And I can't believe nobody has voted for Belgium. They are right vicious bastards in Belgium. I guess people area bit worn out with Israel so are going easy on them. I want 100 votes for America and then I am sending this thread to Obama.
Printable View
And I can't believe nobody has voted for Belgium. They are right vicious bastards in Belgium. I guess people area bit worn out with Israel so are going easy on them. I want 100 votes for America and then I am sending this thread to Obama.
My bet is there are less than 5 people who care. Apart from CFH, RP33 and Nameless I expect you and I are the only people sick enough to post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Right, I am running away from this thread as I need some fresh air and quite fancy going to the park for a spot of badminton. I feel like a new man after that body ache I was going through last week. Apologies to any Americans who might have taken offense, but my issues are with elites and not the population of any given country.
And we've all voted. Surely Kirkland will come in and have a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboMy bet is there are less than 5 people who care. Apart from CFH, RP33 and Nameless I expect you and I are the only people sick enough to post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
http://www.virginmedia.com/images/k-laing.jpg
Nuking would be the start to the end of everything because they would all start going off in panic due to the impact over other countries boarders etc, we all know it; thats why we all dont go there. After the lasting horrific effects on Japans two cities which were only atom bombs, imagine the effects now and if we fire someone else fires back. We may as well pack up the planet in the old fire ball, no one wins anything then.Quote:
Originally Posted by RP33Why don't you read what i typed?Quote:
Originally Posted by milesDon't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by RP33You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesHow is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by RP33
You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime. :rolleyes:;)
Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....
Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.
Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!
I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.
Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!
So the question is about government terror not government stupidity.
I don't even think it is a particularly contentious argument to make really. Being the leading power in the world doesn't really excuse the number of times the US has done things that no other nation (besides Israel) could get away with. When a country has the tremendous ability to do good, but instead wields that power to bully smaller nations and commit terrorist acts against civilians, well I think that is a shame. It's also sad when the major superpower dismisses the UN whenever it can't get it's own way. Of course, it can get its own way as it just ignores the UN. We have seen this again and again. Apparently the General Assembly once passed a resolution calling for the banning of all weapons in outer space. 154 nations supported the resolution, only America voted against this. Only a lunatic state would really want to build weapons in space. There are loads of resolutions such as this and it is curious to see who is usually against something. It's seldom the smaller, more eccentric countries.
I think most people think of terrorist activity as sneaking around in public bombing innocents with home made style devices.
The dictionaries have other ideas about the word terrorism and they seem to fit like a glove.
My definition of terrorism is the wanton slaughtering of civilians and it's quite clear that America does more of that than the rest of the worlds countries combined. If people want to excuse it by saying "the decision to go to war was just because the elite said it needed to be done". Well, that's a load of old horsepoo. Bigger fool the brainless shlups for being a bunch of indoctrinated servants to the power game.
Yeah, I totally agree. The best way to bring peace to Vietnam was to bomb entire villages of innocent people. That's an obvious instance of terror. 9-11 was another clear instance, but they are only terrorists when it's the other guys doing it to us. Yeah, right. ;)
Terrorism: the act of terrorizing someone for some means.
Sounds exactly like what was happening within some of the sections of Guantanamo just for starters :-\ or was that desert?
Give a fuk we all do it. They do it to us too when we are captured,worse actually but its faster.
It doesnt make it right though or justified, the whole lot from both sides are insane over fear, war and control of others.. looking at them from a strictly peaceful and therefore sane perspective.
They will kill us all one day soon because we allow them to run the show.
Guantanamo is something that really does just take the biscuit. You have these captives who have been detained for year upon year and what have they been charged with? Absolutely nothing. Maybe they did something and maybe they didn't. Either way the US government fears them. Maybe they are anti-US freedom fighters or maybe now they have become anti-US freedom fighters. Either way they are stuck in a Kafka esque hell hole.
What kind of state keeps people locked and tortures them? Oh, so maybe the torture has been reduced, but all of these men have been tortured. It makes America no better than any of these so called terrorists they are supposedly trying to fight off. You never hear of Sweden acting in such a way.
There is proof the Fbi abducted many of the detainees off of streets in Spain Germany,pakistan etc. Flown to a base in Poland to be interrogated on neutral ground then shipped to states and registered then. Our counterparts in different countries turn a blind eye to those planes registered to the usa gov, they ask no questions but plane spotters from all over the globe track them,time them and they match up exactly with the detainees stories (who have since been released) stories down to the minute that match filmed take offs landings and last place detainees were seen before being abducted (arrested).
What are your sources for this information, Andre? I don't know about too much about what you are saying here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
I was just watching this interview with Obama and I have come to the conclusion that he is insane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-10kk...os=hBO737RN7Zc
Listen to the rhetoric, with his ranting on about needing to stop Al Qaeda and stop terrorists who want to harm Afghanistan from within and stop those who want to attack beyond Afghan borders. Since when was the Taliban America's concern in the first place, and as if these several years of war haven't escalated whatever resentment of America was already brewing? America has done to the Afghan and Iraqi people exactly what it says Al Qaeda is trying to do against them...but 1000 fold. Obama is either reading from the script very well, or else actually believes this nonsense he is spouting. Either way, expect the terrrorism in Afghanistan to continue for a VERY long time. The US troops are going nowhere. The military needs to justify its budget allocations, it's going nowhere soon.
And while I am at it, what about the paying of millions of dollars to criminal warlords who work with Karzai to form the phony Afghan Democracy? That's kind of twisted too. It's not as if the Afghan people were begging the US to bring back the terrorists who would quite possibly have been tried had the US not themselves intervened. Just another instance of the US keeping in place bullshit regimes that themselves are considered not quite so evil just so long as they stay in line.
Where's CFH to tell me that he will drop in only one time to tell me that I am arrogant and that he has spent 3 decades studying the feminist rights of females in Amazonian tribes. His post made me laugh the most actually. America has commited the most atrocities because it has more power? I suppose that's one way of looking at it and it does have some merit. It doesn't excuse it though. One should never forget how academia itself is the main tool for indoctrination. Your university colleagues who can counter my arguments probably don't amount to much at the end of the day either. Social sciences? It doesn't mean much. It's just about reading the sources and reading between the lines. It's just that most stick with the actual lines and leave it at that. People aren't that smart and yes, I am arrogant enough to say such a thing.
I know I said I wouldn't reply again, but you're goading and insulting me so I feel I have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
For someone who claims superior reading comprehension and analysis, you certainly don't demonstrate it. My point wasn't that I know more than you about contemporary American foreign policy. It was that you are wrong (and arrogant) in claiming your perspective was the only legitimate one, something which you later acknowledged by admitting that this is a very subjective issue, and that I had been exposed to the ideas of many people who could argue differently in a credible manner.
You sound like Trainer Monkey claiming that academia is a tool of indoctrination. Perhaps that was your experience, but it is not mine. In my experience in history the goal of most teachers is to make you think critically; they love it if you can craft a paper that legitimately disagrees with the things they say and that hate it when people simply parrot their ideas. While the vast majority of my professors have been very left-wing and highly critical of the United States, almost all of them have assigned numerous readings from well-respected scholars whose views run contrary to their own and have encouraged students to draw their own conclusions by studying these different perspectives.
I'd like you to explain how respected scholars, people who have spent years studying the things that you spend a few days reading about, somehow know less than yourself? How do their arguments which would counter yours not mean much? Because they don't accept the word of people like Chomsky and Zinn (whose interpretations I don't necessarily disagree with) as the gospel truth because they acknowledge that those people, like everyone else, have their own biases and agendas?
I'll take the words and opinions of respected professional scholars as historically credible, even if I don't agree with them, over the ramblings of a drunken TELF teacher any day (edit: I'm not trying to insult your job, I'm just stating that it in no way qualifies you to deride the knowledge of respected scholars on this subject).
Happy now? You've goaded a response out of me.
The funny thing is that I don't necessarily disagree with some of what you say, but rather the way you say it and your assumed sense of superiority. I am highly critical of the United States as can be evidenced by my posting on here, but I also readily acknowledge that other people feel differently and that they're justified in doing so, even if I disagree with them.