War on terrorism? [Archive] - Bohemia Interactive Forums

brgnorway

Feb 4 2002, 04:04

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @<hidden> Feb. 04 2002,05:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree brgnorway.

The U.S. should forget about the "axis of evil" for a little while and focus on their original objective. Finding or killing Osama Bin Laden. They haven't even accomplished that yet, and the American people seemed to have forgotten about it. Now Bush wants us to think that the "axis of evil" is the new problem. Everyone seems to be beating their chests over defeating the Taliban and they want more.

What should the U.S. be so proud of? So what, they beat a bunch of half-civilized and under equipped tribesmen with the strongest army on Earth. But they still can't find one single man.

I think that Bush made a mistake in that speech. No evidence linked Iraq, Iran, or S.Korea to the attacks of 9/11, that was and still is an immagration problem, not a military one. He is widening the "war on terror" without solving anything.

What is needed instead is a full and open investigation on the events of 9/11. We still don't know how the Al Qaeda operated right under the noses of the American people. Billions of $$$ have been spent on the "war on terror" to no avail. IMO, the U.S. is throwing money at the wrong problem.

Just my opinion....

Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, thats my point of view as well. I guess you will stir up a few people here though?
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Assault (CAN)

Feb 4 2002, 04:14

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I guess you will stir up a few people here though?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, where's Wobble? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Tyler

brgnorway

Feb 4 2002, 04:24

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @<hidden> Feb. 04 2002,06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I guess you will stir up a few people here though?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, where's Wobble? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
He'll go ballistic!!! Hehe http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

silent wings

Feb 5 2002, 09:44

no y slow down??they r terrorists cos they wont listen to reason ,extremists,idiots,etc they should be exterminated.....not reeducated,,,oh how i long for the days when i will rule the world!!!

christophercles

Feb 5 2002, 09:50

I dont think they should start waging war against any of the "evil" countries, but they should still keep a very steady proactive thrust against terrorism.

foxer

Feb 5 2002, 10:55

I think he said north korea ,because they have missiles,and nukes(?).they sell the missiles to anyone that has the money.Iran because they are taking in the people fleeing afghanistan.Iraq,of course saddam.

I only see one country we would probably go after,and thats iraq.

KingBeast

Feb 5 2002, 12:36

South Korea is the one that has been named

**Edit

Actually I think I lie, please hit me

MrLaggy

Feb 5 2002, 12:55

Yes, let's bomb South Korea! Since the US already has tens of thousands of troops in the country it won't be hard... of course it will upset all the chip and electronics companies who get their products manufactured there.

Obviously you meant North Korea, though after the CIA targeting the Chinese Embassy in Serbia I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they did get North and South confused and bomb the wrong country. However, the only reason North Korea is in the list is to justify the tens of billions of pork dollars that Bush wants to spend on a useless missile defence system. How anyone could call them a threat to America with a straight face is beyond me... they're a communist basket case who pose a threat only to the US troops in the south and only if the government decided to commit suicide and go out with a bang.

Realistically, the US economy is tanking, Bush and friends may well be deeply entangled in the Enron scandals, Afghanistan is descending into civil war, and the US military has utterly failed to capture bin Laden and friends: so Bush needs _something_ to distract the media and keep his ratings up. Why not attack Iran, Iraq and North Korea? Who cares if it starts a widespread war in the Middle East so long as it keeps the bad news off the front pages for a while?

Pukko

Feb 5 2002, 16:43

I'm glad to see that no one here yet supports a war on Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

I dedicate the tiny space below to the millions of people that will be (and are) suffering form USA:s "War o terrorism":
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

foxer

Feb 5 2002, 17:35

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm glad to see that no one here yet supports a war on Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

I dedicate the tiny space below to the millions of people that will be (and are) suffering form USA:s "War o terrorism":
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Most of those millions are americans.Soldiers get sent to a hell hole,sailors get sent out to sea,airforce get sent out.All the wtc ,pentagon victims(remember this is a war),the people on the plane that crash,the people that heard their last calls from their love ones on the planes,wtc,pentagon(?).N.korea,we have to build them a nuclear power plant soo they will stop their research on missiles(japan and korea is paying i believe half or more of it),they also have long range missiles that they will sell to anyone.Do i feel we need to attack n.korea ? No,it would be stupid.Iraq We should,and maybe go after.Iran i don't think we should,unless they do something really crazy.

Pukko

Feb 5 2002, 18:12

Already about 10 000 civilians have died in Afaganistan because of US presence (see an older thread around here). One may argue that USA has done them a favour if you are cold hearted (personally I dont view the Talibans as any worse than our western world when it comes to oppression -we in the western world only do it in an other way - by using symbolic violence).

Even if I live in Sweden I know a woman whose father died in WTC. Sure its terrible with all the americans suffering from WTC - but how many will have to pay for it (during what is officially called and justified as 'war on terrorism', but in the practice probably will be yet something real disgusting serving US interests)?

foxer

Feb 5 2002, 19:41

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @<hidden> Feb. 05 2002,20:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Already about 10 000 civilians have died in Afaganistan because of US presence (see an older thread around here). One may argue that USA has done them a favour if you are cold hearted (personally I dont view the Talibans as any worse than our western world when it comes to oppression -we in the western world only do it in an other way - by using symbolic violence).

Even if I live in Sweden I know a woman whose father died in WTC. Sure its terrible with all the americans suffering from WTC - but how many will have to pay for it (during what is officially called and justified as 'war on terrorism', but in the practice probably will be yet something real disgusting serving US interests)?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In a perfect world no one would die,no one would die,no one would die.No one would die.Then i wake up,this ain't a perfect world.

How many in those 10,000 were men ? How many were younger then 14 ? how many were women ? How many were children.How many kids been killed on bikes,car accidents,hit by a car,yet you shed no tear for them,Why ? because we get use to it.

When is the last time , your country went to a 3rd world country and try to fight a warlord ? How many i ask you.Probably 0 or 2.You think that the west is the problem,true sometimes it is,most of the time it's not.Do you know how many times england and america team up to take care of europe's back yard or other countries problems? LOTS.Why is it always england and usa,why can't other countries help ? I'am not talking about peace keepers.Why won't other europe countries do their fair share ?

Afghans been dying for years and years,millions and millions people have died,yet you get on here and say "10,000 people died,damn you america,i'am anti-america".Why don't you tell your country to do something,other then sit on their a$$.Why won't other countries go put their own troops on the line ? Why won't they defend another country ? Why won't they defend their own country ? I can name soo many conflicts that your country and probably another country can go in,but your leaders are scared to act,because they don't care.Most of the time europe only fights ,if america fights.

I know you said west,but lets get real you meant america. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

There are some europe countries that have the balls to put troops on the line,but there are some that aren't.

Remember,Afghanistan wasn't america fault,or russia fault,but their fault.

foxer

Feb 5 2002, 19:50

One more thing,if the terrorist blew something up in europe,who would they be calling ? That's right AMERICA(then england).

Silencer

Feb 5 2002, 21:29

call russia we have only one asnwer from war.

"NUKE NUKE! USE THEM!"
now at limited time offer nucluer warheads starting only 1200$
sold everywhere in russia as easy as selling bread.

Red Oct

Feb 5 2002, 21:32

dont forget your nuclear physicists for hire either

Silencer

Feb 5 2002, 21:40

don't make fun of the east!
we have nukes and we are not afraid to use them!
fear the east!

Red Oct

Feb 5 2002, 21:40

this is just another thread that discredits and blames my country for all the worlds problems. we do something you get a hair up your ass about it. we dont do something you whine and bitch that we dont care what happens to those "poor unfortunate people" there is no winning with you ppl is there? i tell you what, lets just pull out of these shit holes and see you do something better. lets see how you will react when terrorists start blowing up your people. than maybe you will see just how difficult these situations can be. some of you seem to think that reasoning works. well we tried a few ppl just dont want to reason. just bare in mind that you have dirt under your rug as well.

Silencer

Feb 5 2002, 21:51

there is a weapon that will solve alot of problems and you don't even need to sacrifice soldiers!!

you know what it is!?
nucleur warheads lets russia the 2nd country to use nukes on other countrys http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
make a large crater in afganstan pretty simple!

Red Oct

Feb 5 2002, 21:56

you starting to sound like someone if that of course is you in the first place. nuking afganistan wont solve shit and just cause more damage. and of course make lots of ppl angry

Silencer

Feb 5 2002, 21:58

then why did USA made nukes in the first place!!!http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?
nukes are made just for that!

Red Oct

Feb 5 2002, 22:07

cuzz during the time it was thought that it would be the ultimate methood to end the war when all it did was cause great misery. after the nuke was use somebody had to claim responsibilty for the aftermath. which is why no country today would be ballzy enough to want to use the nukes.

Wobble

Feb 6 2002, 12:22

Fuck these terrorist countries..

10,000 people died from "us preasence" well guess what shitheel, according to all the UN about 70,000 people PER YEAR had been died in Afganistan since the taleban took power.. most of the the elderley and children. from starvation since the wonderful taleban choked robbed the country blind if what little productivness it did have... not to mention all the women, men, and children who were murdered.. etc etc.. for such horrible crimes as goint to school, teaching.. or showing their face..

I get so sick of all these piss and moan fuckwits.. if the US does something you cry stamp like true morons about it, if we dont you accues of us turning our back and letting shit happen..

FUCK OFF, you think you could do better? its about fucking time you even tried.

Pukko

Feb 6 2002, 12:45

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">cuzz during the time it was thought that it would be the ultimate methood to end the war when all it did was cause great misery[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, one can look at sept 11:th as a modern variant of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. A try to end the misery the western world forces the muslim world to live in.

Foxer:

A bicycle, car etc. accident is by far a better way to lose relatives than by having them blown to pieces as colateral damage by bombs dropped by a nation that acts sole out of own interests. An normal accident is not as meaningless as a bomb you know....

And the western world is all countries under great influence by USA (and that is, in different ways, the whole world). I really long till Europoe gets free enough from USA:s, primary economical, influence to be able to say NO to USA. This world coalition against terrorism is terror in it self - "either you are with us, or you are agaist us" says Bush - and no coutry dares to do anything other than the mighty USA says; coz they spend most money in the world on military equipment and are important for most economies coz USA have a tendency to get a finger in all parts of the world.

If USA would not actively work against the UN, it could finally start working as intended; a fair (for all parts) "world police". As for now, the very reason for sep 11:th is USA:s earlier actions around, primary middle east, the world - if not to 100% then to a great part; dont say anything else. And since the western world is closely realted to USA, USA will drag them with it. You can continue believe that most of USA:s military actions the last 50 years are justified, and neended since no one else would do anything.

War is a concrete REAL cheap way to get public support - because the people beholds the leaders as strong. Actually its so cheap that here in most parts of Europe it dont work anymore. If Sweden (in peace for soon 200 years) would go to war for some vauge justified rasons - it would be a revolution here. Most of us, not all though, believe in peaceful negotiations. Paeaceful dealings demands its citisens though - since the leaders dont look as strong when dealing in abstarct ways instead of concrete.

Now, the biggest differance between abstract and concrete actions, at least in the question of international conflict, is that abstract actions have got some chanse to succeed in the long run - concrete actions have about none.

Can someone please refresh my memory the last time when Europe whined about USA NOT taking military action?

Placebo

Feb 6 2002, 12:59

Hmm have people not forgotten that only a few short months ago 3000 innocent people were deliberately murdered, not accidentally killed, not "collateral damage" but deliberately murdered.

I for one fully back the actions of England and the USA, of course it's sad that civilians were killed in Afghanistan, but there is a big big difference from civilians being accidentally killed and an act of terrorism solely designed to deliberately murder as many innocent people as possible.

Some say "ahhh but the USA's foreign policy" blah blah "political grievances" blah blah, and I say "so"? having a political grievance does not justify an act of terrorism, I'll say it again for those who missed it the first time act of terrorism solely designed to deliberately murder as many innocent people as possible.

The Taliban were an evil regime who bastardised a fine religion, turning it into an implementation of their sick mentality. The Taliban are now gone, how many lives has that saved? How many lives have been saved by the massive amounts of food and other aid now being pumped into Afghanistan?

But I guess none of that matters, nor do the 3000 lives of those innocent civilians, all people care about is being the "moral majority", well I for one say this, if I were killed in a terrorist act I would damn sure hope that my country would do whatever it takes to get those responsible and to stop such things happening again.

Pick that apart all you like, I really don't care, all I think about is that day, what it felt like to be sat watching TV, dealing emotionally with such an horrendous, callous, evil act.

MrLaggy

Feb 6 2002, 13:03

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">10,000 people died from "us preasence" well guess what shitheel, according to all the UN about 70,000 people PER YEAR had been died in Afganistan since the taleban took power..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The same American-supported Taliban who Bush gave $34,000,000 to early last year? The same Taliban who saved Afghanistan from the predatory Northern Alliance warlords and perpetual civil war? You mean that Taliban?

Now personally I'd hate to live in a country they controlled, but claiming that all the evil in Afghanistan is due to the Taliban is historical revisionism taken to its heights. Afghanistan was a poor but mostly functional nation until America and Russia decided to fight a war by proxy there, and between the Russian withdrawal and the rise of the Taliban, it was in a state of civil war between the warlords who raped, plundered and murdered at will, which is why so many people in the West welcomed the Taliban when they took over.

Americans and Russians created the chaos in that country through their own interference: so it's extremely hypocritical for Americans to now turn around and brag about how bad the Taliban were and how they bombed and killed innocent civilians in order to save them; particularly when it's descending once again into the same civil war which existed before the Taliban took power.

MrLaggy

Feb 6 2002, 13:12

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm have people not forgotten that only a few short months ago 3000 innocent people were deliberately murdered, not accidentally killed, not "collateral damage" but deliberately murdered.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, terrorists murdered 3000 people last year, but, assuming last year was about average and the common, everyday murderers didn't stay home to watch the news on TV, 15-20,000 Americans were deliberately murdered by other Americans, mostly inner-city drug dealers.

Would that justify carpet-bombing the inner cities in revenge? Sure, there'd be "collateral damage", but if you're lucky you might hit a murderer or two, which would be vastly more successful than the attack on Afghanistan, which has utterly failed to capture or kill any of the alleged planners of the WTC attack.

Placebo

Feb 6 2002, 13:16

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">which has utterly failed to capture or kill any of the alleged planners of the WTC attack.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hmm perhaps we get different news reports, I seem to recall hearing that Osama's second in command was killed in one of the air strikes?

MrLaggy

Feb 6 2002, 13:19

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @<hidden> Feb. 05 2002,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One more thing,if the terrorist blew something up in europe,who would they be calling ? That's right AMERICA(then england).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And the terrorists have no reason to attack any nation in Europe other than Britiain, because the other European nations don't make a habit of random bombing and stationing their troops in other nations which don't want them. Is it really that hard to understand that these people have reasons for doing the things they do, and don't just wake up in the morning and think "I know, I'll blow up Paris today"?

Ah, but I forgot, if you start thinking that way you start wondering if maybe it would be better to just bring the troops home rather than try to bomb the rest of the world into submission and invite yet more retaliation on yourselves... and that just wouldn't do.

MrLaggy

Feb 6 2002, 13:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm perhaps we get different news reports, I seem to recall hearing that Osama's second in command was killed in one of the air strikes?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, they killed a few underlings, but I don't remember any claims that that guy was directly responsible for planning the attacks.

Placebo

Feb 6 2002, 13:22

He was Osama's 2nd in command, how would he not have been directly involved?

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 6 2002, 13:27

This forum turns into "rage"-machine. I know that Placebo is here in this forum for quite a time now and he probably wont admit it (cause he should not): All you people that come along with your simple pragmatic statements and solutions should have a look at what has been said in previous threads (like a few months ago). There we realy had "smart" discussions but now this place sounds like it has become a "Board for brainless Marines". I dont know what kind of education most of you "new" members here have but you do only one thing. YOU RUIN THE REPUTATION OF YOUR COUNTRY.

What the hell is that comment about: "You should take us more serious in the East, we got nukes and we are not afraid to use them." Oh, indeed, I take the whole Eastern Eurasia world very very serious, but that is not due to their nukes. The history of russia, Poland, the Tscheck Repubic, ...a.s.o has so much to offer and you tell me that bitchin: our nukes!!!
Is that all? What the fuck do you learn about your country in school.

And now a comment to this American dude! Showing your flag is not forbidden. But you should know that in an international forum this may imply a certain arrogance. Of course you would say that you are not the only one here in this forum that puts his flag. Well okay, but there is a slight difference, you reinforce your national arrogance by arrogant comments. The flag of the moderators dont bother me, cause they speak moderate, the flag of the finnish guys dont bother me, cause they can and are willing to make fun of themeselves, but you would like (and probably wouldnt care) to throw a bomb at anyone in this forum that does not agree with your "world picture" and so posting your flag just terribly anoys me.

"Well what do I care"! Probably not at all, but you are one of the types that ruins the reputation of your country. "Well what do I care?" Well ruining your reputation means ruining the support from friends (and other countries). But anyway, you gonna nuke anyone that doesnt like you! In a environment such as Europe, where lots of countries are very near to each other you learn that you should care about your neighbours (countries) cause otherwise this leads into isolation.
Fortunately not all Americans think like you, and fortunately there are many many to be found in this forum (still). Why dont you spend a little bit more time making love to your weapon magazines and a little bit less in this forum. Otherwise we soon gonna have only those bad old "kill the ragheads" threads again in this forum.

Damm, it once was a terrible cool forum here!

Placebo

Feb 6 2002, 13:57

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This forum turns into "rage"-machine.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
LOL sometimes that's pretty accurate, I know my lil rant earlier was kinda posted in anger, very unusual for me.

I guess some people can quite easily get past the emotions of Sept 11th, I just know I can't, never will, it's the 2nd most traumatic thing I've ever experienced, second only to losing my Dad..........

Is it odd that it effected me so? After all, weren't these people thousands of miles away, who I never even knew......who knows *shrugs* all I know is what my heart tells me http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Wobble

Feb 6 2002, 14:33

And the terrorists have no reason to attack any nation in Europe other than Britiain, because the other European nations don't make a habit of random bombing

yea its safe to say most of EU is safe, after all yer right, it never does anything, it just sits there and talks.. then when the US or somebody finally does it ya sit there and say "no no, yer doing it all wrong" do it yerself then fuckwads.

and as far as "random bombing" are you daft? you really think the US just flies around dropping bombs on cities saying "maby there was a bad guy down there"? gimme a break.. ya remember somalia? how the US lost those people? you know why? because it decided not to just BOMB THE FUCKING THING because people like YOU would cry and bitch if some innnocent people got killed, so they decided to try and capture them insted... despite not having the ground equiptment in the area they REALLY needed.... and several people lost their lives because if it... oh well at least ya can it back and call them idiots now.. all for the better eh?

the motherfucking taleban set their command centers in the CENTER of civilian populations. they did if for an very simple reason.. because they knew that if ever anyone came to bomb them there would be no way possable to avoid killing civilians, and the sniveling pissheads would cry and piss on whoever did it.. so a murderous corrupt terrorist sponsoring regime gets attacked. by a country that it SEVERLEY attacked in a sick and cowardly way. and as a weapon it surrounds itself with innocent men, women and children not to protect itself but to make sure that as many innocent people as possable will die when they do.. .and you stick up for them? idiot. people like you are the reason terroirsts and killers use human shields.. because they know the dumbasses of the world will try and convince whoever to leave the terrorost or killer alone...

its funny the US supposidly kills 10,000 civilians (never been proven, all speculation and guessing)while DESTROYING a tyranical regime that murdered and starved at least 7 times as many EVERY YEAR and the whole fucking world gets all pissed off.
Yet noone made much of a fuss when the good ole soviets set up massive artillery setups and destroyed entire cities because "there were terrorists in them".. I guess thats different... it wasnt the bad US only the fair good natured USSR...

so many hipocrits, idiots and inept people....

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 6 2002, 15:17

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yea its safe to say most of EU is safe, after all yer right, it never does anything, it just sits there and talks.. then when the US or somebody finally does it ya sit there and say "no no, yer doing it all wrong" do it yerself then fuckwads.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah, that is abosuletly right. The EU does never do "anything" or something you call "it". No, the European countires dont do "it". Because "it" is nothing else than your idea of a perfect solution (the hollywood solution). Which does not exist.

Before you find a solution you need to weigh up Pros and Cons. But in the case of the US it does not allow this sort of discussion. And concerning "your perfect solution" I would shut up a little bit. Maybe you should not only talk about military support cause in concerning support the EU did what it could do. Germany funded a great amount of money to the victims of octobre 11th. And we all here gladly gave money to this fund. Germany was one of the first to rebuilt its embassy in Kabul, the Swiss-German Health organisation was the only in the world that remained in Afghanistan during the decades of war. Germany now trains the Police-departement for Afghanistan and rebuilts actively the educational system.

Maybe for you war-oriented people that does not mean much, but for me it does. I admire those social-workers more than any soldier (and I am not a bloody pacifist).

"We need to react!!!" for a European does not mean...today or tomorrow but when the time has come and the right solution has been worked out. Nobody here is against the US military action against the Taliban, but there is different ways of doing it. (the so called greyscale)

But I dont want to interfer your time-scale. Whats next? Iraq once again, Iran, North Corea, Somalia?

Wobble

Feb 6 2002, 16:19

Yeah, that is abosuletly right. The EU does never do "anything" or something you call "it". No, the European countires dont do "it". Because "it" is nothing else than your idea of a perfect solution (the hollywood solution). Which does not exist

I never said it was a "perfect solution" so dont quote me like I did.. and it doesnt not do what the US wants.. it doesent do ANYTHING.. sure it doles out a few bucks now and then.. but almost never takes a stand.. never puts its ass on the line and makes the decisions that have to be made.. people were starving to death in somalia.. the UN had declared it to be in a state of "Nation wide starvation".. EU waited.. waited.. waited.. the finally the US went in and TRIED to help.. the the warlord shithead started attacking the US troops that were protecting the food convoys (they had been being attacked frequentley) and thats how that shit storm started..

so basically the view of the "it" is that somalia was fine how it was?.. or just the "we have to wait a little longer.. maby talk to the warloards.."..

Germany was one of the first to rebuilt its embassy in Kabul, the Swiss-German Health organisation was the only in the world that remained in Afghanistan during the decades of war. Germany now trains the Police-departement for Afghanistan and rebuilts actively the educational system.

thats great and all give a few dollars, build a building or two.. but when the time comes to fight.. where are they?.. its alot easier to toss some money.. or send a construction crew.. than it is to send some mother's son/daughter out to fight some crazy bastards.. but it has to be done.. and it seems the US is the only one who will actually commit to doing it unless FORCED to by NATO.. then most of EU just sends a 'token peacekeeping force'.. save GB who doesnt mind kicking some ass now and then.

"We need to react!!!" for a European does not mean...today or tomorrow but when the time has come and the right solution has been worked out

yes.. yes.. always the time comes.. never now.. the time hasnt come yet... gotta wait some more... lets think about this.. hmm.. no lets wait a little longer..

Nobody here is against the US military action against the Taliban, but there is different ways of doing it.

what would be better? talk to them? people who blow themselves up next to you because they dont like yer lifestyle? people that kill people for going to school?.. yes they sound like they could be reasoned with..

or maby an economic sanction?.. yea.. 70+ thousand people starving to death a year.. lets block their misiscule economy..

sometimes the bullets have to fly and the bombs have to drop.. thats just the way it is.. if you think the US is so gung ho and shit to fight and shoot shit.. look at the COLD war.. for many many years we avoided a NUCLEAR conflict with the USSR.. and they made it VERY VERY hard to do so (cuban missles anyone?).. yet we managed to be diplomatic.. the US will resort to diplomacy when the situation calls for it.. with the taleban.. and bin laden.. it does not.

Whats next? Iraq once again, Iran, North Corea, Somalia?

depends.. IMO we left IRAQ too soon.. shouldent have left saddam alive.. go knows both the US and GB's special forces knew exactley where he was.. probably knew what he had for breakfast every morning..

as for Korea.. didnt they learn their lesson already?.. they would have to be pretty dumb to go acting up NOW.. the US doesent like NK but its not just gonna attack it for no reason..

Iran is on the same shitlist as Korea.. they know better than to fuckoff and try anything..

its all a matter of what these places do... the US doesent just go out and start these little piss pot wars.. but it wont hesitate to mix it up if it gets jacked with.. these little terroristic twats in these shithole countries know how patheticly sympathetic alot of the world is to innocent deaths.. so they make it as difficult as possable for civilians not to be killed if they are attacked... thats their main line of defence... they know that they have no chance of fighting the US or NATO.. so they make the civilian losses so unacceptable so pissers and moaners will demand it be stopped or not happen.. in a very real way the very people who cry out about the civilian causualties are causing them.. these terrorists are not THAT stupid.. they see the bleeding hearts and know all they need to do is make the other side kill a few civs and the they will get pressure to leave the terrorists alone

remember desert storm.. the picture of that dead woman laying under an AMERICAN CRUISE MISSLE... saying that it had hit her.. but when ya look close there is a small bullet hole in her head..

remember saddam saying the US was bombing "baby forumla plants" which was totally true!! on one side was all the equiptment for makeing baby forumla.. on the other side was a Serin gas lab.. they put the 2 in the same reason for the EXACT reason of being able to say OOOHHH LOOK THE US IS BOMBING A BABY FORMULA PALNT!! and of course the stupid fucking media took the bate and spammed the world with that headline.. then somehwere in the back pages it mentions'' "oh by the way.. half of the factory was producing nerve gas"..
the media loves demonizing ANYONE.. whats the saying "people like dirty laundry"?

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 6 2002, 16:44

Iraq has suffered a lot, but not because of the war, but because the strategy was wrong. You want to bomb that poor country once again? Once again? If it didnt work the first time, why should it now. Maybe we should learn to learn from mistakes. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with asking a little European country like France or the UK for "brain" help. Cause those little countries have centuries of experience with foreign politics in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. (before Bush became President of the US, he had only been abroad in a different country once, so much about international experience. Clinton however was a real man of the world, but that guy you threw out).

But of course a huge country like the US does not make a step backward in fight against Terrorism even if that step may guide poor countries even deeper into the mud. Dont you know the formula: poverty->less liberalism->more extremism->terrorism or supressive regime.
One bomb will lead to more poverty and the effect of this, well look at the formula... It appears a bit to us, that you want to bob those countries untill they are no longer a threat to you. Then again you will live in peace in you superrich country ignoring world poverty. You wouldnt have given a damm about the Taliban regime if it wasnt them to shelter terrorists (you never gave a damm about the Afghans) so dont tell me you had a humanitarian purpose. Why dont you interfer when NIKE or GAP produce your luxurious goods through child-labour in Asian countries? Cause those moral-senses are unknown to you (or appear less important than national security). It is the first time that the US has learnt how cruel the world is around them.

Lets just remember how the Berlin wall fell! East-Germany was the part (satelite state) of the USSR with far the greates military budget. They were the first ones to introduce the newest Migs, and lets not talk about nukes. West-Germany was a rich country but with little fire-power. How did that wall fell (not only that wall, a whole country)? Through bombs? No but through a perfect diplomatic interplay. Now East-Germans werent terrorists, I agree, but the situation wasnt less threatening! All I wanna say there may be a solution for problems that may appear insolvable at the first place.

Yes we are afraid to send our sons into war, because Europe has lost too many gernerations in wars and in the end it didnt make the world better. Ask Isrealis and Afghans, they still didnt learn their lessons.

Dont get me wrong, I am not against Americas action against terrorism, even if it means war. But you cannot expect European countries to support you militarily if you dont also let them participate in the strategy-developement
process. We no longer follow the US blindly, for that the EU is too emancipated. But the "young" Bush government is not willing to let anyone give them advises ("we dont discuss when the issue is national security"). So when you tell us this: why dont you ever, why didnt you?" then there is a clear reason for it.

Ever thought about the fact that you also could have been born in Iraq?

KingBeast

Feb 6 2002, 17:47

Well this is an interesting "discussion" though as an outside viewer i am noting a fair bit of biased opinions from you both.

I have to say though Albert, your points are more thought out and make more sense, at least to myself.
Wobble you have some good points, but mainly you are saying "Europeans are useless because they dont step into the slaughter first"

foxer

Feb 6 2002, 18:06

Why dont you interfer when NIKE or GAP produce your luxurious goods through child-labour in Asian countries?

Your nikes get made over there too,i don't shop at the gap.Plus it;s not america that is making those kids work there,it's the company and their gov't.I bet lots of americans be happy if those jobs came back to america.

Yes we are afraid to send our sons into war, because Europe has lost too many gernerations in wars and in the end it didnt make the world better. Ask Isrealis and Afghans, they still didnt learn their lessons.

america also lost alot of people in european wars.

I am not against Americas action against terrorism,

I don't think anyone is, but if you tell your side of the story,to support your views,i'm going to put my side of the story out that supports my views.

foxer

Feb 6 2002, 18:30

Akira

Feb 6 2002, 19:09

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has suffered a lot, but not because of the war, but because the strategy was wrong. You want to bomb that poor country once again? Once again? If it didnt work the first time, why should it now. Maybe we should learn to learn from mistakes. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with asking a little European country like France or the UK for "brain" help. Cause those little countries have centuries of experience with foreign politics in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. (before Bush became President of the US, he had only been abroad in a different country once, so much about international experience. Clinton however was a real man of the world, but that guy you threw out).

But of course a huge country like the US does not make a step backward in fight against Terrorism even if that step may guide poor countries even deeper into the mud. Dont you know the formula: poverty->less liberalism->more extremism->terrorism or supressive regime.
One bomb will lead to more poverty and the effect of this, well look at the formula... It appears a bit to us, that you want to bob those countries untill they are no longer a threat to you. Then again you will live in peace in you superrich country ignoring world poverty. You wouldnt have given a damm about the Taliban regime if it wasnt them to shelter terrorists (you never gave a damm about the Afghans) so dont tell me you had a humanitarian purpose. Why dont you interfer when NIKE or GAP produce your luxurious goods through child-labour in Asian countries? Cause those moral-senses are unknown to you (or appear less important than national security). It is the first time that the US has learnt how cruel the world is around them.

Lets just remember how the Berlin wall fell! East-Germany was the part (satelite state) of the USSR with far the greates military budget. They were the first ones to introduce the newest Migs, and lets not talk about nukes. West-Germany was a rich country but with little fire-power. How did that wall fell (not only that wall, a whole country)? Through bombs? No but through a perfect diplomatic interplay. Now East-Germans werent terrorists, I agree, but the situation wasnt less threatening! All I wanna say there may be a solution for problems that may appear insolvable at the first place.

Yes we are afraid to send our sons into war, because Europe has lost too many gernerations in wars and in the end it didnt make the world better. Ask Isrealis and Afghans, they still didnt learn their lessons.

Dont get me wrong, I am not against Americas action against terrorism, even if it means war. But you cannot expect European countries to support you militarily if you dont also let them participate in the strategy-developement
process. We no longer follow the US blindly, for that the EU is too emancipated. But the "young" Bush government is not willing to let anyone give them advises ("we dont discuss when the issue is national security"). So when you tell us this: why dont you ever, why didnt you?" then there is a clear reason for it.

Ever thought about the fact that you also could have been born in Iraq?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
First I would just like to point out that we didn't "kick" Clinton out. We have term limits and he was at his...he couldn't come back. I would also like to point out that he was not an "international" man as you state. He was a draft dodger and the reason his entire foreign policy looked so successful was he gave in to so many demands, thus deals were made left and right, giving the illusion of a successful statesman (China is just one example). Clinton did horrific damage to our foreign standing and our internation clout. Clinton was a horrible President.

And I know a lot of people that haven't left their state or city or country, and they make sounder decisions and wiser comments than I ever heard Clinton make. Leaving your country has no bearing on your ability as a statesman.

I have no problem asking for European "brain help" (as you put it), nor does the US. But your allegory of "centuries" of diplomatic experience has little bearing in the real world. Your leaders don't have this experience and it is not cumulative. The leaders of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East are not the same nor are the politics, situations, or mitigating factors. I have no doubt that Europe has its fair share of brainiacs and elder statesmen, as all nations do, but what Marco Polo did in China has little bearing in the China of now.

Liberalism is not necessarily the correct answer nor the world solution you make it sound as. "Poverty equals less liberalism"? Extremism is not necessarily conservativism. Liberalism can form just as threatening EXTREMISTS as conservativism can. The correct answer is a delicate balance of the two. Not one or the other.

I don't buy NIKE or GAP shit. But many in America as well as Europe do, so this is not just a dysfunction of America as you make it sound. This is a world problem. The problem is not just American (and other countries) companies, but European countries as well, and the poor countries these companies exploit. Europe is doing just as little as America (though when it was discovered this happened sales- the American population indictator- dropped SHARPLY for both companies), and consumers in both continents continue wearing their all important pump up shoes and tank-tee's. I think this shit is ridiculous myself....but unfortunately I am not the majority.

I assume you are not saying East Germany fell with no US help or intervention, and that West Germany did all the work. It was NATO forces and German forces that protected Germany. You may have been a rich country, but the fire-power WAS there in the form of US forces, German forces, and a couple other countries ( I was previously unaware of). The Berlin Wall fell from diplomatic pressure from the US and ALL NATO countries. It took 40-odd years but it was taken down. All of NATO shares that victory.

Comparing the Berlin Wall to the present war on terrorism isn't even possible though. An immediate threat has been identified and an attack made on the US. We dont' have 40 years to negotiate this out while they send suicide bombers to take out building, nuclear reactors, or whatever.

Granted Europe has lost many generations in wars, but saying that it didn't make the world a better place is insulting to those whoe died. I think all thsoe that died fighting Hitler certainly made the world a better place. As for the Isrealis and Arabs....if you know how to overcome 2000 odd years of conflict I REALLY want to hear it. The Isrealis are not solely to blame and neither are the Palistinians...they are both equally to blame.

And I totally agree that Europe should not just go where we point. No one should do that for anyone. Perhaps a more international strategy is necessary, but they did attack the US, so telling other countries what we plan to do and when isn't necessarly required. But if we expect you guys to help, then yes, we should share and share our goals.

I think that is it...can't remember....AGAIN http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Pukko

Feb 6 2002, 19:16

Silencer

Feb 6 2002, 20:11

during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims!

Akira

Feb 6 2002, 20:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ummm.....ok....

I don't have anything against Muslims (or Jews, or Mormons, or Hari Krishnas, or any religion for that matter). I swear....talk like that....

And yes they are pretty much the same rebels the Soviets fought. Much of Al Queda and the Taliban and the Northern Alliance resisted the Soviets. Bin Laden first came to be an Islamic Hero through his work with the Mujahedeen.

Thehamster

Feb 6 2002, 20:26

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You so better be joking as that sort of post is just sick. You’re the sort of person that gives the Muslims a reason to hate/dislike the West. Muslims are not evil or bad it is just a few that use Religion as a cover for their actions. It is only the dumb and ignorant that hate an entire race on the bases on the actions of a few

I do not hate Muslims I do not hate any race or creed apart from I hate racist it don't matter what colour they are I just simply hate them as they in my opinion are the lowest form of human life.

DVII

Feb 6 2002, 20:50

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thehamster @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,21:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You so better be joking as that sort of post is just sick. You’re the sort of person that gives the Muslims a reason to hate/dislike the West. Muslims are not evil or bad it is just a few that use Religion as a cover for their actions. It is only the dumb and ignorant that hate an entire race on the bases on the actions of a few

I do not hate Muslims I do not hate any race or creed apart from I hate racist it don't matter what colour they are I just simply hate them as they in my opinion are the lowest form of human life.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree with The Hamster.
Many muslims live descently like you and me. Its just a small group of extremists that does the bad shit.

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 6 2002, 21:12

Akira, youn put it all into a very nice English, which of course I cant cause I got a different linguistic origin. So let me put it in my simple terms: BULLSHIT(dont get anoyed, I dont mean it as harsh as it sounds).

East Germany fell because of .....well definetly not to the pressure of the NATO. Always sounds nice to put the word NATO when you talk about politics but in this case it is pure bullshit. I can say it because we were watching the great demonstrations and politicans every day during these days of trouble around Berlin.
The NATO had none, but realy none at all impact on this historical event,neither on the fall of the wall (which rather was an accident) and the reunifictation. The only time where the NAtO came into play was when the Sovjet Union stated that there would now be a vaccum of power between the East and the West. And Thatcher said that Germany only wants the the OLD-German-borders back!.... Anyway if you would be the USSR would you give in to the NATO?

If you want to discuss the formula, fine! It is not realy necessary but fact is that whenever a country gets poorer the more people tend to vote (or support) extremist parties. That is not assumption, nor a word-play of liberalism ..extremism bla bla... it is a fact.

Clinton was a good man!, he did not create a financial deficit! He was well respected in Europe. Whether you kicked him out or not, is not important. But the way in which the nation treated him was ridiculous. It is funny that the country with the greatest porn industry in the world (yeah!!!)has such a problem with a president who has good sex (and dont tell me this: no, it was because he was lying).

No I definetly do not insult the Europeans that died in a war, I insult the ideas they HAD TO DIE FOR. As I am of a german root you may assume that many of my previous generations have lost family members because of war. And they died for nothing! In WWII a whole generation of 17 year olds were wiped out. Dont tell me those farmers knew what they were fighting for. But I can tell you, they killed others without knowing why they did it and then they got killed by others that didnt know why they had to murder too. The Brits had to go into war, because Germany attacked them. For what did those british soldiers die? So please dont glorify war telling me they were fighting for something special. I am not a Hollywood-berserc. I wish you people would have to listen to that old stories from your grand-grand-onlces who were fighting in Stalingrad. Then you would probably spit on all those films such as "behind enemy lines". War is a dirty business and should always be the last solution available, keep that in mind. IT IS NOT A GLORIOUS MOMENT IN A SOLDIERS LIFE.

France and England STILL have a lot of experience in terms of international diplomacy. I am not talking about history here I am talking about the PRESENT. France is not a country positioned only in Europe, France is spread all over the world, the same could be said about England. And those are not ancient colonies, those are continuing relations.

But I have no doubt that you Akira have good senses for what war can be about.... there are just a few things I have to insist on.

Hey Kingbeast, you could perfectly work in a Swiss-embassy. I guess you know why say this http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Assault (CAN)

Feb 6 2002, 21:25

I guess I'll throw in my additional 2 cents into this matter again. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Akira, your earlier post in response to Albert's were my thoughts exactly.

Now, back to the matter at hand:

I was as horrified as anyone else was on Sept,11th but in my humble opinion (once again), the U.S. should have no need to even be in Afghanistan, allow me to explain. The attacks of September 11th were an internal immagration problem, not a military one. The U.S. is throwing their money at the wrong problem.

Instead of assembling coalitions and battle groups to battle the "axis of evil" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif in the "war on terrorism" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif , they should be using the money to openly investigate their own orginizations for the worst possible case of incompetence in the past 100 years.

Do the U.S. Barracks bombings in Saudi Arabia ring a bell? The 1993 attack on the WTC? How about the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa? How about the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? The attempt to down a dozen U.S. commercial planes over the Pacific, simultainiously? Does anyone remember these events anymore? There was a clear and obvious warning that something BIG was going to happen (once again) on U.S. soil, but no warning was big enough for the U.S. and the Clinton administration to take heed.

Usama bin Laden and various other terrorists had been suspected in those bombings but nothing was really done about it. Sure they arrsested a few people, did it make a difference? Yet 20 odd terrorists are STILL able to get through the border and commit their acts of mass murder. The U.S. even let Usama bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan, hell, as most of you know, they even funded the guy in the 80's.

IMO, most of this modern day problem was founded during the 8 years Clinton was in office. He slashed funding to the military and variuos other orginizations and polluted the military further with his PC bullshit. Do you guys know what the military was talking aboput Sept 10th? Well, there was a meeting discussing the rights and issues of lactating women to breast feed their babies on U.S. bases,.....seriously.

Well, back to my point. Bombing the Taliban and getting rid of them will not solve the problems of terrorism on U.S. soil, if you want to stop a problem in your country do you bomb and occupy another one half way around the world? There is no evidence linking ANY country with the attacks of Sept,11th. Alienating other countries to nab a few terrorists will not stop the problem. How can UBL or anyother guy do you harm if he is halfway around the world? They don't even know where Usama bin Laden is or if he is alive or not, what makes anyone think that they are going to solve problems by EXPANDING the "war on terrorism"? The best way to prevent future attacks will be by nabbing terrorists at your border BEFORE they can do anything.

Sheesh,.....

Tyler

Akira

Feb 6 2002, 21:50

Just a quick note...

I'll respond tomorrow...work is almost over and no internet at home http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif *sniffle*

foxer

Feb 6 2002, 22:51

Do the U.S. Barracks bombings in Saudi Arabia ring a bell? The 1993 attack on the WTC? How about the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa? How about the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? The attempt to down a dozen U.S. commercial planes over the Pacific, simultainiously? Does anyone remember these events anymore? There was a clear and obvious warning that something BIG was going to happen (once again) on U.S. soil, but no warning was big enough for the U.S. and the Clinton administration to take heed.

Theres probably alot more too,Should we kick every middle-eastern man outta america ?

UBL is not fighitng for what the u.s. did,he is fighting for power.NOt because some muslim is getting his butt kick.He just using people in iraq and other countries as an excuses,to kill people.Because if he did care he would go blow up russia.

Wanna know why wtc was live on tv ? Because he attacked the middle of NYC,if USA goes carpet bombs a city you will probably see it on the tv,You probably also think that america is carpet bombing cities and dropping the daisy cutter on them.Because you suck up all that anti-america propaganda,but then you call america media propaganda.Whats propaganda to you ? Something that doesn't agree with your views ?

In america you can only serve 2 terms each 4 years long,he did his 2 he couldn't run anymore,thats why the vice president was running.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 7 2002, 00:05

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">n america you can only serve 2 terms each 4 years long,he did his 2 he couldn't run anymore,thats why the vice president was running.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I knew that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wanna know why wtc was live on tv ? Because he attacked the middle of NYC,if USA goes carpet bombs a city you will probably see it on the tv,You probably also think that america is carpet bombing cities and dropping the daisy cutter on them.Because you suck up all that anti-america propaganda,but then you call america media propaganda.Whats propaganda to you ? Something that doesn't agree with your views ? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Usama bin Laden did not attack the WTC, he might have planned it though.

What are you trying to say? What anti-American propaganda am I watching? Where did I refer to propaganda? Hmmm, please be clearer http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Tyler

Pukko

Feb 7 2002, 01:21

Assault, I think he was writing to me...

As a matter of fact Swedish news broadcasts is not very brave I can tell. Back in October there was some critics, but most of the time they talk nicely about USA. I have watched Euronews alot the past months, I think they are quite neutral anyway (and is showing remarcable brutal pictures quite often I think; dying people and corpses where they are to be found).

But placebo (I think it was) wrote as if the ones that support USA was a minority - to me it do look the other way. Maybe not in Europe, but indeed in the USA. Most of my opinions are not direct copies of what is said officially, I try to put my own picture together of all pieces I can see. As if I were to be special for that http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif - thats something everyone believes -that one have OWN opinions. As a matter of fact we are quite well socialised and therefore cant think outside our societies borderlines without a real effort. So the reason I am writing here is rather to get some new input about the situation - because I have an incredible hard time to just close my eyes for what i see right now, and would rather hate if it turned out that I'm blind, but to find that out one have to catch different opinions - and then if the only arguments popping up is the same as the ever repeating non critical telly broadcasts its quite meaningless...

Wobble

Feb 7 2002, 02:20

It cracks me up and makes me sick at the same time when people say "bombing is not the answer.. you just make them madder"

HELLO!!! they hate us because of WHO WE ARE..

they look at the US.. they see streets with 5 different religion's churches within 2 blocks... what do they see? do they see freedom of religion? NO.. they see s country that supports the worshipping of false gods. and they hate us for it.. because its not what THEY believe.

they see our TV.. with the hundreds of channels.. they dont see a vast and amazing entertainment.. they see usless 'decadent' lives.. and they hate us for it.. because its not what THEY believe.

they see muslims in the US talking and shopping and enjoying their lives, getting along with others... do they see a fair unbiased racially integrated socity? no.. they see a country who has taken THEIR people and turned them into EVIL CAPITALISTS.. and they hate us for it.. because its not what THEY believe

I could go on and on..

but the bottom line is that the US doesent have to do ANYTHING to make them hate us.. they hate us for who we are.. its the purest for of racism.. they consider they way we live to be an abomination..

and who are they to decide to kill us just because we do not live the way they like?

fuck em.. kill em all!

by all i dont mean muslims.. I mean the extreamist pukes like the taleban and al-queda.

foxer

Feb 7 2002, 02:29

wobble hurry,put your flame suit on. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Assault (CAN)

Feb 7 2002, 03:08

Wobble, where did I say that "bombing will only make people madder"? I just said there was no real reason for it.

The muslim extremeists don't hate you for "who you are", frankly, I don't think they even give two shits about "who you are".

Just like with the whole Palestine/Isreal debate, both sides have done something wrong to piss each other off, you just can't blame 1 side for ALL the problems, it doesn't work that way.

The extremist muslims hate you because of what you do. Lets look at things from their perspective, shall we?

You support Israel (whom they hate even more than you) with money and weapons. You put troops and planes on the holiest possible land (Saudi Arabia) and have left them there since the gulf war. You faught to aid the "corrupt monarchy" of Kuwait, who is selling off all the profits of their mismanaged and limited oil reserves, which benefit mainly the rich. BTW, there was also a muslim extremist movement to topple the Kuwaity gov't at the time of the gulf war, so they were pissed when the U.S. helped restore the gov't they hated.

Don't get me wrong!, I am not saying that the U.S. should not support Israel or fight Saddam, I am just giving a few clues as to why they hate you.

Terrorists have demonstrated more than once that they CAN hit civillian targets within the U.S. If it was so simple to get in and kill civillians, why didn't they do that earlier? Why do you think they went after U.S. military targets and foriegn outposts instead? They did it because they wan't you and your military out of their land and their business. When that didn't work, they hit you where it hurts.

We other nations in the western world live much the same way you do, why don't they attack us to the same extent they have attacked you? They attack you because of your doings in THEIR land. If they hated us for "who we are", I am sure we would all be attacked.

I don't consider myself "anti-American" in any way, nor do I think that it was your fault for the terrorist attacks. We already know how the muslim extremeists are at fault, for spreading their hate propaganda to any poor muslim who will listen and CONVINCING them that the U.S. is the "great satan" of the world and needs to be destroyed.

All I am saying is this: They have their reasons, you have yours and in their view, the U.S. started it.

I honestly think that the U.S. gov't attacked Afghanistan to appease the American public for the attacks of 9/11. We in the West like results, and fast. The U.S. gov't attacked Afghanistan to make it appear as if they were getting "results" and when they can't accomplish those goals they set earlier, they widen them. Hence the "axis of evil" speech. I think you would be safer and better off if you captured suspected terrorists in your own country and tightened up the borders.

Instead of nabbing a few high profile guys in a country half-way around the world, you should be getting the guys who would actually commit the acts of terrorism in your own country.

Just my opinion.....

Tyler

foxer

Feb 7 2002, 19:20

Like i said this is all about power.

If the U.S. wasn't in the middle-east there would be lots of wars,and maybe not israel there.If we was still funding bin laden,he wouldn't never attacked us.He hates us because of what we do with our power, if he had the same power america has he would do something else with it ,i doubt he would do something good with the power.He also hates the USA because he got kick outta his home land,Why ? because he didn't want the USA there to take iraq outta kuwait,he wanted to do it with USA money.But the leaders of saudi arabic wanted usa help,he got upset and started to hate the USA and left to another country.

What kind of message would the USA sends if we pulled outta middle-east and don't fund israel ? The message would be if you killed 3,000 americas,they will run,and make a deal.

Like i said before if this was about poor muslim people they would been blasting china and russia for years.This is not about how many muslims die,this all about power and who has it.

Middle-east is funny,America gives like 15 billions (maybe more or less) to the middle-east,but yet they still blast us.They want us outta their country.My point is,They are using us,just like we are using them.But you people think we are using the middle-east.Soo i don't feel bad for them.

Other then iraq we really haven't killed muslims.

One more thing,Is bin laden racist ? What does he think bosnia and kosvo was all about ? Muslims.I guess he doesn't like white muslims.

Silencer

Feb 7 2002, 22:28

I'm more interested in chenuya.....
I want to got there myself and rat out soo rebels and kill cheuyas!!!!

BTW I'm russian

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 8 2002, 13:52

Oh, come on silencer, you already pee into your pants when it gets dark and you got to bring the garbage downstairs. Keep on playing with yourself and the world will stay a better place.

Akira

Feb 8 2002, 14:50

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @<hidden> Feb. 06 2002,23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Akira, youn put it all into a very nice English, which of course I cant cause I got a different linguistic origin. So let me put it in my simple terms: BULLSHIT(dont get anoyed, I dont mean it as harsh as it sounds).

East Germany fell because of .....well definetly not to the pressure of the NATO. Always sounds nice to put the word NATO when you talk about politics but in this case it is pure bullshit. I can say it because we were watching the great demonstrations and politicans every day during these days of trouble around Berlin.
The NATO had none, but realy none at all impact on this historical event,neither on the fall of the wall (which rather was an accident) and the reunifictation. The only time where the NAtO came into play was when the Sovjet Union stated that there would now be a vaccum of power between the East and the West. And Thatcher said that Germany only wants the the OLD-German-borders back!.... Anyway if you would be the USSR would you give in to the NATO?

If you want to discuss the formula, fine! It is not realy necessary but fact is that whenever a country gets poorer the more people tend to vote (or support) extremist parties. That is not assumption, nor a word-play of liberalism ..extremism bla bla... it is a fact.

Clinton was a good man!, he did not create a financial deficit! He was well respected in Europe. Whether you kicked him out or not, is not important. But the way in which the nation treated him was ridiculous. It is funny that the country with the greatest porn industry in the world (yeah!!!)has such a problem with a president who has good sex (and dont tell me this: no, it was because he was lying).

No I definetly do not insult the Europeans that died in a war, I insult the ideas they HAD TO DIE FOR. As I am of a german root you may assume that many of my previous generations have lost family members because of war. And they died for nothing! In WWII a whole generation of 17 year olds were wiped out. Dont tell me those farmers knew what they were fighting for. But I can tell you, they killed others without knowing why they did it and then they got killed by others that didnt know why they had to murder too. The Brits had to go into war, because Germany attacked them. For what did those british soldiers die? So please dont glorify war telling me they were fighting for something special. I am not a Hollywood-berserc. I wish you people would have to listen to that old stories from your grand-grand-onlces who were fighting in Stalingrad. Then you would probably spit on all those films such as "behind enemy lines". War is a dirty business and should always be the last solution available, keep that in mind. IT IS NOT A GLORIOUS MOMENT IN A SOLDIERS LIFE.

France and England STILL have a lot of experience in terms of international diplomacy. I am not talking about history here I am talking about the PRESENT. France is not a country positioned only in Europe, France is spread all over the world, the same could be said about England. And those are not ancient colonies, those are continuing relations.

But I have no doubt that you Akira have good senses for what war can be about.... there are just a few things I have to insist on.

Hey Kingbeast, you could perfectly work in a Swiss-embassy. I guess you know why say this http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well quite simply, East Germany and the Berlin Wall did not fall because of demonstrations around the "troubled city." East Germany fell shortly after the USSR fell, because of US and NATO (yes I say NATO but I mean the political structures of each member country...not the organization itself) diplomatic, and technological strategies. I can say it because like you I was there and also watching the events unfold (remember the Reagan "Tear that wall down" speech?). To claim NATO had no impact or even origins for this historic event is ridiculous. NATO and its diplomatic corps from the 60s to the 90s help lead the way for the fall of the USSR and its satillite states. Demonstrations look good on TV but have little effect on a communist Soviet system (Poland and 50s and 60s Hungry come to mind). It was DIPLOMATIC pressure for NATO members that brought the Wall down. The reunification was Germanys deal...not NATOs, and there NATO had no imput or control, and rightly so. Reunification was a European issue, and I remember many protests against it because some were afraid that Germany would again become like Nazi Germany (which I find ludicrous).

No doubt as a country gets poorer people vote and support more extremist parties. I only had a problem with use of "liberalism" in the formula, though voting extremism does not necessarily bring violence.

Clinton most certainly was NOT a good man. The problem with Clinton was not that he was having "good sex" which he wasn't. The problem was A- he was married, and B- he did it IN the Oval office. The fact he lied about it and tried ot cover it up only made matters worse. These are not the actions of a GOOD person. And he didn't create a deficit that is for sure, and he made a false surplus by eviscerating many programs and other budgets, namely the armed services and the intelligence community (original started by another Demo Carter) that many here like to continually bring up as "incompetant." Thanks to Clinton and Carter it remaind so. Clinton had numerous chances to obtain Bin Laden (after the embassy bombings), once while he was in Turkey, and thus prevent 9/11 and yet he didn't...for the sake of "international relations"...he never said with whom. And 3000 people died because of it. Instead he lobs a few cruise missles at some tents, like that was suppose to accomplish anything. Clinton was all about show and talk and what people percieved...not about accomplishment or the country.

And thank god for porn! HOORAY!

I don't glorify war nor do I think it is a glorious experience. But at the same time I don't belittle those who died either. Its safe to say I as well have had relatives who have died in war, and I can tell you they did believe in what they did. They saw destroying Hitler (not Germany....Hitler) as the "right thing" to do. There may have been idealogical problems for the Germans fighting, many being forced to fight against an enemy they welcomed, or fighting for Hitlers cause which they wanted nothing to do with, but don't blanket statement it for every soldier. Yes war is gruesome and horrible and an afront to civilization, but unfortunately sometimes it IS necessary, and most combatant DO go so willing,and sometimes even because they believe in what they do (as hard as that maybe to believe). My grandfathers have told me stories, so don't think I harbor any illusions about war as a shiny, sanitary experience. But the glory is there whether you choose to see it or not.

France and England are positioned all over the world....true...but Frances current system of government is younger than the US's....wheres the experience? The Congo? Algeria? Not good diplomatic experience to lean on. The only diplomatic experience needed from Europe now is their basis of third-party outsiders. England or France I'm not so sure of though. Remember Bin Laden was planning attacks against most European nations as well (except Luxembourg...I don't think ANYONE has a beef with them http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

Akira

Feb 8 2002, 14:51

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @<hidden> Feb. 08 2002,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm more interested in chenuya.....
I want to got there myself and rat out soo rebels and kill cheuyas!!!!

BTW I'm russian[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The first time a bullet whizzes past yeah you'll crap your pants and run back to mommy....might take you awhile due to the load in your shorts though...

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 8 2002, 14:53

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif LoL

(and about your response to my comment: Good points, I wish there were more like those to be found in the forum. Of course we will never agree, or at I wouldnt admit it http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , but you (I mean I)gather ideas and that is what counts. (or to speak in sophisticated English: to broaden your views). A little milestone in between all those garbage-comments!) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Akira

Feb 8 2002, 15:15

Thanks.

Your comments as well are as enlightening. It basically just boils down to a difference of ideologies, and cultures I guess. Its good we can respect these differences without resorting to "YOU SUCK" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Now if only other can too http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Lets face it...You and I are the ideal posters...hehehehe

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 8 2002, 15:16

You suck! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif (just kiddin)

MrLaggy

Feb 8 2002, 17:48

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @<hidden> Feb. 07 2002,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UBL is not fighitng for what the u.s. did,he is fighting for power.NOt because some muslim is getting his butt kick.He just using people in iraq and other countries as an excuses,to kill people.Because if he did care he would go blow up russia.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nonsense. He's stated quite clearly that he's attacking America because of the presence of US troops in Saudi, US support for Israel and a few other odds and ends. If all he wanted was power, he has (or had) hundreds of millions of dollars, he could easily buy plenty of power rather than live in caves.

foxer

Feb 8 2002, 19:05

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @<hidden> Feb. 08 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UBL is not fighitng for what the u.s. did,he is fighting for power.NOt because some muslim is getting his butt kick.He just using people in iraq and other countries as an excuses,to kill people.Because if he did care he would go blow up russia.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nonsense. He's stated quite clearly that he's attacking America because of the presence of US troops in Saudi, US support for Israel and a few other odds and ends. If all he wanted was power, he has (or had) hundreds of millions of dollars, he could easily buy plenty of power rather than live in caves.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes,because we are in his home country,which he was going be in power(some kinda power) of, until the USA got there.He is piss about getting kicked outta his country.because he didn't want the USA there ,soo he talk bad about them.I really doubt it's about support of israel.

Akira

Feb 8 2002, 19:33

foxer

Feb 8 2002, 19:52

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton most certainly was NOT a good man[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on,He wasn't that bad,plus it was just sex.He lied about SEX,SEX doesn't run america,we shouldn't care what he does in his personnel life.Bush started militay cut back before him,and reagon funded bin laden,Soo at the end of the day all 3 of them had something to do with the attack that happen on sept.11.

But don't you see,You may be for republicans,or democrats,but i'am not.Why ? Because they both will stab you in the back if you pay them money,They are not for us.We americans need to get off the idea of Democrats and republicans,They haven't did crap for us in the last 30/40 years (?),We need a change,That change is not a democrat or republican.Some people are Dems.,soome people are reps. Fine,but if you blame the dems. for something then your just blaming yourself , or vice versa.

Democrats-Little bit better then republicans,but not that far behind.Will stab you in the back for money

Republicans-They bring god in everything,i'm fine with that,But not every damn day.I believe in god.also Will stab you in the back for money.But theres alot more.

Akira

Feb 8 2002, 20:12

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @<hidden> Feb. 08 2002,21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton most certainly was NOT a good man[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on,He wasn't that bad,plus it was just sex.He lied about SEX,SEX doesn't run america,we shouldn't care what he does in his personnel life.Bush started militay cut back before him,and reagon funded bin laden,Soo at the end of the day all 3 of them had something to do with the attack that happen on sept.11.

But don't you see,You may be for republicans,or democrats,but i'am not.Why ? Because they both will stab you in the back if you pay them money,They are not for us.We americans need to get off the idea of Democrats and republicans,They haven't did crap for us in the last 30/40 years (?),We need a change,That change is not a democrat or republican.Some people are Dems.,soome people are reps. Fine,but if you blame the dems. for something then your just blaming yourself , or vice versa.

Democrats-Little bit better then republicans,but not that far behind.Will stab you in the back for money

Republicans-They bring god in everything,i'm fine with that,But not every damn day.I believe in god.also Will stab you in the back for money.But theres alot more.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
He was pretty bad. And as I said it wasn't just about sex...it was about his actions, and his actions were decidedly un-Presidential. And when you are the President you don't have a personal life...you are the President...you represent 240 odd million people, and they should act like it. I'm not attacking him because of his being a Democrat, though I will attack the Democrats tendency to cut the military. It's usually the first to go when Democrats need a budget cut.

Reagan funded Bin Laden true, but that still doesn't make up for having the chance to capture him and blowing it. Reagan had some terrible social program ideas. But I liked what he did with the military. Bush started military cut backs due to the short-sightedness of thinking the world was ok now that Russia was gone...quite naive. Plus in my opinion we shoulda pushed all the way to Baghdad...but thats just me.

I have problem with all Presidents, and applaud most Presidents with what they do, Demo or Repub....Clinton just has more bad than good. I don't blame nor vote for any one party. I vote for who makes sense (after I take their rhetoric with a HEALTHY dose of skepticism).

I've always said we need a Republican foreign policy and a Democrat social policy. And neither should interfere with the other....but thats a bit simplistic...there is good and bad in all.

And if I hear one more word about "God" or "morals" or "family values" I swear I'm gonna go ape shit and climb the nearest tower and start poppin' heads!

Renagade

Feb 8 2002, 20:27

Whatwas the russian v chechen rebels thing about again because i remember when it was happening that the russian were going to airstrike them but the US stopped them with threats of sanctions.
What was the deal going on there ?

Akira

Feb 8 2002, 20:34

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @<hidden> Feb. 08 2002,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatwas the russian v chechen rebels thing about again because i remember when it was happening that the russian were going to airstrike them but the US stopped them with threats of sanctions.
What was the deal going on there ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
From what I understand....Russia said Muslim extremist/terrorists were staging from there (remember when the apartments were bombed in Moscow?). Plus Chechnya wanted to be independant and Russia said "No"...thus alleged extremist/terrorists went after Russia.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 8 2002, 21:50

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus in my opinion we shoulda pushed all the way to Baghdad...but thats just me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, there are a few reasons that we didn't. Even though we could have easily done it.

I think that the U.S. was afraid that Iran might try and interfere if Sadaam was gone, by invaiding Iraq. Afterall, those countries had been at war for 10 years prior and U.S.-Iran relations have always been shakey at best or non-existent.

There was a resistance movement in Iraq that the U.S. promised support for, but they pulled out last minute and all the resistance leaders and most of the supporters were executed or ran out of the country. Anyone here recall the "Bay of Pigs" incedent? it was basically the same deal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He was pretty bad.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, Clinton was pretty bad. No argument there!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reagan funded Bin Laden true,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

He also funded the corrupt "Government" of Nicaragua to help fight the Sandinistas who were trying to liberate the place from the corrupt "government". He funded them on the basis that the Russians had sent the Sandinistas some support in the way of cash and Ak's. What Reagan did was just stupid IMO.

U.S. foreign policy is screwed up for the most part, it doesn't matter if the President is a Dem. or Rep.

Tyler

Silencer

Feb 8 2002, 22:13

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @<hidden> Feb. 08 2002,22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatwas the russian v chechen rebels thing about again because i remember when it was happening that the russian were going to airstrike them but the US stopped them with threats of sanctions.
What was the deal going on there ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
From what I understand....Russia said Muslim extremist/terrorists were staging from there (remember when the apartments were bombed in Moscow?). Plus Chechnya wanted to be independant and Russia said "No"...thus alleged extremist/terrorists went after Russia.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
damn right I hate american for threating russia for nothing doing airstirkes!

american can't tell russia what to do!
attack chenuya is the right way!

Vir

Feb 9 2002, 02:12

'Instead of assembling coalitions and battle groups to battle the "axis of evil" in the "war on terrorism" , they should be using the money to openly investigate their own orginizations for the worst possible case of incompetence in the past 100 years.'

I had to comment on this one becuase of your avatar :)
A lot of the terrorists that hijacked those planes were already known to be assosiated with al-queda(sp?) and got into america across the canadian border.

Vir

Feb 9 2002, 02:14

Supah

Feb 9 2002, 02:21

This is one of those fights we should never grow wiery or tired off. u could say ive been taken in by USA propaganda but their point cant be talked down or be betrayed as wrong no matter how hard some ppl on this forum might want to. Terrorisme is wrong. No matter how much background info u might drag in to this about lets say palestinians NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISME. One of them (terrorists) started this. This is a good reason/excuse to destroy all the "bad guys". If nothing else let the ppl of the WTC have died for the notion that u cant be soft on these ppl and that the "Problems behind the problem" are something best dealt with who ever reasonable is alive afterwards. U cannot and should not tolerate the random killing of civilians for what ever cause. They crossed the line ..... now its time for them to pay the piper.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 9 2002, 05:13

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A lot of the terrorists that hijacked those planes were already known to be assosiated with al-queda(sp?) and got into america across the canadian border.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Uh, no.....They didn't get in through the "Canadian border", they got in through the "U.S. border". The last time I checked, the only way to get in the U.S. is through a U.S. checkpoint? Am I wrong? Since when did the U.S. let other countries decide who gets in their country? Odd......

Whats with you Yanks about blaming other people for your problems? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif (j/k)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISME. One of them (terrorists) started this. This is a good reason/excuse to destroy all the "bad guys".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What justifies invading another country in order to prove a point?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U cannot and should not tolerate the random killing of civilians for what ever cause.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So I guess you are against the invasion of Afghanistan then? Hmmm, strange.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> u could say ive been taken in by USA propaganda [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hmmm, I could but I won't, "propaganda" is such a harsh word.....

Anyways, sorry if I happend to piss either of you off.

I am not saying, nor have I ever said that the U.S. should not solve their terrorist problem. What I AM saying is that the U.S. had no real reason to go to Afghanistan. I have said it before twice and will repeat it thrice.... The attacks of sept. the 11th were and still are an IMMIGRATION problem, and not a MILITARY one. there!!.....think about it.

Tyler

foxer

Feb 9 2002, 06:47

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uh, no.....They didn't get in through the "Canadian border", they got in through the "U.S. border". The last time I checked, the only way to get in the U.S. is through a U.S. checkpoint? Am I wrong? Since when did the U.S. let other countries decide who gets in their country? Odd......[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

How the heck did they get in canada ? Look at the mexico border,we can't stop them how the heck we going stop them on the canuck border(which is biggeR ) ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What justifies invading another country in order to prove a point? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I guess you shouldn't attack the bigger country more then once.

Usa ship
2 embassies
2 barracks in the middle-east
All the plots to blow this up and that up,which the FBI/CIA stopped.
Lots of others probably.

It's not like they just blew the sh!t outta of us the other day ,and we didn't know who the enemy was..

foxer

Feb 9 2002, 07:26

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So I guess you are against the invasion of Afghanistan then? Hmmm, strange.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Bin laden LIVES in afghanistan.I don't think we can fight him in the USA,Or we talking about a new type of war ? Not to attack the Head guy in his country ? But let him blow the sh!t outta people that don't believe in Allah.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not saying, nor have I ever said that the U.S. should not solve their terrorist problem. What I AM saying is that the U.S. had no real reason to go to Afghanistan. I have said it before twice and will repeat it thrice.... The attacks of sept. the 11th were and still are an IMMIGRATION problem, and not a MILITARY one. there!!.....think about it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Look at my other post.I think canada needs to check their Immigration problem though.They let like 15(less or more) terrorist in their country,and probably alot more are there right now ,planning the next attack.

Now my say--

We(American People) know america gov't has problems,but we aren't going pick up rifles and tell them to leave.That would be stupid to have a civil war over a stupid gov't thing.True they need a change but one day,one day,When all these old fu#ks die,we once again,maybe have the power.Not the company,not the dude with the billion,But The People.But Time will tell.Blowing me to shit ain't going help your cause.They've attacked the wrong people that day,They attacked the american people(ME),not the gov't.The gov't can give a rats ass about us,but yet they want to kill us(me) ? Because something the gov't did ,you are trying kill me because of something the gov't did,something they did ,not The People.Then you tell us why they did it,and Why we shouldn't kill them,But yet you people think that when the WTC,Pentagon got hit like that day,You truly think it hurts the U.S. gov't,But you are WRONG,it didn't do crap to them,all it did was kill US(me).So In This Conflict(war) ,I Will Support This War.Why ? Because we got troops on the line and these bastards killed US(ME,WE),Not the old guy in the big chair taking money in from these rich people,Soo they can get off crimes.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 9 2002, 09:12

I think you guys should go back and scan my earlier posts becasue I fell like a broken record repeating myself over and over.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bin laden LIVES in afghanistan.I don't think we can fight him in the USA,Or we talking about a new type of war ? Not to attack the Head guy in his country ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

OK, did anyone from Afghanistan attack the WTC? Most of the guys who did were from Saudi Arabia, so is Bin Laden, so why don't you attack Saudi Arabia instead??

Did Bin Laden himself attack the WTC in person? No. The guys who did had lived in the U.S. for months or years. If the U.S. Customs had stopped them, 3000 people would still be here today. For the fourth F*UCKING time, the attacks of 9/11 were and still are an immigration problem, not a military one. Osama Bin Asshole is not a direct threat to the U.S. The terrorists that DO get in ARE direct threats.

Lets say the U.S. had killed Bin Laden Sept 10th, do you honestly think that would have made a difference? What will it do know?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think Canada needs to check their Immigration problem though [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What problem? Was I mistaken or were there much more than just 15 terrorists in the U.S. at the time of the attacks? I really doubt that every single terrorist came through Canada. This point is moot, because ultimately the U.S. customs let them in, not us.

Your "problem" is a percieved one. It is not Canada's responsibility to look after you, sure we will help out some but we have our own problems. After all, you guys live in the most powerfull country on Earth right?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess you shouldn't attack the bigger country more then once.

Usa ship
2 embassies
2 barracks in the middle-east
All the plots to blow this up and that up,which the FBI/CIA stopped.
Lots of others probably. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

People just don't strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up just for the hell of it. They are doing it because in their mind, you are the enemy and what they are doing is right. The U.S. has done more than enough to piss them off. (and no, this does not justify terrorism, i know)

The U.S. had AMPLE opportunity to stop them but they didn't. Now they are living with the mistakes of the past.

NONE of those acts were linked to an orginized government, they were all private terrorists. By your logic, if a terrorist comes from France and is allowed in by U.S. customs, we should go and bomb France to show that crooked French government who's boss.

If you want a true right-wing view of U.S. politics or events go here. (http://www.etherzone.com/) You will find a lot of good articles, if anyone here actually has an attention span, I suggest you read the ones that interest you.

sheesh....

Tyler

Pukko

Feb 9 2002, 16:58

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We(American People) know america gov't has problems,but we aren't going pick up rifles and tell them to leave.That would be stupid to have a civil war over a stupid gov't thing.True they need a change but one day,one day,When all these old fu#ks die,we once again,maybe have the power.Not the company,not the dude with the billion,But The People.But Time will tell.Blowing me to shit ain't going help your cause.They've attacked the wrong people that day,They attacked the american people(ME),not the gov't.The gov't can give a rats ass about us,but yet they want to kill us(me) ? Because something the gov't did ,you are trying kill me because of something the gov't did,something they did ,not The People.Then you tell us why they did it,and Why we shouldn't kill them,But yet you people think that when the WTC,Pentagon got hit like that day,You truly think it hurts the U.S. gov't,But you are WRONG,it didn't do crap to them,all it did was kill US(me).So In This Conflict(war) ,I Will Support This War.Why ? Because we got troops on the line and these bastards killed US(ME,WE),Not the old guy in the big chair taking money in from these rich people,Soo they can get off crimes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Interesting and in my eyes openminded post foxer...

Its not often Americans make a differance between US citizens and Government. Most of the time blindly defending the government as they (you) feel personally offended by critics aimed at just the government.

I am sorry for all quite offensive postings I have made regarding US actions. But its really easy to be offensive since no matter how gentle one are when trying to question US foregin affairs, American citizens take it really personally and try to defend themselves at all cost (often in a offensive way). I think I can understand that though, because in your every day life in USA after sep 11:th most people probably seek comfort in each others and support USA:s actions in a patriotic way; then its probably hard to come here and read critics about it - and you wont risk your relation to friends and family for 'Internet opinions'.

Then one can wonder what I have to do with US foregin policies?

I can tell you that I feel afraid of what will come too. Probably not in the extent you are, since I live in quite nonoffensive Sweden (but I would like to be able to travel in the future); but I cant but feel for all civilian people that have died, and will die, as colateral damage from bombs and in terror attacks in USA and most certainly Europe - for what do they die? For US pride???

Now I will share some views, please dont take them as affenses, but as opinions that might easen the chock if it turns out that way:

USA might go to history as the bad guys in the later half of 20:th century (Germany was the bad ones in the first half). Whether it turns out that way or not is a matter of incidents - but it has clearly potential. If the USA will continue to do whatever it wants and attack whomever they want (justified only to US citizens) the risk increase big time. This 'war on terrorism' have potential to last for centuries....................

If terrorists strike at a European target, risk is that Europeans will blame USA for it. More and more Europeans grow tired of US influence, not only military and economically, but also in our daily life - the US empire is enormous and involves, exept military and economies, media and culture... What will happen when EU have grown stronger we will have to see, but USA:s role in the present worldorder will not last for ever...

I cant see anything creative in this 'war on terrorism' - it has not in my eyes any potential to make anything to the better. If USA kills Osama Bin Laden he will become a martyr, and he will have eve more followers. The more people that will suffer from USA:s war on terrorism the more terrorists there will be. Its completely impossible to protect a country against terrorism as long as they have a reason to hurt that nation; the only way to get rid of terrorism is to take the cause away. The cause for sep 11:th is, if not to 100% - then to a great extent, US foregin actions is the last 50 years. Whomever was really behind the terror attacks could potentially have symphaties for older US actions, as Vietnam and Hiroshima/Nagasaki (and even some non military actions) too; not only more recent and present actions against muslim countries - if the real ones (videos, evidence is easy to make up) at all was muslims. Therefore what USA can do to stop further terrorism is probably to make up with its past, and now completely change its ways. But thats probably not gonna happen because the proud US citizens would never accept to lose many of the things they have learned to see as good things with USA; therefore its potential that USA will continue their way until it falls to pieces and take billions of human lives (if it lasts for centuries) with them on the way...................

Can you now see why I am concerned about this, the in the long run even potential end of human existance, 'war on terrorism'? I CAN SEE NO END TO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

el Gringo Loco

Feb 9 2002, 17:18

I can relate to a lot you mention Pukko, but there are some things to consider.

The thought that terrorism is mainly an american matter is a false one. Terrorism is ever present in almost every country on this globe even in europe we are not free of terrorists. Many terrorists use europe even as a hiding place. I think that after 9-11 there should be an answer to this menace. Mind you blowing up two of the largest buildings in the US is something different than assassinating someone. An answer had to be formulated.

Many people disagree to the way the US is handling the problem but also fail to formulate an alternative way how we should stop this malady. If we still think that we can stop terrorism by denouncing our help to israel and start opening our eyes to the palestinian case we are sorely mistaken.
Terrorism has become big business now and is sponsored by some very wealthy people and states. There's no diplomatic way in ending terrorism, or if there is please enlighten me how.

We also know that the current war on terrorism will also not stop it. But at least it is an answer to something which was kept long unanswered by the western world. In europe we are still lucky that we didn't have any big terrorist drama, but that doesn't mean that they aren't planned. Last summer english intelligence foiled a plot of algerian terrorists trying to gas the EU members in Brussels. Terrorists will always find some twisted cause to fight for and innoncent citizens will always be the victims of that. I think the war on terrorism was started too late. We know now that some organisations are trying to acquire NBC weapons and some lunatic in japan already used it in the tokyo subway.

I realise that it is impossible to stop terrorism but there should be made an effort to make it as hard as possible for these animals to commit their heinous crimes. Yes, there will be future terrorist attacks, but these would also come when there's was no war against terrorism going.

I think the topic is very difficult to comment on, but I feel that doing nothing and put confidence in diplomatic options is a station past long time ago. If there's one lesson to be learned out of all this, it must be: You can't negotiate with terrorists, never could, never can

Pukko

Feb 9 2002, 17:46

Well I do think there are ways to almost eliminate terrorism. I have earlier refered to 'abstract' actions, and they do not only invlove traditional diplomatic ways.

We do live in a time when the humans on planet Tellus is on the way to globalise themselves. This can be done in many different ways, as many bad as good, and will take centuries to accomplish to any larger extent. The most positive utopia that one can have about it is that everyone lives as brothers and sisters here on Tellus. I am myself studying 'behavioral science' at the time, and see how, and different views of why, we learn all the bullshit we believe in and act after. I am therefore quite optimistic that the human race is not necessarily by nature hostile to eachother and so on. I dont think of a world where we live in 'cultural borderlands' as impossible, but indeed hard and timeconsuming to accomplish.

It will, as I said, take a long time to accomplish - but a great only destructive worldwide war will delay it with maybe centuries or more, or even make it impossible...

Therefore I say sit on your ass and try to improve relations with all other countries -many European nations already do, thats why americans see us as weak and passive. It will take time - but its the only way....

el Gringo Loco

Feb 9 2002, 17:49

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @<hidden> Feb. 09 2002,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I do think there are ways to almost eliminate terrorism. I have earlier refered to 'abstract' actions, and they do not only invlove traditional diplomatic ways.

We do live in a time when the humans on planet Tellus is on the way to globalise themselves. This can be done in many different ways, as many bad as good, and will take centuries to accomplish to any larger extent. The most positive utopia that one can have about it is that everyone lives as brothers and sisters here on Tellus. I am myself studying 'behavioral science' at the time, and see how, and different views of why, we learn all the bullshit we believe in and act after. I am therefore quite optimistic that the human race is not necessarily by nature hostile to eachother and so on. I dont think of a world where we live in 'cultural borderlands' as impossible, but indeed hard and timeconsuming to accomplish.

It will, as I said, take a long time to accomplish - but a great only destructive worldwide war will delay it with maybe centuries or more, or even make it impossible...

Therefore I say sit on your ass and try to improve relations with all other countries -many European nations already do, thats why americans see us as weak and passive. It will take time - but its the only way....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm certainly do hope that you're right in the end.

Pete

Feb 9 2002, 18:25

mmmmmm

i think that the terrorists (bin laden and such) need to be captured, killed...they need to be stopped.

to that we can all agree to.

but the way to do it??.....afganistan, bombed, thousands of civilians dead, thousands of soldiers...and where is bin laden?, his organisation is weaker, but how much weaker?

so what if they lsot 1000 terrorists, or 10.000 terrorists, they get new ones in a blink of an eye....they have a endless recourse of manpower.

can anyone argue about that?

i doubt it.

so what the "war" has done is to throw the talibans of the power, kill some thousand civilians, and not much more.

but, something had to be done...i agree with pukko and l24a, both are right.

as for a solution...

1: hunt down the terrosists (as L24A says)
2: help the poor countries, change policy, change the hatred towards usa to something else...(as pukko says)

somehow all seem to miss the fact that you CAN do both of those things the same time, but nobody does it...instead we have israel and usa doing all they can to get arafat of the power instead of looking for a peacefull solution, we have usa looking for a new place to have a "war on terrorism" now...we have a load of future problems coming up, but nothing is done to stop the source of the terrorism, the reasons are still there...of course terrorism will always exist to a part, but we CAN limit it a lot.

and if helping these nations will not stop terrorism atleast we have done a lot to limit the hatred towards usa/west, we have increased the wellbeing for many men...and a future generation will hate a lot less.

sometimes i wonder if the ones only calling for revenge ever thought that it will end terrorism....or if they only want to see more cool stuff at the news.

war on terrorism, the words sounds good...but it is impossible even in theory...terrorism is not a person, a nation...its a ideology, it can come up anywhere, anyhow, it can be people who are NOT registered as terrorists..it can be anyone, anytime.

all a man needs to kill himself and take down a plane with him is a simple bomb and a reason....nothing more.

Stag

Feb 9 2002, 19:42

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, did anyone from Afghanistan attack the WTC? Most of the guys who did were from Saudi Arabia, so is Bin Laden, so why don't you attack Saudi Arabia instead??[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Nope. But the US government did declare that any country harbouring terrorists would be treated as terrorists. Forget the crap about proof for the WTC attacks; Al-Qeda was already known to be responsible for many other attacks on America in the past, and all the pointers at the time went straight to them for this one. The American Goverment asked the Taliban to hand Al-Qeda over, and were told to get knotted.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did Bin Laden himself attack the WTC in person? No. The guys who did had lived in the U.S. for months or years. If the U.S. Customs had stopped them, 3000 people would still be here today. For the fourth F*UCKING time, the attacks of 9/11 were and still are an immigration problem, not a military one. Osama Bin Asshole is not a direct threat to the U.S. The terrorists that DO get in ARE direct threats.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This is such complete bollocks. Are you telling me that you would just sit on your ass, while hostile forces probed your borders looking for weaknesses? The would only have to penetrate ONCE, and you have 9/11 the sequel. Do you deny that these terrorists were trained by Al-Qeda? If you have any brains at all, you take out the places spawning the terrorists, or you just spend the rest of your short life hiding behind an uncertain wall. Will there be more terrorist attacks? Probably. But not by Terrorists trained in Afghanistan. For a graphic example of a passive/defensive posture, just check out the Maginot line. By all means, a strong defence, but only to hold the line while you destroy the enemy at source.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets say the U.S. had killed Bin Laden Sept 10th, do you honestly think that would have made a difference? What will it do know?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Not to the people in the WTC. but for sure there'll be a lot of people a few years down the line who won't be that worried about an attack planned by that bastard.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess you shouldn't attack the bigger country more then once.

Usa ship
2 embassies
2 barracks in the middle-east
All the plots to blow this up and that up,which the FBI/CIA stopped.
Lots of others probably. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People just don't strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up just for the hell of it. They are doing it because in their mind, you are the enemy and what they are doing is right. The U.S. has done more than enough to piss them off. (and no, this does not justify terrorism, i know)

The U.S. had AMPLE opportunity to stop them but they didn't. Now they are living with the mistakes of the past.

NONE of those acts were linked to an orginized government, they were all private terrorists. By your logic, if a terrorist comes from France and is allowed in by U.S. customs, we should go and bomb France to show that crooked French government who's boss. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Theoretically, true. in practice, the French government would be dumping on those terrorists just as hard. Or do you honestly think they would have given America the same bullshit as a bunch of twisted religeous fanatics, If Al-Qeda was found to be in French territory?

Regardless of the wrongs and the rights of the U.S. Government, the terrorists will always be infinitely worse. Those people couldn't give a toss about your self-percieved morally superior positon, except how it benefits them. Aside from that pal, you're just another potential target.

Stag

Feb 9 2002, 20:06

Can't say I disagree with much of what you say. However...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what if they lsot 1000 terrorists, or 10.000 terrorists, they get new ones in a blink of an eye....they have a endless recourse of manpower.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

But not the rescources to train them. Training camps must be set up, equipment purchased. The U.S. has declared that "Any country harbouring terrorists will be treated as terrorists." If the Invasion of Afghanistan has achieved anything, It has shown just how capable U.S. forces are of taking a country apart. I wonder how many countries which previously sposored these people are feeling a little vulnerable right now?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what the "war" has done is to throw the talibans of the power, kill some thousand civilians, and not much more.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban were no angels. Can anybody say otherwise? It's probable that the Northern Alliance are no better. But for the first time in Years, there is the possibility of change. Perhaps the western money now going into Afghanistan will make a difference. Time will tell.

but, something had to be done...i agree with pukko and l24a, both are right.

as for a solution...

1: hunt down the terrosists (as L24A says)
2: help the poor countries, change policy, change the hatred towards usa to something else...(as pukko says)

somehow all seem to miss the fact that you CAN do both of those things the same time, but nobody does it...instead we have israel and usa doing all they can to get arafat of the power instead of looking for a peacefull solution, we have usa looking for a new place to have a "war on terrorism" now...we have a load of future problems coming up, but nothing is done to stop the source of the terrorism, the reasons are still there...of course terrorism will always exist to a part, but we CAN limit it a lot.

and if helping these nations will not stop terrorism atleast we have done a lot to limit the hatred towards usa/west, we have increased the wellbeing for many men...and a future generation will hate a lot less.

sometimes i wonder if the ones only calling for revenge ever thought that it will end terrorism....or if they only want to see more cool stuff at the news.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">war on terrorism, the words sounds good...but it is impossible even in theory...terrorism is not a person, a nation...its a ideology, it can come up anywhere, anyhow, it can be people who are NOT registered as terrorists..it can be anyone, anytime.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It's difficult to impossible stop a single crazy. But if you attack organised terrorism in the countries where they train, then it means that there is far less chance of a co-ordinated attack like 9/11. You can never stamp out fanatics; but you can deal with the political and finacial institutions that harbour them.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 9 2002, 22:21

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is such complete bollocks. Are you telling me that you would just sit on your ass, while hostile forces probed your borders looking for weaknesses? The would only have to penetrate ONCE, and you have 9/11 the sequel. Do you deny that these terrorists were trained by Al-Qeda? If you have any brains at all, you take out the places spawning the terrorists, or you just spend the rest of your short life hiding behind an uncertain wall. Will there be more terrorist attacks? Probably. But not by Terrorists trained in Afghanistan. For a graphic example of a passive/defensive posture, just check out the Maginot line. By all means, a strong defence, but only to hold the line while you destroy the enemy at source.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, it isn't "bollocks". It is a hell of alot easier letting a couple terrorists come to your door and stoping them there instead of going to another country and bobming the crap out of it in order to have a chance at nabbing a few high-ranking guys.

Of course we should go after terrorists, but we should not do so by attacking whole countries. The U.S. should have waited a while until they could find out where Bin Laden was and either bomb him or send in a commando raid to capture or kill him. They really can't do that now because of the bad state the U.S. intelligence is in.

No I am not denying that they werent trained by Al-Quaida, or anyone else for that matter.

A little history lesson: The Maginot line had a gap in it. That gap was the (insert name here) Forest to the south of the line. The French did not think that the Germans would send troops and armour through a Forest, but they did. Now you know the rest of the story.

I agree with Pete.

Tyler

Silencer

Feb 9 2002, 22:27

forget about the terriosts look at the soviet union we have a good army the best choppers hind!!!

I bet russia will win if we had a real war with US.

Stag

Feb 9 2002, 22:36

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @<hidden> Feb. 09 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is such complete bollocks. Are you telling me that you would just sit on your ass, while hostile forces probed your borders looking for weaknesses? The would only have to penetrate ONCE, and you have 9/11 the sequel. Do you deny that these terrorists were trained by Al-Qeda? If you have any brains at all, you take out the places spawning the terrorists, or you just spend the rest of your short life hiding behind an uncertain wall. Will there be more terrorist attacks? Probably. But not by Terrorists trained in Afghanistan. For a graphic example of a passive/defensive posture, just check out the Maginot line. By all means, a strong defence, but only to hold the line while you destroy the enemy at source.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, it isn't "bollocks". It is a hell of alot easier letting a couple terrorists come to your door and stoping them there instead of going to another country and bobming the crap out of it in order to have a chance at nabbing a few high-ranking guys.

Of course we should go after terrorists, but we should not do so by attacking whole countries. The U.S. should have waited a while until they could find out where Bin Laden was and either bomb him or send in a commando raid to capture or kill him. They really can't do that now because of the bad state the U.S. intelligence is in.

No I am not denying that they werent trained by Al-Quaida, or anyone else for that matter.

A little history lesson: The Maginot line had a gap in it. That gap was the (insert name here) Forest to the south of the line. The French did not think that the Germans would send troops and armour through a Forest, but they did. Now you know the rest of the story.

I agree with Pete.

Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Identify them. Just one gets through, How many deaths do you think he would be capable of causing?

Give me one example where a purely defensive strategy has ever resolved a conflict.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 9 2002, 22:50

Its not a real "conflict". You can't win it. To win you would have to stop a bunch of Muslim extermeists from hating you. Do you really think thats possible?

Instead you should make them realize that trying to get into the U.S. to kill innocent civilians is an excersise in futility. I think it is impossible for the U.S. forces to go out and kill every person who thinks bad thoughts of the U.S.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">forget about the terriosts look at the soviet union we have a good army the best choppers hind!!!

I bet russia will win if we had a real war with US.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Silencer, quit posting your stupid, immature garbage in a serious thread.

Thankyou

Tyler

Pete

Feb 10 2002, 01:54

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Give me one example where a purely defensive strategy has ever resolved a conflict.

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

even better..i give you a example of a conflict that ended without even a defence.......india got free from english rule thanks to Gandhi and his peacefull demonstrations.

there are loads of conlicts like that, but offense is the best defence...normally.

i agree that you cant possibly stop a terrorist from entering usa if he is unknown or lucky...same as you cant prevent someone already in usa from becoming a terrorist...it seems to me that you need defence, offence and dramatic change of us foreign policy to deal with it...one of them alone stops very little....altough change of us foreign policy is likely to be
the most effective method....

a potential terrorist needs only a reason, and that only YOU (usa, or what ever is the target) can give him, and you do it only by your actions.

terrorism is a sort of counter-action....not much more, you can keep yelling that "we cant make deals with terrorists" as much you want..but nobody really wants you to do that, correcting your own wrongdoings would remove a lot of the terrorist threat, even if not all...but a great part of it.

you give the terrorist one of the things he needs...you give him a reason.

the weapon he can buy in any shop...the planes that went into the wtc were hijacked with razorblades.

how is it possible to "fight a war against terrorism" when a terrorist is not much more than that...you can possibly get the training camps, but what else?...some weaponry they still would most likely not use in a terror strike...what more?...money, only a very very small part of it.

it cant be won by force....call me a pessimist, i call myself a realist.

Stag

Feb 10 2002, 02:58

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">even better..i give you a example of a conflict that ended without even a defence.......india got free from english rule thanks to Gandhi and his peacefull demonstrations

there are loads of conlicts like that, but offense is the best defence...normally..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wonder how long Gandhi would have lasted in pre-war Afghanistan.

Besides, that wasn't a war; the war had already been fought. Gandhi's tactic of disobedience never prevented The British from taking what they wanted out of India.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i agree that you cant possibly stop a terrorist from entering usa if he is unknown or lucky...same as you cant prevent someone already in usa from becoming a terrorist...it seems to me that you need defence, offence and dramatic change of us foreign policy to deal with it...one of them alone stops very little....altough change of us foreign policy is likely to be
the most effective method....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In fact, The USA did fight one war using Assault's defensive strategy; and they had to give up on it; Vietnam.

Thousands of tons of war materiel trickled down the Ho Chi Minh trail, despite the best efforts of US and South Vietnamese troops to stop it. But due to political considerations, they were NOT ALLOWED to cut the supplies of at source by invading the North in any strength, Despite the fact that whenever the Southern Forces engaged the NVA they almost invariably won, there was always more coming. Eventually the US had to pull out; they realised they were banging their heads against a brick wall.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a potential terrorist needs only a reason, and that only YOU (usa, or what ever is the target) can give him, and you do it only by your actions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No argument there. Solving the underlying problems of a group which spawns terrorists should be the lynchpin of any future strategy. but right now, you have a shitload of maniacs running around just looking for some civilians to kill. A line I remember from some film about a guy hunting a murderer by trying to think like him. The hunter decided that the killer had been terribly abused as a child. one of his mates thought he was going soft; The hunter answered "I mourn for the child and what was done to him, but the adult is a dangerous son of a bitch and needs destroying."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">terrorism is a sort of counter-action....not much more, you can keep yelling that "we cant make deals with terrorists" as much you want..but nobody really wants you to do that, correcting your own wrongdoings would remove a lot of the terrorist threat, even if not all...but a great part of it.

you give the terrorist one of the things he needs...you give him a reason.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now is the opportunity for the USA to literally put its money where its mouth is. Before the invasion they proposed exactly this action; to rebuild Afghanistan to the point that they can again function as a civilised nation. Will this happen? Time will tell.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the weapon he can buy in any shop...the planes that went into the wtc were hijacked with razorblades.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Flight 91 went down fighting those Terrorists. The British scumbag that boarded a flight with a bomb in his shoe was beaten down by the passengers before he could detonate the bomb. After 9/11, I think ANY potential hijacker will have a short, exciting life, regardless of what he's armed with. example: You are on an aircraft which is hijacked by a couple of people with razor blades. Do you A: sit in your seat singing "We shall not be moved," or B: Conclude that your life may well end in the bowels of a skyscraper, and do what you can to prevent it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how is it possible to "fight a war against terrorism" when a terrorist is not much more than that...you can possibly get the training camps, but what else?...some weaponry they still would most likely not use in a terror strike...what more?...money, only a very very small part of it.

it cant be won by force....call me a pessimist, i call myself a realist.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

See previous post.

Decimus

Feb 10 2002, 04:56

It has been awhile since I have really read this forum and I'm not surprised in the least that the US vs Europe flame war has not changed at all. Much of this has been said and I wish I could get back the hour and a half of my life I spent reading this topic. I just have 3 things to say:
ĂÍĘŃă ÇáĎříÇäÉ ÇáăÓáăÉ áßäř áĎíř ÇŃĘíÇČ Úäĺă
ĂäÇ ÚŃČ ŃíČÉ ÇáĹíäĺííŃíäĘáí áĂääíř ÇáĺĎÝ ăä ĺÄáÇÁ ăä ËŢÉ ćÇĺÇČÇ ĺĐÇ ÝÚáÇđ íÍŇääí Ýí ÇáĂŢář
áĂääíř áÓĘ ČíĚćĘ
Does anyone know how to set a right alignment?
Ĺáě ÇáářŢÇÁ
ÓÇăÍ ÇáÚŃČířĘí

I forgot that this language is unsupported... never mind.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 10 2002, 05:09

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, The USA did fight one war using Assault's defensive strategy; and they had to give up on it; Vietnam.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

My "strategy" is NOT to invade another country for something small or nothing at all. I can't see how you compared Vietnam to my strategy of stopping terrorists at the border and in the country and co-operationg with other governments to nab their terrorists. Freeezing assets helps alot too.

Carpet bombing a backward government's country that hasn't really done anything to you is not a real alternative.

Terrorism is commited by groups that recruit people. It's up to the individual, they need an outlet for their hate.

Tyler

(he he he he)

Decimus

Feb 10 2002, 05:27

Tyler what do you know about Vietnam?
Also we only carpet bombed their FRONT LINES and we used precision bombing on their instillations to minimize collateral dammage. And as soon as we did that the entirety of enemie resitance seemed to have collapse overnight.
I'm sorry you do know shit. You're not a politician, you're not a tactician, you're not a historian and you're not a political analyst. You are just someone with way too much damn time on his hands.
I have researched Vietnam and I am going to be shipped over to Afghanistan in 9 months ( I'm in DEP and I have to get BCT and AIT out of the way and I know I'm going to Afghanistan because my unit is the 101st ABD and I enlisted last July) and I don't have only an inclination as to the truth of what is really going on. So in other words I do know shit either.

Post Scriptam
Also terrorism is commited by Organizations not Individuals, you don not wake up one day and say "I'm gonna go blow that up" you are recruited.

{Edit} just fixing grammatical errors.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 10 2002, 05:48

Its good to see your such a nice person....*sigh* At least I can make my own opinions and not regergitate stuff I see on CNN.

I was using "carpet bombing" as a generalization, no need to flip out.

Well I do know this about Vietnam. I know they were planning to bomb the dams in N.Vietnam in an attempt to flood the rice paddies so that they could starve out the V.C. (good idea if you ask me) but they could not because of "political" reasons.

They also wanted to bomb the ports in N.Vietnam so they could cut off the NVA's and VC's supplies. But the politicians were afraid that it would cause Soviet casualties so they didn't.

I also know that most of the bombs were dropped in S.Vietnam, not in the North where they should have been. I also know that the U.S. could have won the war with half the casualties if the politicians just had some balls and bombed the North.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're not a politician, you're not a tactician, you're not a historian and you're not a political analyst. You are just someone with way too much damn time on his hands. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No. I am none of those things. But why do I have to be one in order to have an opinion of my own? Only politicians should have opinions? That seems rather narrow minded. Excuse me for formulating an opinion of my own, what the f*ck was I thinking?? Where did I say "I know everything there is to know"? Could you point that out?

sheesh.....

So, you joined back in July and they will be shipping you out with only a year in? Damn, they must be short on troops down there. I've been in for 13 months myself (as a weekend warrior). I'm going to university before I join the Regs.

Tyler

Stag

Feb 10 2002, 10:18

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I was using "carpet bombing" as a generalization, no need to flip out. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Carpet bombing a a generalisation? Using that generalisation, You would describe a surgeon as operating with an axe. Likewise howling about tens of thousands of civilian casualties, when the actual figure was nowhere near. You call it a generalisation. I call it a lie.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I do know this about Vietnam. I know they were planning to bomb the dams in N.Vietnam in an attempt to flood the rice paddies so that they could starve out the V.C. (good idea if you ask me) but they could not because of "political" reasons.

They also wanted to bomb the ports in N.Vietnam so they could cut off the NVA's and VC's supplies. But the politicians were afraid that it would cause Soviet casualties so they didn't.

I also know that most of the bombs were dropped in S.Vietnam, not in the North where they should have been. I also know that the U.S. could have won the war with half the casualties if the politicians just had some balls and bombed the North. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Instead they just took up a defensive posture and waited for the North Vietnamese to come at them, and they did. Left with the initiative, the NVA ran rings around the American forces. When the VC/NVA were pinned down, the US took them apart. The Tet offensive was the day that the NVA tried to take on the US on the Americans playing field, and it was a bloody disaster for them. The siege of Que Sanh; once the weather cleared and the Americans were able to bring their full air power to bare, any number of firefights where the VC tried to stand and fight, rather than inflicting casualties then getting the hell out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. I am none of those things. But why do I have to be one in order to have an opinion of my own? Only politicians should have opinions? That seems rather narrow minded. Excuse me for formulating an opinion of my own, what the f*ck was I thinking?? Where did I say "I know everything there is to know"? Could you point that out?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I have many opinions too. On the whole, I try to keep them to myself. If I do get into a debate, I usualy try to stick more to fact, and less to emotion. eg; You are obviously an Al-Qeda sympathiser. Oops! nope, scratch that, just a generalisation.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 10 2002, 10:31

Well, theory is hard to prove, I don't call theory "emotion" as you do. Nor did I ever mention 10 000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, i think thats garbage IMO.

All I have been saying from the start is that there are beter ways to fight terrorism than what is being done now. I have made my suggestions, I won't repeat them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You call it a generalisation. I call it a lie.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So the U.S. didn't send B-52's to carpet bomb Afghanistan? What did I miss. Whatever......
BTW, I fail to see how Vietnam and todays problems compare in the slightest. That is a totaly different situation.

I love it when people criticize the U.S. government and to watch as Americans take it personally. It's quite funny.

I shouldn't have my own opinions about Afghanistan. For you see, that would be "un-patriotic" I would be "one of them"......

Tyler

Pete

Feb 10 2002, 10:45

tens of thousands dead civilians is a very likely possibility.

the number of dead directly from us bombings is near 4000, that is only those whose remains were found, not the ones missing or blown into atoms....

it doesnt even include the ones who died in a hospital, or lack of medical care after injuries from the bombings.

only the ones directly found at the ruins of bombed places...not anyone else, not people starwing after red cross building was bombed, not people dying after a working hospital was bombed.

tens of thousands dead?......depends pretty much how you count.

about the handling of the "war against terrorism"..you simply cant win it or end it by only hunting the terrorist bases and nations harboring them...it wont work, IRA is highly cabable organisation, and they dont really have much of a camp to train in far as i know.........

to end terrorism...you really do need to remove the cause from them, thats the weapon they have, thats the fuel for the fire, i cant understand how people fail to see the logic of this.

but then again...our political leaders arent the smartest among us, just look at bush..what would you expect from a man of his inteligence?

nothing but violence and stupidity.

dont remember who it was, maybe Sokrates of ancient greece who said "if only people would know how little inteligence the ones ruling our nations posses"

its those stupid fools (not only usa, more like all our leaders) that bring us into trouble over and over again.

el Gringo Loco

Feb 10 2002, 10:56

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dont remember who it was, maybe Sokrates of ancient greece who said "if only people would know how little inteligence the ones ruling our nations posses"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sounds like Plato to me in book VIII http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

nordin dk

Feb 10 2002, 11:07

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now is the opportunity for the USA to literally put its money where its mouth is. Before the invasion they proposed exactly this action; to rebuild Afghanistan to the point that they can again function as a civilised nation. Will this happen? Time will tell.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean, will they build that oil-pipeline that all this is really about? Oh yes they will. And they will do it with the right hand, while building housings and hospitals with the left.
Quid pro quo??
And so in the long run, the Afghani people will not benefit from that oil-pipeline, but the US will. And the Al-queda will move their "Camp Pshyco" to Saudi Arabia or Somalia or the Philipines, and there will be more terrorist attacks later on.
...probably...

I just hope the grassroot organisations can get some work done there, setting up schools, farms etc. etc.

Pete

Feb 10 2002, 11:08

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (L24A @<hidden> Feb. 10 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dont remember who it was, maybe Sokrates of ancient greece who said "if only people would know how little inteligence the ones ruling our nations posses"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sounds like Plato to me in book VIII http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
could very much be him....i remember it was one of those really famous dudes http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kinda funny (or sad?) that his thoughts are still valid today......

Stag

Feb 10 2002, 11:18

I'm not American, nor do I blindly believe in the goodness of the American government. But half-baked "Theories" are fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

Before 9/11, it seems to me that the U.S. did exactly what you described. But a high state of alert can only be maintained for so long before complacency comes back. maybe not this year, maybe not next but eventually, the guard will slip, and at least one terrorist will get through, and American civilians will die.Now you can wait for that to happen, or you can get out there and hunt the terrorists down where they are trained.

With international co-operation, it need never involve an invasion of the scale of Afghanistan.

But if I remember correctly, Afghanistan wasn't that interested in co-operation.

As for the carpet bombing/casualties; You are absolutely correct, I was getting your argments mixed up with someone else, who was accusing the US of carpet bombing civilians, and the consequent death toll.

I see no problem with carpet bombing military targets. Anybody who thinks war is fair is living in a different reality. Don't like carpet bombing? Don't give your enemy an excuse to go to war.

It's been stated before on this forum that the US will only go to war for oil, or profit. But Since Vietnam, I can think of NO INSTANCE where the US has done nothing but REACT to a situation; Desert Storm was about Oil. So it was. Jeez, I guess Iraq shouldn't have INVADED in the first place then. Bosnia. Ethnic Cleansing; Oh, those American rascals, going in there, just waiting for an excuse.

And 9/11.

I flipped a channel on the TV just in time to see the second aircraft hit the tower. It is one of the most horrific things I have ever seen in my life. and your solution would not be to hunt those bastards down? Afghanistan was given a CHOICE: Hand over Al-Qeda, or suffer the consquences.

None of the victims of 9/11 were given a choice.

nordin dk

Feb 10 2002, 11:18

Plato's thoughts will always be valid, as goes for all great thinkers. Even if their thought-constructions don't fit modern day society, there are truths about the human mind that will never change.

Stag

Feb 10 2002, 11:27

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">about the handling of the "war against terrorism"..you simply cant win it or end it by only hunting the terrorist bases and nations harboring them...it wont work, IRA is highly cabable organisation, and they dont really have much of a camp to train in far as i know.........[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The IRA used to train in Libya. And who can forget the millions they got for weapons from there sponsors in the good ol' US of A? Interesting partnership, all things considered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to end terrorism...you really do need to remove the cause from them, thats the weapon they have, thats the fuel for the fire, i cant understand how people fail to see the logic of this.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I say again, you are perfectly correct.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but then again...our political leaders arent the smartest among us, just look at bush..what would you expect from a man of his inteligence?

nothing but violence and stupidity.

dont remember who it was, maybe Sokrates of ancient greece who said "if only people would know how little inteligence the ones ruling our nations posses"

its those stupid fools (not only usa, more like all our leaders) that bring us into trouble over and over again.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Totally true, The really clever people know to stay well away from politics.

Stag

Feb 10 2002, 11:38

Decimus

Feb 11 2002, 04:24

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its good to see your such a nice person....*sigh* At least I can make my own opinions and not regergitate stuff I see on CNN. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not saying you regurgitate what you see on CNN but from where exactly do you get your infinite knowledge?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was using "carpet bombing" as a generalization, no need to flip out. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You can hardly say I flipped out. I merely, if forcefully, stated that I think you're wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I do know this about Vietnam. I know they were planning to bomb the dams in N.Vietnam in an attempt to flood the rice paddies so that they could starve out the V.C. (good idea if you ask me) but they could not because of "political" reasons.

They also wanted to bomb the ports in N.Vietnam so they could cut off the NVA's and VC's supplies. But the politicians were afraid that it would cause Soviet casualties so they didn't.

I also know that most of the bombs were dropped in S.Vietnam, not in the North where they should have been. I also know that the U.S. could have won the war with half the casualties if the politicians just had some balls and bombed the North.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And this validates your opinion of why America fought the Vietnam Conflict? These have nothing to little to do with the socio-political events that led up to America's involvement. You seem to have missed the point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. I am none of those things. But why do I have to be one in order to have an opinion of my own? Only politicians should have opinions? That seems rather narrow minded. Excuse me for formulating an opinion of my own, what the f*ck was I thinking?? Where did I say "I know everything there is to know"? Could you point that out?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions with little to back them up except for your own opinion. Those who pretend to know something are worse than those who actually know nothing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, you joined back in July and they will be shipping you out with only a year in? Damn, they must be short on troops down there. I've been in for 13 months myself (as a weekend warrior). I'm going to university before I join the Regs.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

2 things: the Candian Army doesn't count and being a "weekend warrior" you wouldn't be shipped out with that little experience, however if you are active you are more likely to be shipped out.

Wobble

Feb 11 2002, 04:37

to end terrorism...you really do need to remove the cause from them

I hate to break it to you.. but the reason these terrorists (al-queda) hates the US is because of the western lifestyle.. they see our socity and way of life as evil.. nothing short of us cesing to exist would "remove the cause"..

the way they see it, if you dont follow THEIR rules.. even if you dont live in their country or on the same contenent you are evil and should die.. so as far as they are concerened everyone who doesent agree with them should be dead.. and that doesent just go for the US.. it goes for the UK..etc.. the US just happens to be their "poster child" for what is evil.. so they attack it...

kinda hard to remove that cause..

foxer

Feb 11 2002, 07:06

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to break it to you.. but the reason these terrorists (al-queda) hates the US is because of the western lifestyle.. they see our socity and way of life as evil.. nothing short of us cesing to exist would "remove the cause"..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes maybe for the suicide bombers,but not bin laden.This is how Bin laden gets his terrorists ,The people in the middle(before they are known terrorist) see americans on tv,thinking all americans are rich and their all christians(or anti-muslim),also because of our woman ,how they dress and all of that.Well ,let's just say they hate us.

But for bin laden,it's the power,nothing more(like i said before).

Also i would like to add america doesn't have time,everyday nuclear stuff is getting in the wrong hands everyday,also chemicals too.America doesn't have time to win over the middle east again.

Wobble

Feb 11 2002, 07:43

Yes maybe for the suicide bombers,but not bin laden

I dont see how he doesent?

he was super ritch.. he has(or had) money and power... yet he chose to fight anyway.. .. he was just fine before, the US never did anything to threaten his money or power.. unless im missing something http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif but yet he chose to dedicate (and eventually sacrifice) his life to fight the US.. I just done see how power could be the answer.. he laready had money.. and in the middle east money IS power.. so as far as finincal he had nothing to gain by attacking the US.. so what other motive other than a deep seeded hatred for the US would make a super ritch guy like that... seems kinda like a nothing to gain everything to lose situation to me..

I just cant see how power is an issue

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

foxer

Feb 11 2002, 08:13

The power to send people on their death mission,the power of a martyr to the muslim people(some),the power to control people.The power to show the USA that he can hurt us too,the power to show the world how strong he is,The power of all muslims listening to his opinion because he killed americans,which in fact probably half or more then half think we got what it got because of what we do.Because like i said before if this wasn't about some type of power he would be bombing russia and some oother countries right now.

I'm sure that if saudis never kicked him out he would have never been a problem to the USA.

Wobble

Feb 11 2002, 08:56

ahh I see where your coming from.. not really power.. but a power trip.. I.E. dance puppets dance.. thats interesting, i never though of it that way, it does make quite a bit of sense though.. so he:

A: warps their minds
B: uses them to play war

he's like a 10 year old with toy soldiers... we had GI-Joe.. he has the Taleban..

wow.. it makes more sense the more ya think of it..

Placebo

Feb 11 2002, 11:36

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @<hidden> Feb. 11 2002,09:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he's like a 10 year old with toy soldiers... we had GI-Joe.. he has the Taleban..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
LMAO I like it, a perfect "Wobble'ism" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

MrLaggy

Feb 11 2002, 12:44

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @<hidden> Feb. 11 2002,06:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to break it to you.. but the reason these terrorists (al-queda) hates the US is because of the western lifestyle.. they see our socity and way of life as evil.. nothing short of us cesing to exist would "remove the cause"..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe you could post some proof of that? I know it's what the US government wants you to believe, because then there's no alternative to a permanent war for peace, but that's not what bin Laden himself has said. As I said before, he's stated quite clearly that he's attacking America because of their troops in Saudi, their support for Israel and a few other odds and ends... America's rich and decadent lifestyle is irrelevant, as long as they keep their nose out of the Middle East.

Akira

Feb 11 2002, 15:23

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to break it to you.. but the reason these terrorists (al-queda) hates the US is because of the western lifestyle.. they see our socity and way of life as evil.. nothing short of us cesing to exist would "remove the cause"..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe you could post some proof of that? I know it's what the US government wants you to believe, because then there's no alternative to a permanent war for peace, but that's not what bin Laden himself has said. As I said before, he's stated quite clearly that he's attacking America because of their troops in Saudi, their support for Israel and a few other odds and ends... America's rich and decadent lifestyle is irrelevant, as long as they keep their nose out of the Middle East.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I used to live in Germany at Rhein-Main AFB. I was there (and heard the explosion) when a Red Army Faction car bomb went off right in front of my Dad's work place. Only two people were killed (if you can call that lucky) because everyone had gone in early that day (the bomb was timed for when everyone usually got to work). My Dad (on the opposite side of the building) was blown out of his chair. I was about 11 or 12 when this happened. While in Germany, as part of our elementary classes, we were given safety courses, and information on terrorists, what to look out for, etc etc etc. When Reagan bombed Libya the base went on lock down, and there were armed MPs on every corner. No civilian cars could get on or off base. I was there when the Achilli Lauro was hijacked, when the TWA flight (among other planes) was hijacked, when the disco in Berlin was bombed, and when Pan Am 103 happened I just got back from Enlgand, and had used that very plane on our short jaunt from Germany to London when we moved there. I'm used to being a hated, hunted American. And I don't need the "propoganda" machine to believe what I believe...I dealt personally with it every day while in Germany (and a lesser extent England).

It's always interesting when someone says that we believe what we see on the news and what we are told, and for that have been taken in by the "propoganda machine."

And then they turn around and believe for face value what Bin Laden says.

Bin Laden said before that he had nothing to do with the attacks...he was "innocent". And then the video from Al Jazerra (so you can't say it was faked by the US) turned up in which he admited he was a terrorist, and made reference to at least some knowledge of the planning of the attacks (when CNN aired this video Al Jazeera terminated its "affiliation" with CNN).

And as I have stated long before (and I guess I will state again), you can believe Bin Laden if you want, believe the reasons he gives and his holy quest of Jihad, but I believe it boils down to something more human and more basic. It all comes down to a "will to power" (Neitschze--trying to keep up with all the Plato and Socrates people) and nothing more. His status as a "holy crusader" I believe has turned him decidedly unholy, and to the path of a narcissistic socio-path. He spreads, death, and destruction because he can. I have no doubt that he BELIEVES he is being holy, when in reality he is crossing the very words of the Koran (did a paper on the western perception of "Jihad",and the actual use and meaning of it in the Koran).

I will give him the benifit of the doubt in that when he started down this road in Afghanistan ( I speak of fighting the Soviets), religious idealism might have been his driving force. And he certainly had no problem accepting American capitalist, decadent money to fund his freedom fight and drive the Soviets out. And despite the decade war he fought against the Soviets and their aggression against Muslims, he has never attacked or threaten to attack Russia (yes yes...they are the Lesser Satan).

Muslim countries have historically fought tremendous wars against themselves. In a region that is, at least in propoganda theory, united in the Muslim cause, there has been more strife between Muslim nations than between Muslim and the US or even Muslim and Isreal. Hussein has attacked a number of his Muslim neighbors (which is forbidden in the Koran), and yet he is not viewed as a "bad muslim" or even attacked for his "unholy" ways.

Europe has oppressed and subjectated the Middle East and Africa far more than the US ever could.

A number of countries support Isreal, and even a number of Arab states are actually thawing relations with them and opening diplomatic dialogue. He does nothing to them.

Jordan held the Gaza strip for 15 years before the war in which Isreal took it away. Fifteen years the Palistinians lived in Jordan with no individual state and no mention of it. Jordan (and a number of other countries) attack Isreal, simply for being a Jewish state, and are soundly spanked. Now all of a sudden Isreal is the great oppressor, and the Palistinian cause is born. Why did the Palestinians not demand their own free independant state from Jordan for the 15 years they were under their rule?

A number of countries (again Russia for example), have threatened and oppressed Muslims and Muslim states far more than the US has, and yet he targets the US.

Everything that he blames us for is even in his Middle Eastern neighbors and allies and yet he never threatens them. It is the hypocrisy of his "holy cause".

So what does that leave for his cause? Nothing other a dislike for our culture and living style. To kill those that are different than him. His cause is about as holy as the Nazi's.

So no...I don't believe Bin Laden when he spouts about Isreal and US in Saudi Arabia and all that daily changing crap. You can if you want, but in the end its the power he craves and the power to control thousands pure and simple.

Some say that in order to stop terrorism that the "causes" must be taken away. Well right now his only cause is the because the US exsists, and we ain't going no where (mush to the dismay of many of you).

Bin Laden will ALWAYS find a cause, whether it be his mispercieved Western oppression, or because they didn't put onions on his taco....it doesn't matter. He will always have a cause. He, unfortunately, has learned that fighting is what he likes to do, and he will always find a reason to. First Soviets, and now US.

Taking away causes will only breed new ones, real or imaginary. What must be done is hunting down the exsistant camps and destorying them. Finding terrorists and prosecuting them, or killing them. Take away whatever economic conditions in countries that make people suddenly feel "Hey...I'm gonna go walk into a market with a bomb and blow myself up."

But the sad fact is its human nature, and someone will always want to kill someone else because they are different or have something that they want. Your "causes" while noble and grand in the abstract, in reality will do little to end terrorism.

Gonna have to take a break now....

{edited for added personal dealings with terrorism--and stupid spelling errors}

Akira

Feb 11 2002, 18:13

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4350590,00.html

Interesting.

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 11 2002, 19:50

Hoho Akira hoho calm down will ya! dont give me this: am used to be hated because I am American (less in England now than before in Germany).

Which bombing by the Red Army Fraction do you mean? What did they have to do with the Americans? BTW if you are talking about Rhein Main than I think you mean the killing of Mr. Schleyer by the RAF (I went to boarding school with his grand-son). Schleyer was killed in 1975 (Schleyer represented the capitalism), the discotheque LaBelle in Berlin was blown up in 1985, but not by Germans (or their propaganda-machinery) but by lybian terrorists! I think the Germans during this time suffered more under their anti-capitalist-terrorism than any US citizen living in Germany under this dicotheque-explosion (3 people died).

Germany (especially during that time) was obliged to be Pro-american. Germany was an un-emancipated country (politically still fully dependant on the US). It was the time of the Cold-war, Germany was seperated and and not even thirty years since WWII had passed. Do you seriously think anyone would have dared to speak up agains the US?
What the hell you mean by anti-american-propaganda? What the hell are you telling there! Out of pure logic it cant have been that you have felt American-resentiments it wouldnt fit into the time.

YOu were not the hunted and hated American

Akira

Feb 11 2002, 20:19

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hoho Akira hoho calm down will ya! dont give me this: am used to be hated because I am American (less in England now than before in Germany).

Which bombing by the Red Army Fraction do you mean? What did they have to do with the Americans? BTW if you are talking about Rhein Main than I think you mean the killing of Mr. Schleyer by the RAF (I went to boarding school with his grand-son). Schleyer was killed in 1975 (Schleyer represented the capitalism), the discotheque LaBelle in Berlin was blown up in 1985, but not by Germans (or their propaganda-machinery) but by lybian terrorists! I think the Germans during this time suffered more under their anti-capitalist-terrorism than any US citizen living in Germany under this dicotheque-explosion (3 people died).

Germany (especially during that time) was obliged to be Pro-american. Germany was an un-emancipated country (politically still fully dependant on the US). It was the time of the Cold-war, Germany was seperated and and not even thirty years since WWII had passed. Do you seriously think anyone would have dared to speak up agains the US?
What the hell you mean by anti-american-propaganda? What the hell are you telling there! Out of pure logic it cant have been that you have felt American-resentiments it wouldnt fit into the time.

YOu were not the hunted and hated American[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Whoa there sea biscuit!

I wasn't talking at all about Germany not being pro-American or anything like that. In fact while I was there, (around 1985) the German people were great. I remember one time our class (I went to elementary school on Rhein-Main AFB), was bussed to a German school for bicycle safety class (in retrospect I have no idea why), but all the German students followed us and ran after us practicing their English with us. While our teachers tried to keep us herded we'd go off and try to practice our German with the students. That and the German school we went to was the nicest school I have EVER seen. Dunno why that sticks in my head but it does.

As for Rhein-Main AFB, thats where my Dad was stationed, outside of Frankfurt. The Red Army Faction (I think it was a German Communist terrorist organization....or wanted the Americans out or something...I forget...you probably know better than I do), parked a car bomb right in front of my Dads office, ON BASE. Two passer-bys were killed. I have a video of the aftermath with my Dad pointing and showing where the blast was and everything, and pictures of the damage. Can also see the Buick that we had shipped over completely mangled...the funny thing was the Buick was a wreck...and yet the dashboard clock still worked....go figure.

Having personally dealt with terrorism, I was merely making some observations, as each one of those events effected my life directly (as many Germans) being an American service dependant in Germany.

My point was, Islamic (and some other nationalities) terror organizations even back in '85 were considered a threat to US citizens overseas, enough so that they taught us, the school children (!), what to look for and how to be safe. That the causes Bin Laden claims, as well as other terror organizations, change constantly and depending on the political climate. That they are merely oppurtunists and hypocrites...thats when I started my long diatribe on my examples.

My "propoganda machine" comment was in reference to Mr. Laggy saying that he doesn't believe what Bush or the Media tells him or says, but he will believe Bin Laden at face value. It was also generally in reference to people that say Americans blindly follow what the media etc, says. I was merely pointing out that I've had experience with this and I don't need the media to tell me what I think about terrorism.

Akira

Feb 11 2002, 21:03

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/raf.htm

This is the group I was talking about...mentions the Rhein Main bombing...

jaxx

Feb 11 2002, 21:06

Sounds like german commie-terrorists to me.

Albert Schweitzer

Feb 11 2002, 21:37

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (jaxx @<hidden> Feb. 11 2002,23:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds like german commie-terrorists to me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Dont ask me what they actually stood for! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But in the seventies there were a lot of confused people on this earth.

Assault (CAN)

Feb 11 2002, 22:24

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where exactly do you get your infinite knowledge?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I never claimed I had it. I read papers, watch news (CBC), talk to people, talk to my teachers, read personal opinions (articles) over the net and such. I formulate my own opinions based on that. What else would you like me to do? Where is your Bible of facts that I can reasearch from?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> merely, if forcefully, stated that I think you're wrong.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So the U.S. didn't do any carpet bombing missions inside Afghanistan?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And this validates your opinion of why America fought the Vietnam Conflict? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No. Never said it did, I was just giving my opinion as to PART of the reason they lost it. Feel free to add to that, I dont feel like writing an essay on the history of the Vietnam war. This is a terrorist thread. If you feel like explaining to me why Vietnam is a good comparison to our modern day problem, feel free to explain to me in one hell of a long post.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You seem to be making a lot of assumptions with little to back them up except for your own opinion. Those who pretend to know something are worse than those who actually know nothing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Explain to me what you think that I am assuming or pretending to know? Do you know everything? Did I say that I did? Sorry for having an opinion. (allow me to simplify) I just think that Bush is barking up the wrong tree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> the Candian Army doesn't count [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You think I don't know that? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif . The blame for that lies squarly on the head of our Liberal politicians. Not our troops, if that is what you were getting at.

I thought that they wouldn't let you go overseas until you had a few years in.

Tyler