On the news right now. Another plot that would "put twin towers to shame" averted. That's what? 2 in as many weeks?
Perhaps we're not being nice enough to these mis-guided friendly people. We need to talk to them and explain that we want to be friends. And Muslims.
Source: CNN News
I love it when a potential "shadow government" reports on a "shadow war" another averted "attack" from said "shadow enemies."
If we want to be friends, why don't we stop abusing human rights and run our foreign policy like a "real christian" nation would have? Forgiveness of debts and genuine foreign aid?
I'm not a Christian, and I don't really want to get all religion in this, but wouldn't it have been wiser to Bomb with Books (maybe Bible?) after nine-eleven instead of Tomahawks? As a nation, we had our chance to show our truest National Character - and now this is what we get, an endless future built around the politics of fear.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
I love it when a potential "shadow government" reports on a "shadow war" another averted "attack" from said "shadow enemies."
If we want to be friends, why don't we stop abusing human rights and run our foreign policy like a "real christian" nation would have? Forgiveness of debts and genuine foreign aid?
I'm not a Christian, and I don't really want to get all religion in this, but wouldn't it have been wiser to Bomb with Books (maybe Bible?) after nine-eleven instead of Tomahawks? As a nation, we had our chance to show our truest National Character - and now this is what we get, an endless future built around the politics of fear. |
Your speech maybe not very suitable ,but I support your opinions. | Manus et Therion wrote: |
I love it when a potential "shadow government" reports on a "shadow war" another averted "attack" from said "shadow enemies."
If we want to be friends, why don't we stop abusing human rights and run our foreign policy like a "real christian" nation would have? Forgiveness of debts and genuine foreign aid?
I'm not a Christian, and I don't really want to get all religion in this, but wouldn't it have been wiser to Bomb with Books (maybe Bible?) after nine-eleven instead of Tomahawks? As a nation, we had our chance to show our truest National Character - and now this is what we get, an endless future built around the politics of fear. |
We're not a christian nation. And we're not the ones with human rights issues. Ask any woman in Islam.I think what you mean is Islamic women. And to them, it is all right, because it is their religion, no?
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| Manus et Therion wrote: | I love it when a potential "shadow government" reports on a "shadow war" another averted "attack" from said "shadow enemies."
If we want to be friends, why don't we stop abusing human rights and run our foreign policy like a "real christian" nation would have? Forgiveness of debts and genuine foreign aid?
I'm not a Christian, and I don't really want to get all religion in this, but wouldn't it have been wiser to Bomb with Books (maybe Bible?) after nine-eleven instead of Tomahawks? As a nation, we had our chance to show our truest National Character - and now this is what we get, an endless future built around the politics of fear. |
We're not a christian nation. And we're not the ones with human rights issues. Ask any woman in Islam. |
Yes, we are a Christian nation -- almost all of our ethics are derrived from Christianity. This goes all the way back to Puritanism.We are not a Christian nation, we are a secular nation with a State that is seperated from Church (and with good reason).
How do I know this for certain? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
And Christian ethics are very much like Buddhist ethics (the killing, stealing, adultry things etc...). Besides, they're really Hebrew ethics anyway. If we followed "Christian ethics," we'd have turned the other cheek. Let's not confuse ethics and morality, and let's not assume the 2000 years ago they were suddenly invented.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
I love it when a potential "shadow government" reports on a "shadow war" another averted "attack" from said "shadow enemies."
If we want to be friends, why don't we stop abusing human rights and run our foreign policy like a "real christian" nation would have? Forgiveness of debts and genuine foreign aid?
I'm not a Christian, and I don't really want to get all religion in this, but wouldn't it have been wiser to Bomb with Books (maybe Bible?) after nine-eleven instead of Tomahawks? As a nation, we had our chance to show our truest National Character - and now this is what we get, an endless future built around the politics of fear. |
May I ask, what is the "potential shadow government," the "shadow war," and the "shadow enemies?"
As I recall real entities destroyed real property and killed real people on 9/11 (and continue to plan and advertise their intention to do so in the future). They have attacked real governments and attempted to disrupt real economies. They have real plans and intentions which are diametrically opposed to the will of the United States. I don't think we're shadow boxing.
I'm all for peace, but how would you preserve the interests of the United States against those entities who are openly and violently fighting our interests without fighting back?
Respectfully,
M
____________________________________________
| southy wrote: |
| I think what you mean is Islamic women. And to them, it is all right, because it is their religion, no? |
Is it?
| The Bible wrote: |
| Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. Ephesians 6:5-9 |
Does this mean that slavery is right in Christendom? I don't think it does. But people in American history once used it to defend the slave trade and the antebellum economic system of the South. Some slaves also saw it as a reason not to challenge their status and resign themselves to their condition.
Respectfully,
M
_________________________________________________
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
We are not a Christian nation, we are a secular nation with a State that is seperated from Church (and with good reason).
How do I know this for certain? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
And Christian ethics are very much like Buddhist ethics (the killing, stealing, adultry things etc...). Besides, they're really Hebrew ethics anyway. If we followed "Christian ethics," we'd have turned the other cheek. Let's not confuse ethics and morality, and let's not assume the 2000 years ago they were suddenly invented. |
I think Therion was referring to the religious backgrounds of the American leaders of the American Revolutionary period. I believe I can safely bet that none of them were Buddhist. Their ethics were founded in Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs.
The state may be secular, but its leaders are not necessarily so. A Christian senator will often make decisions based on his or her Christian beliefs. A Hindu representative will do likewise. Thus since most Americans come from Christian backgrounds, one might accurately (if not arguably) refer to the United States as a "Christian" nation, government laws withstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
May I ask, what is the "potential shadow government," the "shadow war," and the "shadow enemies?"
As I recall real entities destroyed real property and killed real people on 9/11 (and continue to plan and advertise their intention to do so in the future). They have attacked real governments and attempted to disrupt real economies. They have real plans and intentions which are diametrically opposed to the will of the United States. I don't think we're shadow boxing.
I'm all for peace, but how would you preserve the interests of the United States against those entities who are openly and violently fighting our interests without fighting back?
Respectfully,
M
|
Let us go back to 1980 when Ronald Reagan was President. Who was his Vice President? George Herbert-Walker Bush, the father of our current President and the Head of the C.I.A. during Gerald Ford's and part of Jimmy Carter's administration. The head of the C.I.A.! And what did Mr. Bush do while he was the head of the C.I.A.? He put Manuel Noriaga into power and Sadam Hussein. Yes. And what did he do while he was Vice President? Or, rather, what took place during Reagan's era? The C.I.A., still in alliance with Mr. G. W. H. Bush, gave authority, money, weapons, and training to Osama Bin Laden. Yes. And these notes, btw, are public record. There's little to doubt.
It's funny how the C.I.A. and N.S.A., so closely allied to our current administration, have no authority above them within this nation (yes. none.) and violate so many international laws. Look it up. This is what is known as a "shadow government." An agency of authority so large in scope and so autonomous that it too is capable of running our very government we so cherish. (Now, note, I put "shadow government" in quotes because I'm merely speaking about a theory - but one worth considering).
Now - consider this. Who told you that Osama was behind the attacks? And who told you about these 19 men who engaged in it? Why, the very government itself! And where there public hearings about this? Trials by jury of the accused? Any evidence not generated by this very same government I speak of? No. The 9/11 commission did not exist to prove or disprove the government's *report* of the accused - it existed to confirm that national security was overly lax. That's all. It has been so far assumed that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. are correct in their collection and presentation of evidence supporting their accusations of who was behind it. There are those who can show you equally supporting evidence that the current administration, or those who may be the hidden masters behind this administration, orchestrated the crimes against the United States. But don't buy into because I mention it. I'm only mentioning the theory of another possibility.
And these attacks that haven't happened since? Great!!! The American Government is protecting us! Yeah!!! So they say. There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 - only "rumors" of the threat of them. Rumors spread by an agency that our founding fathers told us to fear, the government.
When the threat level is reported as moving from Yellow to Orange, or if it ever goes from Orange to Red - who issued these threats to the American Public? The United States Government!!! That's who? How? Because we the people have surrendered our most sovereign right, the right to the pursuit of happiness and a sense of personal security. We have delegated that right and responsibility to the United States Government and one of its newest monsters, the Department of Homeland Security (if that doesn't sound vaguely like a Nazi Government Bureau, I don't know what does).
Just remember every day of your life, the purpose for the United States Constitution was that our forefathers had every reason to fear government - they'd seen what government without restraint can do in their own lives. The Constitution of the United States is not a document granting rights, it is one (as our Declaration of Independence makes clear) that protects the "inalienable rights" of the people.
Allow me to quote the most important words ever written regarding our American Government and our American way of life.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note that it says "their Creator," not "our Creator."
And I ask you, is a Government that spreads threats to us about enemies we no longer see face to face truly on our side?
Just a possible. Just a possible. Think about it. | Manus et Therion wrote: |
Let us go back to 1980 when Ronald Reagan was President. Who was his Vice President? George Herbert-Walker Bush, the father of our current President and the Head of the C.I.A. during Gerald Ford's and part of Jimmy Carter's administration. The head of the C.I.A.! And what did Mr. Bush do while he was the head of the C.I.A.? He put Manuel Noriaga into power and Sadam Hussein. Yes. And what did he do while he was Vice President? Or, rather, what took place during Reagan's era? The C.I.A., still in alliance with Mr. G. W. H. Bush, gave authority, money, weapons, and training to Osama Bin Laden. Yes. And these notes, btw, are public record. There's little to doubt.
It's funny how the C.I.A. and N.S.A., so closely allied to our current administration, have no authority above them within this nation (yes. none.) and violate so many international laws. Look it up. This is what is known as a "shadow government." An agency of authority so large in scope and so autonomous that it too is capable of running our very government we so cherish. (Now, note, I put "shadow government" in quotes because I'm merely speaking about a theory - but one worth considering).
Now - consider this. Who told you that Osama was behind the attacks? And who told you about these 19 men who engaged in it? Why, the very government itself! And where there public hearings about this? Trials by jury of the accused? Any evidence not generated by this very same government I speak of? No. The 9/11 commission did not exist to prove or disprove the government's *report* of the accused - it existed to confirm that national security was overly lax. That's all. It has been so far assumed that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. are correct in their collection and presentation of evidence supporting their accusations of who was behind it. There are those who can show you equally supporting evidence that the current administration, or those who may be the hidden masters behind this administration, orchestrated the crimes against the United States. But don't buy into because I mention it. I'm only mentioning the theory of another possibility.
|
U.S Government recently admitted helping a terrorist group called "Jundullah" which is operating from eastern parts of Pakistan, launching attacks inside Iran. The same way they helped create, arm and train those people who are now part of Al-Qaida and hundreds of other millitant organizations. At that time it was communism that was the Real Devil, this time it is Iran (for the time being only, as China's turn seems to be approaching fast). And after jundullah becomes useless, Pakistan will get the blame, its that simple for U.S government.
......................................................
In Muslim countries (and perhaps in some other countries too), USA is seen as a christian country with a christian president, how else is it possible to launch crusades on Iraq and Afghanistan?
Last edited by ibay on Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:13 am; edited 1 time in totalI tend not to hold to grandiose conspiracy theories. However I will take a look at this one.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| Let us go back to 1980 when Ronald Reagan was President. Who was his Vice President? George Herbert-Walker Bush, the father of our current President and the Head of the C.I.A. during Gerald Ford's and part of Jimmy Carter's administration. The head of the C.I.A.! And what did Mr. Bush do while he was the head of the C.I.A.? He put Manuel Noriaga into powe…r |
George H. W. Bush served as DCI from 30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v38i5a07p.htm
Manuel Noriega began working as a CIA asset in 1971, long before Bush’s tenure as DCI. Furthermore, Noriega did not become the leader of Panama until 1983 after a two-year civil war following the death of President Torrijos and a power struggle with Colonel Roberto Herrera. Noriega continued to be a CIA asset during the Reagan administration, however.
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/manuel-a-noriega/
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| …and Sadam Hussein. Yes. |
I don’t know of any evidence that the United States provided support to Hussein in his rise to power. Hussein became president in 1979, three years after Bush’s short term as DCI.
Iraq received military aid from the USSR in the 1970s until a crackdown on Iraqi communists that soured the relationship. So during Bush’s term as DCI, Iraq was an ally of the Soviet Union. The major western power closely associated with Iraq in the mid to late 1970s and into the 1980s was France. In fact France built the nuclear reactor later destroyed by the Israelis before its completion.
When Iran began to gain an advantage in the Iran-Iraq war, the Reagan administration did start providing aid (including intelligence) to Hussein. This had nothing to do with supporting Hussein, just insuring that Iran did not win the war and gain significant territory and power in the process. Furthermore, the United States did not support Hussein’s invasion of Iran. In fact, the Carter administration did not even believe Hussein would do so and were therefore surprised when he did. (I studied under Ambassador Twinam, who was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs from 1979 to 1982. He had outlined to President Carter the reasons why he believed Hussein would not invade.)
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| And what did he do while he was Vice President? Or, rather, what took place during Reagan's era? The C.I.A., still in alliance with Mr. G. W. H. Bush, gave authority, money, weapons, and training to Osama Bin Laden. Yes. And these notes, btw, are public record. There's little to doubt. |
Of course there is no doubt. At the time bin Laden was fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The United States could not allow the Soviet Union to win that war and therefore provided aid to many groups, including bin Laden’s, that were fighting the Soviet forces. To claim that the United States is somehow responsible for al Qaeda’s existence and their numerous attacks using that logic is tantamount to blaming Great Britain and the United States for the Cold War because we provided aid and assistance to the Soviet Union and helped them defeat Hitler in World War II. As the adage goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” After your enemy is defeated, your former allies sometimes become your enemies.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| It's funny how the C.I.A. and N.S.A., so closely allied to our current administration, have no authority above them within this nation (yes. none.) and violate so many international laws. Look it up. This is what is known as a "shadow government." An agency of authority so large in scope and so autonomous that it too is capable of running our very government we so cherish. (Now, note, I put "shadow government" in quotes because I'm merely speaking about a theory - but one worth considering). |
Thanks to the reforms of the 1970s (some implemented by George H. W. Bush after Ford’s executive orders and in close consultation with congress), there is oversight. There is a House of Representative Select Committee on Intelligence as well as a Select Intelligence committee in the Senate. (http://intelligence.house.gov/, [url] http://intelligence.senate.gov/[/url]) These both provide oversight to the CIA and NSA. There were a number of reforms in the 1970s, to which I alluded earlier which limit the power and scope of both agencies. They are not autonomous in the sense that the operate without oversight.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| Now - consider this. Who told you that Osama was behind the attacks? And who told you about these 19 men who engaged in it? Why, the very government itself! And where there public hearings about this? Trials by jury of the accused? Any evidence not generated by this very same government I speak of? No. The 9/11 commission did not exist to prove or disprove the government's *report* of the accused - it existed to confirm that national security was overly lax. That's all. It has been so far assumed that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. are correct in their collection and presentation of evidence supporting their accusations of who was behind it. There are those who can show you equally supporting evidence that the current administration, or those who may be the hidden masters behind this administration, orchestrated the crimes against the United States. But don't buy into because I mention it. I'm only mentioning the theory of another possibility. |
I have seen no concrete evidence from any legitimate source that would even hint that facts as we know them regarding the planning and execution of the attacks are different from those put forth by government agencies. If you expect me to believe conspiracy theories that everyone at the CIA, FBI, NSA, in the executive and legislative branches, local law enforcement and local governments, have somehow managed to keep some huge secret that the United States itself committed the attacks, or Israel, or any other entity or combination thereof other than al Qaeda, you’ll have to provide a very impressive and damning mound of verifiable and reviewed evidence.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| And these attacks that haven't happened since? Great!!! The American Government is protecting us! Yeah!!! So they say. There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 - only "rumors" of the threat of them. Rumors spread by an agency that our founding fathers told us to fear, the government. |
Once again, you’ll have to provide some substantial evidence that suspects are being framed and local and federal law enforcement, coupled with intelligence, is somehow conspiring without it getting out. Once again it sounds like broad conspiracy theories. I personally expect another attack to succeed at some point in the future. I don’t think we can stop them all.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| When the threat level is reported as moving from Yellow to Orange, or if it ever goes from Orange to Red - who issued these threats to the American Public? The United States Government!!! That's who? How? Because we the people have surrendered our most sovereign right, the right to the pursuit of happiness and a sense of personal security. We have delegated that right and responsibility to the United States Government and one of its newest monsters, the Department of Homeland Security (if that doesn't sound vaguely like a Nazi Government Bureau, I don't know what does). |
Threat levels are for law enforcement and other government agencies. They are not intended for the digestion of the public. I personally don’t care what the threat level is nor will I ever. It does not affect me.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
| Just remember every day of your life, the purpose for the United States Constitution was that our forefathers had every reason to fear government - they'd seen what government without restraint can do in their own lives. The Constitution of the United States is not a document granting rights, it is one (as our Declaration of Independence makes clear) that protects the "inalienable rights" of the people. |
I agree with you. I don’t quote Franklin for nothing in my signature. 
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
Allow me to quote the most important words ever written regarding our American Government and our American way of life.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note that it says "their Creator," not "our Creator." |
Yes, because “our” would not be correct English. The statement is written about men in the third person plural, not first person. The only way to write it with “our” would be to say, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…” I don’t see what else you could draw from it.
| Manus et Therion wrote: |
And I ask you, is a Government that spreads threats to us about enemies we no longer see face to face truly on our side?
Just a possible. Just a possible. Think about it. |
I think we do face them, everyday. Unless, once again, you believe that every peon in the CIA, NSA, and FBI (not to mention military members throughout the world working in intel and operations), never actually see anything but somehow participate in a broad conspiracy to convince the American people that there is an enemy that doesn’t exist.
Respectfully,
M | Manus et Therion wrote: |
| Who told you that Osama was behind the attacks? |
Uhhh...
Wait. I know this one...
Oh, yeah, that's right, Osama bin Laden told us he was responsible for the attacks. (Or other aq members)
Several times.
Heck, he basically even told us he was going to do it before he did it.
Several times.
whatever, doubt it..they just need news coverage so Bush can keep his bogus war going on. Chit be less morons in this damn world who can't open their eyes or mind to see the real truth.
| rheanna wrote: |
| whatever, doubt it..they just need news coverage so Bush can keep his bogus war going on. Chit be less morons in this damn world who can't open their eyes or mind to see the real truth. |
So in 2009 will it be President X's bogus war? What about 2013? 2017? The war will still be going on in 2020. So I guess it's just one string of people (whomevever is elected over the next 20 years or so) and everyone in their respective administrations and everyone in the government conspiring so well that the actual truth is completely hidden?
Besides, the war did not start on Bush's watch. You can at least date it back to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. I've seen this war coming since the Reagan adminsration. It was only during the Bush administration that we started fighting. Prior to that our enemies were at war with us but we were just turning the other cheek, aside from the occassional token tomahawk strike. There was a time when having an embassy bombed or a warship attacked (both of which are legally no different from attacking a city in the United States and therefore an act of war) would result in a virtually automatic delcaration of war by congress.
And rightly so. I'm afraid we've become a nation of spineless victims, always blaming ourselves whenever someone else commits a crime against us, a nation of people who'd rather duck, hide and die than fight back.
Respectfully,
MIt's high time our leaders start changing thier policy of Americans against the world.
Lets face it, as long as our leaders continue to bully other small countries the more enemies will'll continue to draw to ourselves.
Americans are loving people and our leaders have to start showing this love to other countries.
THank God the the BOMB has not blasted in recent times and i pray it doesn't.
God bless America God Bless All Contries
You know, I'm tired of you half-informed children bringing up the US's involvement in supporting revolutions, resistance movements, and freedom fighters (terrorists) as if it is some profound unknown.
“Hey, ya know the US supported Bin Laden and al quaeda. It’s true – I know it’s hard to believe – but it’s true”
If you fellows where at all informed you would know that all these egregious medaling acts where an attempt at protecting the free world from what it then understood to be a red monster devouring up any state unable to protect its self – without engaging in nuclear war.
Like Moonspider said, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Additionally, in certain situations, if the US didn’t support this revolution or that resistance group, someone else would. And if that revolution was successful and the other entity helping it was an enemy – we now have TWO enemies.
Take Cuba as an example. The US had the opportunity to assist Castro when he was a young revolutionary, but they didn’t, so the USSR did, and we nearly saw a nuclear war.
<sarcasm>
But that was probably just a fabrication because Kennedy wanted to distract everyone so he could keep the US in Vietnam.
</sarcasm>
| moonspider wrote: |
| And rightly so. I'm afraid we've become a nation of spineless victims, always blaming ourselves whenever someone else commits a crime against us, a nation of people who'd rather duck, hide and die than fight back. |
Indeed. We'll be safe as long as we drive our SUVs and eat our 5000 calories a day.... | sandra wrote: |
It's high time our leaders start changing thier policy of Americans against the world.
Lets face it, as long as our leaders continue to bully other small countries the more enemies will'll continue to draw to ourselves.
Americans are loving people and our leaders have to start showing this love to other countries.
THank God the the BOMB has not blasted in recent times and i pray it doesn't.
God bless America God Bless All Contries |
You know, when a nation alters its foreign policy to its detriment so as to benefit those nations and sub-national entities who are against it, it is referred to as "losing."
What do you want the United States to do? What specific policies do you want to change? Al Qadea says that it will continue to attack the United States and her interests until all U.S. forces are out of the Middle East. Do you want us to pull every uniformed member out of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Bahrain and pull all naval forces out of the Persian Gulf?
By the way, that would be referrred to as "giving in to blackmail." (We didn't do that with the Barbary pirates and we shouldn't do it now.)
Respectfully,
M
Last edited by Moonspider on Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:44 am; edited 1 time in total | Moonspider wrote: |
| Al Qadea says that it will continue to attack the United States and her interests until all U.S. forces are out of the Middle East. |
I'll have to correct you here Moon. Not only forces do they want out, they also want all of the "spies" out as well.
I can't help giggling when I try to imagine the Al Aquaeda definition of a spy. | rheanna wrote: |
| whatever, doubt it.. |
doubt it ?? LoL. You don't know, yet you "hope" it's true.
So funny (and fitting) that you would follow up your OPINION purported to be fact with this tidbit...
| Quote: |
| Chit be less morons in this damn world who can't open their eyes or mind to see the real truth. |
Good job at self-ownage. It's all too easy to say that terrorists attack/plan attacks "because they hate us" or "because we're free" and just leave it at that.
The US is not making any friends by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and it isn't at all difficult to see why people would be angered or upset about it - seeing the images that came out of Abu Ghraib, as well as Guantanamo and the CIA's rendition programme it's a sentiment that isn't hard to understand - anyone who saw 4 Corners on the ABC last night/the week before will know exactly what I mean. This is of course not forgetting that the CIA was funneling cash towards a number of quite unsavoury groups throughout the '70s and '80s including Iraq, the Mujahadeen (sp?) and Iran (at one stage they were funding both sides while they were at war I believe).
I don't for a minute condone the terrorist's actions or what they base it on (because 99.999% of the time it has nothing to do with radical Islam - it's just a front for their political objectives), I just think a lot of people see the US as arrogant.
It was a French columnist, I think, who caused quite a major stink when he questioned 'who could fail to dream of the destruction of such a powerful hegemony' - or words to that effect. | Tim Graham wrote: |
It's all too easy to say that terrorists attack/plan attacks "because they hate us" or "because we're free" and just leave it at that.
The US is not making any friends by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and it isn't at all difficult to see why people would be angered or upset about it - seeing the images that came out of Abu Ghraib, as well as Guantanamo and the CIA's rendition programme it's a sentiment that isn't hard to understand - anyone who saw 4 Corners on the ABC last night/the week before will know exactly what I mean. This is of course not forgetting that the CIA was funneling cash towards a number of quite unsavoury groups throughout the '70s and '80s including Iraq, the Mujahadeen (sp?) and Iran (at one stage they were funding both sides while they were at war I believe).
I don't for a minute condone the terrorist's actions or what they base it on (because 99.999% of the time it has nothing to do with radical Islam - it's just a front for their political objectives), I just think a lot of people see the US as arrogant.
It was a French columnist, I think, who caused quite a major stink when he questioned 'who could fail to dream of the destruction of such a powerful hegemony' - or words to that effect. |
I don't think anyone in this thread has said "because they hate us" or "because we're free."
You mentioned the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the criminal activity at Abu Ghraib, the CIA program, and the prison in GITMO.
What did those events have to do with the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and 2001, the attack on the U.S. embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? The terrorist attacks against the United States predate those events you mentioned as reasons for people to dislike us. So what was the reason? It is the same today as it was in 1991. Abu Ghraib, the war in Iraq, et al are just wood with which to stoke the fire of their propaganda.
Terrorism has real political objectives. The political and ideological objectives of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are opposed to ours. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how nice we are, or how much money we pour into this or that country. We will be at war with them until they are destroyed or we alter our policies in a manner that they deem acceptable. They are not going to back down, yet they don’t have the power to destroy us. It is that simple.
Yes you are correct about the funding for different organizations in the ‘70s and ‘80s. But as I quoted before, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In the 70s and 80s the United States had no greater enemy than the Soviet Union. Anyone fighting the USSR would receive support if we thought it would help us win the Cold War.
And yes, we helped Iraq some during the Iran-Iraq war and even helped fund Iran during Iran-Contra. The United States didn’t want either side to win that war, but certainly wanted to insure the Iranians didn’t.
Back to terrorism, for the most part it has little to do with revenge or hatred. I think the French columnist was partially right in his summation. In some ways foreign affairs is little removed from playground games of King of the Hill. However Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamic terrorist organizations are only interested in our Middle East hegemony (for now).
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| I don't think anyone in this thread has said "because they hate us" or "because we're free." |
I didn't mean to imply that.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Abu Ghraib, the war in Iraq, et al are just wood with which to stoke the fire of their propaganda. |
But you can't deny that they're issues - I'm not a terrorist, but I was quite angered (in many ways) by what I heard and saw on 4 Corners, and have heard and read about elsewhere (this excerpt taken from the very start):
| Quote: |
SALLY NEIGHBOUR: In the pre-dawn darkness, a Gulfstream jet operated by America's Central Intelligence Agency flies in to land at an airstrip in the Middle East.
The location is Cairo, Egypt; the date November 2001.
Shackled and blindfolded, the jet's single passenger is transferred to a van and driven through the city. Apart from his captors, no-one knows where he is.
It's the start of an unspeakable nightmare.
PROFESSOR JOE MARGULIES: Confined to a small cell, windowless, bare metal cot, 6 by 8 foot cell approximately, one blanket, one dimly lit bulb. Unmitigated violence, beatings were routine, some of them creative, some of them just brutal, just thuggery.
SALLY NEIGHBOUR: The prisoner is Australian Mamdouh Habib. He's one of scores of detainees, incarcerated in hellish prisons around the world, as part of the CIA's secret rendition program. |
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1947389.htm
| Moonspider wrote: |
Yes you are correct about the funding for different organizations in the ‘70s and ‘80s. But as I quoted before, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In the 70s and 80s the United States had no greater enemy than the Soviet Union. Anyone fighting the USSR would receive support if we thought it would help us win the Cold War.
And yes, we helped Iraq some during the Iran-Iraq war and even helped fund Iran during Iran-Contra. The United States didn’t want either side to win that war, but certainly wanted to insure the Iranians didn’t. |
But that doesn't make it acceptable - just because they are on your side doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. A lot of people believe that the ends justify the means - and in a lot of circumstances they do - but I don't believe that is license to go around funding what were still, back then, terrorist organisations (using violence against civilian targets IIRC, in order to achieve political objectives).
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Back to terrorism, for the most part it has little to do with revenge or hatred. I think the French columnist was partially right in his summation. In some ways foreign affairs is little removed from playground games of King of the Hill. However Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamic terrorist organizations are only interested in our Middle East hegemony (for now). |
That might be their focus, but their means are most certainly global - September 11, the London Bombings, Madrid and Bali wouldn't have ocurred if it wasn't for the global spread of such propaganda - there's not much you can really do about that.
In the end I think it comes down to how you deal with this threat - hard power tactics (like invading countries) aren't really that effective against an organisation based on ideology - "you can't fight an idea with guns". There are always people who will see US intervention in the middle east as a grab for power and resources whether or not that was its intent. | Tim Graham wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | Abu Ghraib, the war in Iraq, et al are just wood with which to stoke the fire of their propaganda. |
But you can't deny that they're issues - I'm not a terrorist, but I was quite angered (in many ways) |
I was too, very much so for professional reasons. But its just icing for Islamic extremists, fuel for the propaganda machine.
| Tim Graham wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | Yes you are correct about the funding for different organizations in the ‘70s and ‘80s. But as I quoted before, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In the 70s and 80s the United States had no greater enemy than the Soviet Union. Anyone fighting the USSR would receive support if we thought it would help us win the Cold War.
And yes, we helped Iraq some during the Iran-Iraq war and even helped fund Iran during Iran-Contra. The United States didn’t want either side to win that war, but certainly wanted to insure the Iranians didn’t. |
But that doesn't make it acceptable - just because they are on your side doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. A lot of people believe that the ends justify the means - and in a lot of circumstances they do - but I don't believe that is license to go around funding what were still, back then, terrorist organisations (using violence against civilian targets IIRC, in order to achieve political objectives). |
Such policies are debatable, as are details as to who should receive support and who should not. Would the Cold War have ended as early as it did if not for the drain on the USSR caused by its hemorrhaging in Afghanistan? Maybe so. Maybe not. For better or worse, during a war nations work with whomever will help them win and then try to pick up the pieces later.
| Tim Graham wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | Back to terrorism, for the most part it has little to do with revenge or hatred. I think the French columnist was partially right in his summation. In some ways foreign affairs is little removed from playground games of King of the Hill. However Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamic terrorist organizations are only interested in our Middle East hegemony (for now). |
That might be their focus, but their means are most certainly global - September 11, the London Bombings, Madrid and Bali wouldn't have ocurred if it wasn't for the global spread of such propaganda - there's not much you can really do about that. |
Absolutely. I am not disputing the global spread. However I do believe there are things you can do about it through counter-propaganda, strategic relations with nations in which these terrorist organizations operate, and even spec ops and military support in nations actively fighting terrorist organizations, such as in the Philippines.
| Tim Graham wrote: |
| In the end I think it comes down to how you deal with this threat - hard power tactics (like invading countries) aren't really that effective against an organisation based on ideology - "you can't fight an idea with guns". There are always people who will see US intervention in the middle east as a grab for power and resources whether or not that was its intent. |
How would you go about dealing with it? No amount of diplomacy short of doing the will of Al Qaeda will stop it. So how do you stop it?
Respectfully,
M Keep listening to the all high mighty propaganda news...Seems to be the bible that morons follow anyway... 
And this war has everything to do with the Bush's if you bothered to investigate the whole past of The Bush's, Ladin's and supposed [[Al Quieda] Since when did cavemen have the smarts to take out pratically a whole city]] Please common sense. It is there and documented you know....I'm not going to make this long just read read the 9/11 thread. I'm done with this subject. | rheanna wrote: |
| Keep listening to the all high mighty propaganda news...Seems to be the bible that morons follow anyway... And this war has everything to do with the Bush's if you bothered to investigate the whole past of The Bush's, Ladin's and supposed [[Al Quieda] Since when did cavemen have the smarts to take out pratically a whole city]] Please common sense. It is there and documented you know....I'm not going to make this long just read read the 9/11 thread. I'm done with this subject. |
Maybe if you tape your keyboard down, next time you succumb to a seizure or what ever fit left you flailing at and pulling down your keyboard, producing such an odd and uninformed post like this, in the future will be avoided. | rheanna wrote: |
| Keep listening to the all high mighty propaganda news...Seems to be the bible that morons follow anyway... And this war has everything to do with the Bush's if you bothered to investigate the whole past of The Bush's, Ladin's and supposed [[Al Quieda] Since when did cavemen have the smarts to take out pratically a whole city]] Please common sense. It is there and documented you know....I'm not going to make this long just read read the 9/11 thread. I'm done with this subject. |
Must be the new math. It's ignorance like this post that spreads propaganda. It's all Bush's fault. If he wouldn't have stayed out of Iraq, terrorism would never have happened.
On the lighter side, how 'bout them car bombs in England this week? Damn that George Bush! It's his fault! 
Sounds like an SUV, on fire, was rammed into an England Airport.
Hrmph. Wonder if Bush was driving it? | Billy Hill wrote: |
| rheanna wrote: | | blah blah blah you FOOLS blah blah blah idiots. blah blah blah |
Time to cut down on the cafeine.
| Quote: | | It's there in PRINT....And the BUSH'S have EVERYTHING to do with this WAR. READ it and INVESTIGATE IT! |
Right. Because if it's in print, it HAS to be true. Right?
Well I guess that means Bush is omnipotent, because this started way before he was CIC.
|
That was great of you to point out the "FOOLS" and "idiots" quote. You played very kindly. Caffeine... lol... but whatever would I do without my daily fix of the mojo juice?
As for the | Quote: |
| the BUSH'S have EVERYTHING to do with this WAR. |
and your | Quote: |
| this started way before he was CIC |
statement - how about the fact that Bush's is plural, meaning "the family of" and that George H. W. Bush was once the Director of the CIA - did it start before then? Or coincidental - did much of the Iraq/Iran thing take place during his trip in the CIA and and as Vice President? Not to mention any actions leading to this while he was President.
Of course - slamming people around with bemerded words doesn't win arguments in any civil sense, but still... research is always better than mere impression.
