coalition instead. Would you still be Fonzy with that?

I guess divide and conquer alwas did have a better ring to it than unite and facilitate.

What about untie & flatulate?

Unate & fluctuate?

And your proof for that is???

Swede's don't lie....at least that's what the bikini model told me last night.....hmmmm....come to think of it...I don't think she faked like she said she did.....

WeeMan, listen to Squirrel! 200 years of peace has lead to a society of superhumans, like jedi's, it is not in our caracter to lie, deceive, swindle, fool or defraud. All proof you want of your governments are to be found in the jedi archives (or library of congress if you will). There you will find the truth about the evil nature of your governments, and the disturbance to the force they have been. Everything that is not classified is there to be found, and everything declassified that is at least 25 years old. To know the history of your countrys deeds will make you understand and read present day as it happens. True jedi power that is. I, can only show you the way to the path going there, walk it, you will have to do your self...
The Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave, SE, Washington, D.C. 20540

It was in response to referring to all Arabs as rug-traders and talking about Abdul and his "felefal" stand. I only mentioned it because it's part of what got us into this mess. We (the Western World) have treated the Arab world with disdain for decades now, and part of that is due to racist attitudes. But, what do I know. Maybe they are all just a bunch of towel-head camel jockeys, right?

I second that.

correct; he waited until he was getting impeached for lying before congress (since you take such an austere temperment toward those types) before he did such a reprehensible & dastardly thing. [as an aside, i'm not pointing this out b/c i'm truly passionate about his peccadilloes - it did little good for our country to humiliate the office in this manner - but i get a whiff of hypocrisy when "bush lied" gets echoed]

You're talking about the launch NATO did on Kosovo right? That had "Wag The Dog" written all over it... The recently signed Dayton agreement wasn't even mentioned by the media....

You take for granted that Saddam was first a danger and second needed to be removed. Saddam was a dictator, but there are other dictators out there as well. Surely you don't think we should take all of them out, do you?

Isn't that against international law aswell? A countrys soverenty is in the fait of it people if I'm not misstaken.

Kiwi troops hang out with their unit and treat all unit member like their family with none of that sort of bullsh1t division.

But then the assimilation between Kiwi and the natives have gone better than in comparison to most other countries, like Oz and US, aswell..

 

[$tinkle]

rockwool, thanks for taking the time to respond at length; even if you may think you're pissing up a rope w/ me, at least know that you're not ignored.

Al-Qaida the taproot of terrorism? Like there were no struggle against the empire before Al-Qaida

i can see some sense in this, & perhaps my comment was a little flippant. it still does not translate that we [the west] shoulder the blame for their spread of terror driven by its unmistakable extremist translation of their religion. this isn't just some silly tribal squabble we're dabbling in - like the hutus & the tutsis - that would somehow play itself out in its contained environment.

<cont'd thought> was organized, or invented, as some say, by the US for reasons of needing an external enemy big enough to justify new wars and enourmus spending on weapons.

the thing about this second part of the statement is, you bear the burden of proof. like most conspiracy theories, the level of cooperation & complicity is intractable.

Some these fractions found it to their benefit to use the name of Al-Qaida to unite them selves agaist the empire.

googling for "previously unknown terrorist group", i get quite the return, which reveals there are those in not so small measure who still are trying to carve out a niche for themselves in what seems to be a cottage industry of umm & ali terror.

Islamic fundamentalism was created by Sayed Kutb, and the neo conservative fundamentalism by Leo Strauss, the philosophy professor of Irving Kristol's son William and Paul Wolfowitz, among others within the Bush administration.

not so fast.
anything with "fundamentalism" at the end of it - by definition - has to go back to the founder. christian fundamentalism goes back to jesus of nazereth. islamic fundamentalism goes back to muhammed, & this sentiment is the linchpin of the pope's "controversial" remarks.

But how current US foregn policies are practicezed are hardly or at all any different from any previous administration. They have always been outspokingly about "US interests" around the world, at the expens of the majority of the locals.

agreed, and a building - scratch that - imminent terrorist threat is indeed in u.s. interest to squash.

Yup, that is the way of nature, it and we humans adapt to our suroundings. The more people are treated like animals, the less like humans they are going to behave.

so when are women in islamic countries going to rise up? ...and non-muslims living in islamic countries?

You think they should be wiped ot the earth? They think the zionists should be wiped of the earth.

a dash of moral equivalency can ruin a otherwise good thought.

The US has never been an angel, and this administration is the least heavenly of them all. How can you trust the neo cons to do anything correct exept feed their greed?

i am left to believe you would have us take no initiative, outside of 3rd party talks (which have previously failed to produce anything other than symbolic results)

After invading Iraq for no legit reason at all, and Afghanistan on proof that was so ridiculous it wouldn't make to court,

we have a saying over here: "when the facts are on your side, argue facts; when the law is on your side, argue law". both of these seem to be pretty stubborn against the behest of your position.

the US should have a resolution against it and the UN should be set to disarm it,

and how seriously do you think they would take the UN, knowing how inept & toothless they were demonstrated to be w.r.t. iraq in the previous decade.

$tinkle, you should be fighting poverty, diseases and analphabetism if you want to stop some of the extremism and terrorism.

name one - just one - country that has given as much (as a raw number of a percentage of their GDP) in any of these 3 named areas. need i bring up banda aceh & our (unappreciated) benevolence resulting from the boxing day tsunami? or howsa bout the following year in pakistan when they incurred a massive earthquake. we airlifted until it all but killed their pride b/c it was the "great satan" who helped them in disproportionate numbers when compared to other islamic nations. admitedly, some of our dollars goes to countries with "strings attached", but they have taken our offerrings with the agreed-upon contractual obligations; so at times, we do buy influence. it's unfortunate for everyone we haven't yet found & enacted a successful forumla for eradicating extremism of this type.

The US do have military precence in over 100 countries and that works as a threat as well.

when you get past the top 10 in raw numbers, it significantly drops off to what amounts to little more than a couple marines standing guard at an embassy. i don't think the entire nation of paraquay feels like they have been put on notice by a few lance corporals.

You don't think the US has a big "kick-me" sign on it? It has been bullying the whole frikkin world since 1945 and the Americas for what, two centurys now?
If a country, or group of counties, invaded the US and did as they pleased with it and its people, would they deserve an asswoppin?

doing as we please with iraqis? interesting.
and just who is the primary target in iraq? it's replete with muslim-on-muslim violence, and while you may be right that we had a hand in catalyzing it, please don't make excuses for iran, which is without a doubt acting as a bellows.

Again you state that your countys leaders are the arch angels on earth.

hardly.

The actions of US soldiers, like the ones in Abu Ghraib, show that they consider arabs to be "lesser people". That type of "racism", where US citizens are considered to be worth more is obvious in everything from statments from politicians to what come out of Hollywood.

by this "logic", the actions of a handful of soldiers (who have been prosecuted & serving time, btw) represent the u.s.; can i now say that more than just a few rogue muslims (who have not been denounced from within, but rather, celebrated) represent the entire faith? you have dipped a toe in the right-wing poolhouse if this is the case.

Collateral damage is non acceptable. Politicians shruging their shoulders and saying "**** happens" is not acceptable. Shlt is not alowed to happen. You aren't alowed to attack if you know it's goning to cost lives of civilians.

so all war, without exception, is bad? has there yet been an armed conflict which has not resulted in collateral damage? say what you will about dresden & hiroshima & nagasaki, but would you have me believe there can be "peace in our time" without the possibility of war?

The low frequent civil war that is going on in Iraq right now is the fruit of the coalitioins occupation. That isht wasn't there before the iinvasion.

again, care to address iran's compliciteness?

Your analysis of how things have come to be aren't that deep. Nobody leaves all he has and his family, to go jihad on team america, out of the blue.. That is a last solution to a never ending unbarable situation.

true, the imams during friday prayers take on a non-trivial role, as they are only too proud to proclaim.

Your inability/unwillingness to critisize the US expresses its self in the same way as zionist Jews call non zionist Jews, critisizing Israeli actions, "self hating Jews".

let's be clear: i'm not in that camp. i won't take the time to attempt to prove a negative; just search for my posts for supporting evidence of my counter-claim.

If its politicians treat its people that bad, how bad will they not treat other people?

excellent!
maybe you could apply this to all parts the world where religious extremism is the rule law...

 

[MMike]

HOw do you guys have time to write these gigantic posts?

 

[$tinkle]

HOw do you guys have time to write these gigantic posts?

i got your gigantic post right here:

 

[rockwool]

Hey, thanks for anwsering, and I don't think i'm pissing up a rope with anybody who is ready to compare views on things. Will reply on that later as it was quite a lot..

 

[rockwool]

i can see some sense in this, & perhaps my comment was a little flippant. it still does not translate that we [the west] shoulder the blame for their spread of terror driven by its unmistakable extremist translation of their religion. this isn't just some silly tribal squabble we're dabbling in - like the hutus & the tutsis - that would somehow play itself out in its contained environment.

We, the west, shoulder indeed the blame for "their spread of terror" as their extremism is a reaction to the wests colonial and neo colonial politics in their area. That isht hasn't grown out of nowhere, to all actions there is a reaction. If you go in to a mans house, harm his family and steal their isht, don't be surprised if you get a 12 guage in your back as you leave with the loot.

the thing about this second part of the statement is, you bear the burden of proof. like most conspiracy theories, the level of cooperation & complicity is intractable.

You're right. I used your example and googled al-qaida invented by the us and the first article that came up was http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1585130,00.html . A really good article about how the Brittish government and justice have handled the "terror threat". Recomended for general knowledge on this subject. Here's an excerpt on what I had to prove:

"The most ironic twist was an attempt to introduce an "al-Qaida manual" into the case. The manual - called the Manual of the Afghan Jihad - had been found on a raid in Manchester in 2000. It was given to the FBI to produce in the 2001 New York trial for the first attack on the World Trade Centre. But it wasn't an al-Qaida manual. The name was invented by the US department of justice in 2001, and the contents were rushed on to the net to aid a presentation to the Senate by the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, supporting the US Patriot Act."

not so fast.
anything with "fundamentalism" at the end of it - by definition - has to go back to the founder. christian fundamentalism goes back to jesus of nazereth. islamic fundamentalism goes back to muhammed, & this sentiment is the linchpin of the pope's "controversial" remarks.

I'm sorry, fundamentalism was wrong choice of words. Replace that word with extremism.

agreed, and a building - scratch that - imminent terrorist threat is indeed in u.s. interest to squash.

That "imminent terrorist threat" have been over exagerated to fit the agenda of many governments. That Guardian article I linked to in this post shows that very fact aswell.

With "US interests" I mean the same thing as US administrations mean when they use that term; The economic interests of US companies in other countries, aswell as other countries natural resources, like oil, that are needed to secure energy supply and continous world domination.

so when are women in islamic countries going to rise up? ...and non-muslims living in islamic countries?

I fail to see what that has to do with what OMGF said about the US actions causing reactions in this post below:

But, by and large, most of the terrorist cells were impotent and isolated. Now, due to the actions of our fearless leader, they are united against us and more powerful than before. We are creating more and more terrorists with our callous actions.

a dash of moral equivalency can ruin a otherwise good thought.

Genocide/extermination/holocaust is a good thought? Is that your personal view or one expessed by the republican party?

i am left to believe you would have us take no initiative, outside of 3rd party talks (which have previously failed to produce anything other than symbolic results)

I expect the US to follow international law including Ius gentium, just like any other country. Especially as the US claims to stand for what is "good" and moraly right in this world. Its actions through history and present show that those claims are only beautiful talk, an image and a vail to cover their actions; to achieve and maintain "US interests".
If the US was right in their claims about WMD'd, they wouldn't have ANY problem convincing the world that a new UN led strike on Iraq was needed.

we have a saying over here: "when the facts are on your side, argue facts; when the law is on your side, argue law". both of these seem to be pretty stubborn against the behest of your position.

Are you still claiming that Iraq had WMD's in 2003? Which of the claims dubya had about Iraq have been proven true?

Afghanistan, before the invasion a US delegation traveled around and showed a list to a few selected government leaders. The only ones in Sweden to see this list of 50? proofs that Al-Qaida/Taliban was behind it was the prime minister Göran Persson and the foreign minister Anna Lind (****in pigs). They defended the US for not showing this "proof" in the open and said it was some serious isht.
Months later, maybe a year or two, that list was printed in a Swedish paper and I read it. That was indeed the sadest things ever to be called proof.
I googled after it but couln't find it. Maybe a remember what I'm talking about and can help find it.

and how seriously do you think they would take the UN, knowing how inept & toothless they were demonstrated to be w.r.t. iraq in the previous decade.

I think the US will walk all over the UN as they usualy do. I didn't mean it was going to happen as it will get vetoed.. I was saying that it should have a resolution and it should be disarmed, in a simalar manner Japan was after WWII, because of it constantly using its superior warmachine to offensive stirkes/wars.

name one - just one - country that has given as much (as a raw number of a percentage of their GDP) in any of these 3 named areas. need i bring up banda aceh & our (unappreciated) benevolence resulting from the boxing day tsunami? or howsa bout the following year in pakistan when they incurred a massive earthquake. we airlifted until it all but killed their pride b/c it was the "great satan" who helped them in disproportionate numbers when compared to other islamic nations. admitedly, some of our dollars goes to countries with "strings attached", but they have taken our offerrings with the agreed-upon contractual obligations; so at times, we do buy influence. it's unfortunate for everyone we haven't yet found & enacted a successful forumla for eradicating extremism of this type.

Why just them 3 named catastrophies and not in general? That would be an interesting comparison.
The only one I can share some info on is Pakistan. Gotta say that your militarys enormous material resources finaly was used for something good. But, without taking what good they did away, they were in the area for all but in good intentions prior to the earthquake.
Cuba has for years had doctors, a few thousand of them, in various poor countries that work in areas of a country where its middlecalss doctors donät want to set foot. They had in Pakistan a bigger number of doctors than the whole international community put together.
When winter came the international doctors left due to the cold even though there was very many people that needed emergency treatment left. Cubans stayed.
Doctors vs soldiers. One has sworn to save lives the other sworn to take lives... There is a difference.

EDIT: If you give money to a country it is up to the giver to say what he wants the money to go to. But giving money and saying it is for weapons purchases from us is not aid. That is arms sales, which BTW the US taxpayers are paying for so that shareholders of US arms manufacturing companies can make a profit.
I find the way you mention that the US buys its influence as something which is OK. That bought influence is often used in the UN where it transforms to bought votes. That is not democratic, and therefore goes against the US's self claimed role as democratic and freedom champs of the world.

As an expample of how these votes are used in the UN is the yearly human rights vote (which countries should get a resolution against them etc). A few years ago the US was outvoted from that commision and have since (and surely before too) used bought votes from "great democracies" like the eastern European countries, the Marshall Islands, and Israel of course, to vote that Cuba should be critisezed for crimes against human rights. No other country votes with US's proposal as there is no substance in it, just an agenda to smeer Cuba in any which way they can. Things like that was the very reason the US, as a reigning human rights champ :biggrin: , got ousted from that commision.

when you get past the top 10 in raw numbers, it significantly drops off to what amounts to little more than a couple marines standing guard at an embassy. i don't think the entire nation of paraquay feels like they have been put on notice by a few lance corporals.

How that "military precence" was defined when I wread it I don't know as it didn't say.
Its various military bases, army, airforce and navy, through out the world that is put to its disposal, do impose a threat (calming effect some would say) in the same way as the bare precence the police has on a square.
In this neo colonialist world that is often enough to keep a state in control.



Will answer the rest later.

 

[rockwool]

doing as we please with iraqis? interesting.
and just who is the primary target in iraq? it's replete with muslim-on-muslim violence, and while you may be right that we had a hand in catalyzing it, please don't make excuses for iran, which is without a doubt acting as a bellows.

...With the Iraqi's, with Iraq, and any country and its people that pleases or displeases Rome....
If dubya is pointing his finger at Iran in this matter, it is to get the heat away from his own hide. The blame for all dying in Iraq during this occupation is at the shoulders of the coalition as Hussein was to blame when he ran the country.

hardly.

So if they arn't angels it means that you agree that US presidents are acting out of other reasons than the best interest of all people. What is then such a problem with seeing their politics for what they are, and not what they claim or what your "I want to belive the best" self wants to belive?

by this "logic", the actions of a handful of soldiers (who have been prosecuted & serving time, btw) represent the u.s.; can i now say that more than just a few rogue muslims (who have not been denounced from within, but rather, celebrated) represent the entire faith? you have dipped a toe in the right-wing poolhouse if this is the case.

Republicans can afford a poolhouse while some are sleeping on the streets in the whelthiest country in the world..

What I said was that the whole system is full of elitism. It's not white against black here, it's American vs raghead/rest, it's "hey you can't do this to me I'm an American" type of elitism.

Some of the grunts of Abu Ghraib were prosecuted but as brigader general Janis Karpinski have confessed in interviews, that was orders comming from the very top of the defence ministry.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml
These actions, and all other isht this administration has done, haven't been denounced from within US citizens eather, they were rather rewarded with four more years.

so all war, without exception, is bad? has there yet been an armed conflict which has not resulted in collateral damage? say what you will about dresden & hiroshima & nagasaki, but would you have me believe there can be "peace in our time" without the possibility of war?

Of course all war is bad! And no matter what Big Brother tells you, war is not peace. Only bad things will come out of bombing to submission. Look at the people that have come out of extreme inviroments like that. From terrorists to ignorant Talibans to effed up Vietnam war veterans. Some get rich of it though, build poolhouses in its honour too.

Probably all wars have resulted in collateral damage. If you eff up in civilian life you get sentenced. That should apply in wars aswell. The problem isn't the absence of laws in the matter, it's in implementing them. Making sure crimes during war are punished is way more important than punishing most civilian crimes, since they are hardly as severe. The president would probably in some of your states get the chair for his several of his action if he had commited them as a civilian against other US citizens.

again, care to address iran's compliciteness?

I don't deal in no mf witch burnings. I hang Popes.

true, the imams during friday prayers take on a non-trivial role, as they are only too proud to proclaim.

You wanna cast stones? Your president claims that the US was attacked by some, so he took the empire to war and have slaughtered tenfolds and some. All this while a lot (majority?) of US citizens cheer "USA USA USA" like it was a damn football game.
Now that they are under attack and have to suffer from the US and UK, again, do you expect them to do anything different? You crazy mon..
Do you see now what 4 small (in comparison) attacks on your nation has done to its peoples views on the ragheads and made them scream for blood? What do you think happens with the mindsets on people down there where they get to suffer occupations and wars for years?

let's be clear: i'm not in that camp. i won't take the time to attempt to prove a negative; just search for my posts for supporting evidence of my counter-claim.

Good, I will take your word for it. I have read far from enough of your posts since you came back to know with sertainty, but I saw something there that made me say that. Hope I was wrong.

When talking about US Americans in general, I must say that there is among many a lack of self critisism when it comes to the actions of their country. Critisism is seen as unpatriotic (I consider it as very patriotic as it's a necessity for a change to the better).
Just an observation.

excellent!
maybe you could apply this to all parts the world where religious extremism is the rule law...

Yes that can and should be applyed to all leaders/governments. These other governments will be my first consern that day they are the greatest bully on earth and not the US. As long as they are not that, they will just get their fair proportion of my critisism while the US gets the bulk.

 

[ohio]

sweet jesus. too many words. I'm bowing out.

 

[llkoolkeg]

sweet jesus.

I just knew you'd come around some day!

 

[rockwool]

sweet jesus. too many words. I'm bowing out.

Yeah, it was hard work...didn't go for a ride I ahd planned because of it...

 

[RenegadeRick]

Yeah, it was hard work...didn't go for a ride I ahd planned because of it...

Now that's just wrong. Ride first. Politiks later.

Come to think of it, I'm leaving soon for my ride :biggrin:, maybe afterwards.

 

[$tinkle]

Yeah, it was hard work...didn't go for a ride I ahd planned because of it...

then i'll not reply on the grounds you may do something as foolhearty as that again.

thinking about PaWN stuff while you ride may be acceptable, but to forego the ride for the sake of a post to some loser in fundyville is perverted beyond description

2 demerits

 

[rockwool]

Now that's just wrong. Ride first. Politiks later.

Come to think of it, I'm leaving soon for my ride :biggrin:, maybe afterwards.

Ride now, where you going, its almost eleven o'clock and pitch dark outside?!!

then i'll not reply on the grounds you may do something as foolhearty as that again.

thinking about PaWN stuff while you ride may be acceptable, but to forego the ride for the sake of a post to some loser in fundyville is perverted beyond description

2 demerits

You guys are right, thanks for smacking some sence back in me.

PaWN, meaning?

 

[$tinkle]

PaWN, meaning?

this here forum name, abbreviated