NationStates Jolt Archive

1) The war never really started in full force, but it is still going on.
2) Terrorism is at an all-time high.
3) Saddam Hussien split this country since half of it now hates Bush because of the war in Iraq.
4) An extremely large portion of the world community has much less respect for the United States.
5) George Bush has all but forgot about the war on terror.
6) Osama bin Laden is still at large. (or in a prison until October-ish)
7) Saddam may have been caught, but he suffered from a stroke and is dieing of colon cancer and refuses to receive medical attention.

He knew he was dieing and wanted to go out with a bang. I'd say he pulled it off very well. I'm gonna have to give him props.

It's not like it's hard to be smarter than Bush.

It's not like it's hard to be smarter than Bush.
As much as I don't like Bush, I'd like to keep this particular thread flame-free.

As much as I don't like Bush, I'd like to keep this particular thread flame-free.Yeah, good luck with that.

1) The war never really started in full force, but it is still going on.
2) Terrorism is at an all-time high.
3) Saddam Hussien split this country since half of it now hates Bush because of the war in Iraq.
4) An extremely large portion of the world community has much less respect for the United States.
5) George Bush has all but forgot about the war on terror.
6) Osama bin Laden is still at large. (or in a prison until October-ish)
7) Saddam may have been caught, but he suffered from a stroke and is dieing of colon cancer and refuses to receive medical attention.

He knew he was dieing and wanted to go out with a bang. I'd say he pulled it off very well. I'm gonna have to give him props.

In reply...
1) What war? More people in the US will die tonight from murder than a serviceman in Iraq.

2) Wow really? I haven't seen a city go up in a mushroom cloud, or a plane fly into a building since 9/11. You must have seen something I haven't, or you must be living on another world, because there hasnt been a terrorist attack since 9/11 on our home soil.

3) Half of this country hated Bushy bush before the war started...

4) Their respect couldn't get much lower... Like it or not, the world hates the most advanced super power. They've been hating us since the early 1950's.

5)Right... and that is why we have been hit with many terrorist attacks, right?

6)Yea... And he's living in a hole. Great way to be at large. (although, you may be right that he is in a prison to be released right before the elections. That would sure as hell sway the vote, wouldn't it... Maybe Bush isn't as stupid as you think.)

7) Uhm? What is your point here? We have him. He is rotting away in an american cell. Bush is not rotting away in an Iraqi cell? What is your point?

In reply...
1) What war? More people in the US will die tonight from murder than a serviceman in Iraq.

2) Wow really? I haven't seen a city go up in a mushroom cloud, or a plane fly into a building since 9/11. You must have seen something I haven't, or you must be living on another world, because there hasnt been a terrorist attack since 9/11 on our home soil.

3) Half of this country hated Bushy bush before the war started...

4) Their respect couldn't get much lower... Like it or not, the world hates the most advanced super power. They've been hating us since the early 1950's.

5)Right... and that is why we have been hit with many terrorist attacks, right?

6)Yea... And he's living in a hole. Great way to be at large. (although, you may be right that he is in a prison to be released right before the elections. That would sure as hell sway the vote, wouldn't it... Maybe Bush isn't as stupid as you think.)

7) Uhm? What is your point here? We have him. He is rotting away in an american cell. Bush is not rotting away in an Iraqi cell? What is your point?

1) That means the war is over? And what's Bush doing to solve the other problem you mentioned? Not to bring Kerry into this...but he did get a bill passed to increase cops on the streets...
2) Haven't you heard about all the terrorism going on in the middle East as a direct result of our presence?
3) Not quite and not with as much of a passion.
4) And the war in Iraq helped that situation?
5) Again, there is a lot more terrorism in the Mid East than there ever has been.
6) He is at large nonetheless. Bush's promise was to capture bin Laden (as if that would end terror) and it's been nearly 3 years and he still hasn't come up with anything.
7) He is going to die before being sentenced and before the people can find out exactly what he did. They'll still find out, but not before he dies.

I don't know. Hussein was stupid enough to allow his pride to get in the way of staying on the throne of his nation.

I have a question: Who ISN'T smarter than Bush? ;) :p

I don't know. Hussein was stupid enough to allow his pride to get in the way of staying on the throne of his nation.
I think he knew he was dieing and planned all this. He knew he didn't have much time left so he decided to go out with a bang. That's why I think he's such a genius. He isn't exactly young...

I have a question: Who ISN'T smarter than Bush? ;) :p
As much as I don't like Bush, I'd like to keep this particular thread flame-free.
.

I think he knew he was dieing and planned all this. He knew he didn't have much time left so he decided to go out with a bang. That's why I think he's such a genius. He isn't exactly young...
Besides, it looks as if Bush is letting his anti-Iraq jingoism get in the way of four more years.

.

Sorry. :(

1) That means the war is over? And what's Bush doing to solve the other problem you mentioned? Not to bring Kerry into this...but he did get a bill passed to increase cops on the streets...
2) Haven't you heard about all the terrorism going on in the middle East as a direct result of our presence?
3) Not quite and not with as much of a passion.
4) And the war in Iraq helped that situation?
5) Again, there is a lot more terrorism in the Mid East than there ever has been.
6) He is at large nonetheless. Bush's promise was to capture bin Laden (as if that would end terror) and it's been nearly 3 years and he still hasn't come up with anything.
7) He is going to die before being sentenced and before the people can find out exactly what he did. They'll still find out, but not before he dies.

1)Great... more criminals with badges and guns out on the street... with power trips... Wonderful.

2) The arabs hate Isreal, Isreal hates the arabs.. This will never change. Terrorism has always, and will always occur in the middle east.

3)Perhaps not, but if they had'nt chosen this reason, they would have found another.

4)No, but it's about time we pulled out of foreign things, and be more self-sufficient.

5)Perhaps, but the Bible foretold this. I believe that we are near the end days.

6)Perhaps he is, perhaps not.

7) Then it doesnt matter. He's gonna die either way.

1)Great... more criminals with badges and guns out on the street... with power trips... Wonderful.

2) The arabs hate Isreal, Isreal hates the arabs.. This will never change. Terrorism has always, and will always occur in the middle east.

3)Perhaps not, but if they had'nt chosen this reason, they would have found another.

4)No, but it's about time we pulled out of foreign things, and be more self-sufficient.

5)Perhaps, but the Bible foretold this. I believe that we are near the end days.

6)Perhaps he is, perhaps not.

7) Then it doesnt matter. He's gonna die either way.



I no longer respect your opinion :p

1) Bush expected to fight an army, not a believe. His believe in Christianity and his own actions is as strong as the hatred of America that is the Middle East today. Bush really has no clue what goes on in the minds of the Muslim people (other than the Shi-ites 'cause he has shi-ite for brains). There never really was a war. Bush took the strongest army in the world and attacked a brick wall.
2) C'est vrai. And (I hate to say it), we must stand our ground and not withdraw from Iraq now that we're in it. Unfortunantely, if we withdraw, the terrorists will not decrease operations, only increase them.
3) I'd say that the country was split 50-50 before the war. Now, it's about 75:25 for/against, but Americans are stupid, we're still showing 50-50 for voting.
4) What respect did we have in the first place?
5) A war on terror is like a war on christianity. The more you attack it, the stronger it gets.
6) Playing cards didn't help? Maybe 'cause our soldiers weren't playing with a full deck.
7) Well, what did we expect when and if we caught him? He'd make public appearances and apologize for being such a bad man and admitt that he was an asshole and defeated by a "great crusader" in a resigned voice?

I think he knew he was dieing and planned all this. He knew he didn't have much time left so he decided to go out with a bang. That's why I think he's such a genius. He isn't exactly young...
The attack on Iraq was initiated by 9/11. Nothing Saddam did after 9/11 provoked the attack.

In other words, you either:
1. Have serious problems with simple logic
2. Think Saddam planned 9/11

Which one is it?

The US did have sympathies after 9/11. I'd say that except for those who say that the US deserved 9/11, the majority feltthat this was a sad day. However, with the actions during the last 3 years, unprovoked wars against nations, which do not get rid of terrorism, demolished the image of the US in the world. Not just in the arab nations, but also in many european nations. I'm German and my entire family is "anti-american" nowadays. They didnt use to be like this and I didnt use to be like this either. Bush did this for the US, but if it was good or bad, remains to be seen. Apparently the respect of the world needs to be earned with good deeds and is easily revoked if it is being abused. Super power or not, without the support of mankind, the US is nothing and at the moment, the US arent doing much if anything to help their image become better.

Tell that to Christian Fundamentalists, Gun Nuts, Right-Wing Conspirators and Michael Savage!

oh, and Bush and Cheney too.

Tell that to Christian Fundamentalists, Gun Nuts, Right-Wing Conspirators and Michael Savage!

oh, and Bush and Cheney too.
I do not have the means to do it other than posting here on the forum. It is the responsibility of the US population to make sure their power is being used in a responsible manner.

Yes, if Bush were as smart as Saddam he would have you all killed as dissidents, outlawed opposition political parties and these forums would be closed down along with any other avenue to express your opinions. Alas he was not as smart as Saddam....

The US did have sympathies after 9/11. I'd say that except for those who say that the US deserved 9/11, the majority feltthat this was a sad day. However, with the actions during the last 3 years, unprovoked wars against nations, which do not get rid of terrorism, demolished the image of the US in the world. Not just in the arab nations, but also in many european nations. I'm German and my entire family is "anti-american" nowadays. They didnt use to be like this and I didnt use to be like this either. Bush did this for the US, but if it was good or bad, remains to be seen. Apparently the respect of the world needs to be earned with good deeds and is easily revoked if it is being abused. Super power or not, without the support of mankind, the US is nothing and at the moment, the US arent doing much if anything to help their image become better.
Anti-amricanism in Europe is more than a century old problem. Europe (by that I mean many people in Europe, not the whole... but let's keep it simple) hates the strong and loves the victim. 9/11 the US became the victim, and Europe loved the US. Then USA decided to strike back, no longer a victim but the strong again it again become the object of hate.

That respect is earned through good deeds is not true. The US has always done loads of good deeds. It's the controversial deeds everyone focuses on. And a controversial stand will always draw a lot of negatvie attention. And that's the reason why the strong is hated. Because the strong has strength to make the controversial happen. And this will always piss of those who don't agree.

That means that a strong leader will always cause the US to be hated. That's why Bush is hated.

Once uppon a time, fighting for freedom was noble. Once uppon a time war was the worst thing that could ever happen.

Today 'peace' kills more than war. Hundreds of thousands in mass graves was the result of 'peace' in Iraq. In additon a lot died of poverty and diseases. 10-15 thousand was the result of war. But today everyone in western Europe lives in freedom, and we don't know what it means to have that taken away from. Eastern Europe rememebers, thats' why the US had more support there.

Europe has been anti american for more than a century. It's not something that happened resently. What's happend resently is simply that the pressure of terrorism combined with the sthe strong (i.e controversial) actions if Bush has brought it into the daylight.

So when you say your whole family has become anti american, the terrorists smile and thank you in their hearts. Because it means terrorisms works.

And if the anti Bush oppinion manages to stop Bush, the terrorists will be even more happy. Because that means terrorism can also stop strong leaders and keep the US subdued.

Hmmm.. let's see.
Bush is the president of the US, and has free medical care.

Saddam is in jail, and is dying of cancer.

Difficult to deside.

Anti-amricanism in Europe is more than a century old problem. Europe (by that I mean many people in Europe, not the whole... but let's keep it simple) hates the strong and loves the victim. 9/11 the US became the victim, and Europe loved the US. Then USA decided to strike back, no longer a victim but the strong again it again become the object of hate.

That respect is earned through good deeds is not true. The US has always done loads of good deeds. It's the controversial deeds everyone focuses on. And a controversial stand will always draw a lot of negatvie attention. And that's the reason why the strong is hated. Because the strong has strength to make the controversial happen. And this will always piss of those who don't agree.

That means that a strong leader will always cause the US to be hated. That's why Bush is hated.

Once uppon a time, fighting for freedom was noble. Once uppon a time war was the worst thing that could ever happen.

Today 'peace' kills more than war. Hundreds of thousands in mass graves was the result of 'peace' in Iraq. In additon a lot died of poverty and diseases. 10-15 thousand was the result of war. But today everyone in western Europe lives in freedom, and we don't know what it means to have that taken away from. Eastern Europe rememebers, thats' why the US had more support there.

Europe has been anti american for more than a century. It's not something that happened resently. What's happend resently is simply that the pressure of terrorism combined with the sthe strong (i.e controversial) actions if Bush has brought it into the daylight.

So when you say your whole family has become anti american, the terrorists smile and thank you in their hearts. Because it means terrorisms works.

And if the anti Bush oppinion manages to stop Bush, the terrorists will be even more happy. Because that means terrorism can also stop strong leaders and keep the US subdued.
Our anti-americanism is not due to the terrorists. I and my family hate terrorists as much as anyone. However, the means the US uses to "fight terrorism" are way too much. A war on terrorism cannot be won. It is a style of fighting, not a group, not a nation. No amount of war will end it, instead it will fuel terrorism with the obvious abuse of "super power" by the US.

That Saddam was no angel in his own country is clear. However, it is not up to the US to decide what is right for the Iraqi people. Once upon a time, the US encouraged the kurds to revolt against Saddam and then abandoned them which resulted in the dead "hundreds of thousands" you now cite as reason for your war. According to the UN charter, it is not allowed to forcefully change a political system in a foreign and sovereign nation. How would you like it if some arab nation invaded the US and decided that it was time to switch back to monarchy? Quite hypothetical situation, but I am sure you would not like it. Only the power of the people of a nation can overthrow a ruler and change a political system. Only the will of the people can result in the forming of a constitution which is acceptable for all of the nation.

Dictating the formation of a democracy, hard-pressing people into a political system which is alien to them, cannot work. You'll never make Iraq a democracy because that is not how the arab world works. You'll never end terrorism and you'll not get any more sympathy from the world if the US is attacked again, which will very likely happen.

Yes, if Bush were as smart as Saddam he would have you all killed as dissidents, outlawed opposition political parties and these forums would be closed down along with any other avenue to express your opinions. Alas he was not as smart as Saddam....

That's right Tygaland, and don't forget about Bush using WMD's on his own town and citizens. If he was smart as Saddam... San Franciso/Berkely would be a great start!

Yeah Opal Isle, you're right. Saddam is a genius, a real Einstein. Saddam planned all this, right down to the death of his sons and his prostate infection/cancer. I do seem to remember seeing him in video right about up to the time he went into hiding though. He was looking pretty darn jovial and healthy then. Ah well, being on the run living in dirt holes and sleeping about 6 hours a week can get you looking pretty hagard after awhile. Bush is just a dum-dum. A real Dunce. How else could he have graduated with a degree from Yale University, and then get a 2nd Masters degree from Harvard University 7 years after Yale.

aye carumba!

Honestly, where do these people come from???

How else could he have graduated with a degree from Yale University, and then get a 2nd Masters degree from Harvard University 7 years after Yale.
That's something I am wondering about too. Bush is so devoid of brain cells that he can impossibly have earned his degree(s) on his own. Which leaves only one possibility: money and his dad.

@Buggard,

you have to understand Gigatron. He is from East Germany. They are still suffering from the huge burden (economically, socially but also politically) communism left due to its 40 year rule which ruined that country.

I agree to your statements on European anti-americanism, which are mainly also true for other parts of the world as well.
Asides I would however stress that Europe is a continent which consists of many nations. And there is a lot of anti-sentiment between the countries as well. The last two hundred years of European history - begining with the French revolution, the revolutionary wars - Napoleons attempt to conquer Europe - the Franco-German arch enemieship which began with that - the very instable concept of balance of power (which followed the victory over France in 1815 but was not able to establish stable and lasting peace and wasn´t able to prevent the rivalries to grow which led to World War I), many national wars and nationalistic and democratic opposition movements being repressed, failed revolutions and failed reform movements, social problems, the instable balcan region, colonial ambitions, e.g.
All things which contributed to the desasters in Continental Europe in the first half of the 20 th century. The era begining with the French Revolution in 1789 till World War I is the origin of many problems of today as well. And the events between World War I and II and during it of course as well. The era from 1789 till the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 (200 years) was more or less an era of instability in Europe.
Without the US the freedom in Europe would not have succeeded. It was the US who saved the Old World - making it possible that after World War II the cycle of humiliation and revenge towards each other (for example in the relationship of France and Germany) was ended. Cooperation replaced the concept of domination and hegemony which was the concept of many European powers since Napoleon.
They United States made that possible by protecting Western Europe from the imperialistic USSR which aimed to enlarge the hegemony it hat over Eastern and Central Europe to all of Europe. And with the US the Soviet hegemony over East and Central Europe was ended - not through war but with the prepardness to defend ourself, with a policy of strength which made clear to the Soviet that they have to bury their militaristic ambitions.
That success made the unification of the divided continent possible and ended and era of revolution, wars, divisions, e.g. which started in 1789 and ended in 1989 with the victory of freedom in most parts of Europe.

Some people may think now that the alliance between the US and Europe is unnecessary. I disagree. We face common threads. Islamism is much more a danger for Europe than the US since North Africa and the Middle East is the neighbouring region of Europe. And Europe has a growing muslim minority and faces itself the problems of islamism.
The transatlantic alliance is more important than ever. The policy of Chirac and Schröder was very stupid and unwise. They should have better shut up and just remained quiet. After all: nobody demanded them to participate with troops in Iraq.

Our anti-americanism is not due to the terrorists. I and my family hate terrorists as much as anyone. However, the means the US uses to "fight terrorism" are way too much. A war on terrorism cannot be won. It is a style of fighting, not a group, not a nation. No amount of war will end it, instead it will fuel terrorism with the obvious abuse of "super power" by the US.

That Saddam was no angel in his own country is clear. However, it is not up to the US to decide what is right for the Iraqi people. Once upon a time, the US encouraged the kurds to revolt against Saddam and then abandoned them which resulted in the dead "hundreds of thousands" you now cite as reason for your war. According to the UN charter, it is not allowed to forcefully change a political system in a foreign and sovereign nation. How would you like it if some arab nation invaded the US and decided that it was time to switch back to monarchy? Quite hypothetical situation, but I am sure you would not like it. Only the power of the people of a nation can overthrow a ruler and change a political system. Only the will of the people can result in the forming of a constitution which is acceptable for all of the nation.

Dictating the formation of a democracy, hard-pressing people into a political system which is alien to them, cannot work. You'll never make Iraq a democracy because that is not how the arab world works. You'll never end terrorism and you'll not get any more sympathy from the world if the US is attacked again, which will very likely happen.

Screw your sympathy you apathetic ungrateful frog.

Wow ... you're pretty damn indignant for someone who's country was liberated/defended by the United States from a torturing, murdering dictator who gassed people to death (sound familiar?) , not just 60 years ago.

"However, it is not up to the US to decide what is right for the Iraqi people
Just think, if everyone in Europe thought like you do when Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were porking your Grandmother, I'd have to run your post through the Google translator... German ---> English. No, Europe is just an ungrateful, indignant, stuck-up continent run by socialists. The reason we're hated is because of envy... plain & simple. We've only been a country for 200+ years. You've had what... a couple thousand years to get it right? No sympathy if there's another attack? I hope to GOD you toad lickers have dire need for our help AGAIN some day... and I hope we tell you "Sorry, you'll get no sympathy from us. Fight your own battles."

That's something I am wondering about too. Bush is so devoid of brain cells that he can impossibly have earned his degree(s) on his own. Which leaves only one possibility: money and his dad.

Oh yeah.. sure sure. Money and his Dad bought his degree's, both of them. Why not? He has received them, so that must be the only possible way he could received them. You know so much about Bush and his history and his family life growing up and stuff too eh? And you get your info where... you still have a Ministry of Information over there in Frogland? Tell you what EuroPEON boy, you worry about your own fouled up tiny itsy bitsy little country, and we'll worry about ours, ok?

You don't know anything except what propoganda and Michael Moore has told you. Your arguments bear no merit whatsoever.

sympathy for the US? doesnt anybody have any sympathy for the terrorists these men are willing to die for something they believe in so strongly, well as it is rather difficult to brainwash whole sections of communities into dying for your cause and i imagine osama inst capable of it, then maybe just maybe there is a problem and there is something in it, and maybe we could just try fixing that problem instead of killing thousands of them, which surely will make the problem worse and drive more to suicide attacks and eventually result in the anhilation of one side.

Screw your sympathy you apathetic ungrateful frog.

Wow ... you're pretty damn indignant for someone who's country was liberated/defended by the United States from a torturing, murdering dictator who gassed people to death (sound familiar?) , not just 60 years ago.

"However, it is not up to the US to decide what is right for the Iraqi people
Just think, if everyone in Europe thought like you do when Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were porking your Grandmother, I'd have to run your post through the Google translator... German ---> English. No, Europe is just an ungrateful, indignant, stuck-up continent run by socialists. The reason we're hated is because of envy... plain & simple. We've only been a country for 200+ years. You've had what... a couple thousand years to get it right? No sympathy if there's another attack? I hope to GOD you toad lickers have dire need for our help AGAIN some day... and I hope we tell you "Sorry, you'll get no sympathy from us. Fight your own battles."

Your country saved his country 60 years ago? and you're using that against him now?

I see how this is working o.O

Oh yeah.. sure sure. Money and his Dad bought his degree's, both of them. Why not? He has received them, so that must be the only possible way he could received them. You know so much about Bush and his history and his family life growing up and stuff too eh? And you get your info where... you still have a Ministry of Information over there in Frogland? Tell you what EuroPEON boy, you worry about your own fouled up tiny itsy bitsy little country, and we'll worry about ours, ok?

You don't know anything except what propoganda and Michael Moore has told you. Your arguments bear no merit whatsoever.

If only you had taken that approach in Iraq eh?

Meatopiaa, I wouldn't even bother arguing with Gigatron. They post this crap on every thread. Even the only thread I created titled "Where would you choose to live if you could live anywhere in the world?" somehow enabled Gigatron to go on an America bashing escapade. They only play one song.

@Buggard,

you have to understand Gigatron. He is from East Germany. They are still suffering from the huge burden (economically, socially but also politically) communism left due to its 40 year rule which ruined that country.

I agree to your statements on European anti-americanism, which are mainly also true for other parts of the world as well.
Asides I would however stress that Europe is a continent which consists of many nations. And there is a lot of anti-sentiment between the countries as well. The last two hundred years of European history - begining with the French revolution, the revolutionary wars - Napoleons attempt to conquer Europe - the Franco-German arch enemieship which began with that - the very instable concept of balance of power (which followed the victory over France in 1815 but was not able to establish stable and lasting peace and wasn´t able to prevent the rivalries to grow which led to World War I), many national wars and nationalistic and democratic opposition movements being repressed, failed revolutions and failed reform movements, social problems, the instable balcan region, colonial ambitions, e.g.
All things which contributed to the desasters in Continental Europe in the first half of the 20 th century. The era begining with the French Revolution in 1789 till World War I is the origin of many problems of today as well. And the events between World War I and II and during it of course as well. The era from 1789 till the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 (200 years) was more or less an era of instability in Europe.
Without the US the freedom in Europe would not have succeeded. It was the US who saved the Old World - making it possible that after World War II the cycle of humiliation and revenge towards each other (for example in the relationship of France and Germany) was ended. Cooperation replaced the concept of domination and hegemony which was the concept of many European powers since Napoleon.
They United States made that possible by protecting Western Europe from the imperialistic USSR which aimed to enlarge the hegemony it hat over Eastern and Central Europe to all of Europe. And with the US the Soviet hegemony over East and Central Europe was ended - not through war but with the prepardness to defend ourself, with a policy of strength which made clear to the Soviet that they have to bury their militaristic ambitions.
That success made the unification of the divided continent possible and ended and era of revolution, wars, divisions, e.g. which started in 1789 and ended in 1989 with the victory of freedom in most parts of Europe.

Some people may think now that the alliance between the US and Europe is unnecessary. I disagree. We face common threads. Islamism is much more a danger for Europe than the US since North Africa and the Middle East is the neighbouring region of Europe. And Europe has a growing muslim minority and faces itself the problems of islamism.
The transatlantic alliance is more important than ever. The policy of Chirac and Schröder was very stupid and unwise. They should have better shut up and just remained quiet. After all: nobody demanded them to participate with troops in Iraq.

No, we don't have to understand Gigatron, he has to understand America. Because it's America who'll "not get any more sympathy from the world if the US is attacked again, which will very likely happen." No sympathy for the deaths of innocent civilians? No sympathy for attacks on the country who made it even possible for him to be here and post ignorant rhetoric? There is absolutley NO NEED for an American-EuroPEON alliance. The USSR is dead, the wall is destroyed, and they have their own "universal" currency and economy. You don't need anything from us anymore. The United Nations is useless and unnecessary as well.

I sincerely hope that all ties are severed, aside from trade of course, and Europe can fend for themselves. Europe is nothing more than a welfare state and America is the Department of Social Sevices. Piss on Europe, piss on Gigatron and his 'no sympathy' hate.

If only you had taken that approach in Iraq eh?

Yes, we'd still have good old Saddam in power murdering his citizens and making himself richer on the Food for Oil rort. Not to mention Iraq possibly becoming a training ground for terrorists if it already wasn't through funding alone. What was America thinking...

Meatopiaa, I wouldn't even bother arguing with Gigatron. They post this crap on every thread. Even the only thread I created titled "Where would you choose to live if you could live anywhere in the world?" somehow enabled Gigatron to go on an America bashing escapade. They only play one song.

Yeah? Alright then. Thanks for the info. I'll stop responding then. That crap really gets my ire up.

I hope a chunk of the Berlin wall fell on his foot when it came crashing down...

Sorry, you'll get no sympathy from us. Fight your own battles.

Ditto. You want help from us in Iraq? Fight your own battles and face the consequences of fuelling terrorism world wide.

You got 60 years of gratefulness and payments of money from Germany for "freeing us" while also dividing Germany into 2 nations. The victors of WW2 were 4: US, UK, France and USSR. I for one will never thank you for what you made out of Germany after WW2. You divided what was unified and looted a people of many of its possessions. Your next argument will probably be, that I should be grateful that you didnt eradicate Germany from the face of earth and graciously let the German people live. What good you did 60 years ago, does not entitle you to do crap now. Hitler was a threat to Europe, he waged war, he got millions of people killed, he wanted Germany to be a "super power" at all costs. That he was defeated, was good for the US and the USSR aswell as all the nations Germany had "conquered" back then. I am not so sure if it was good for Germany. After all being a super power seems to be something nice - seeing how the US flaunt that "status" up and down the world every day. It is impossible to say what would have happened, had Hitler not been defeated. History however happened the way it did. We adapted to live with it and learn from the past mistakes. Now, we as a free people, that was free before Hitler and was free after Hitler, have the same right to criticize the US, as you have the right to defend yourself, should you be attacked by another nation. Nobody will criticize you, if you truly defend yourself against aggression,but we will criticize you for waging wars of aggression throughout the world.

Who is more foolish... the fool or the fool who follows him?

Your country elected him, dimwits.

Our anti-americanism is not due to the terrorists. I and my family hate terrorists as much as anyone. However, the means the US uses to "fight terrorism" are way too much.

I've never implied that you like terrorists. What I am saying that terrorism creates a situation of pressure, where strong and controversial measures are needed. And this pressure causes the underlying anti-americanism that has been arounf for more than a century to surface.

I'm not blaiming you or your familiy. What I'm talking about is cause and effect.

But I do think that if people were more aware of this, they would maybe think twice and question their anti-americanism. At least, I hope so.


A war on terrorism cannot be won. It is a style of fighting, not a group, not a nation. No amount of war will end it, instead it will fuel terrorism with the obvious abuse of "super power" by the US.

The war on terrorism is won by taking away the reason people become terrorists in the first place.Terrorism comes from people who live under oppression, in poverty, in fear. People who are not able to spend their energy building a peaceful life for themselves and their family and friends. People who live in nations like former Iraq and Afghanistan, where their frustration in fueled, and where government controlled media blames western imperialism for all that's wrong.

People who live in secure democracies, who are able to spend their time and energy on a peaceful lives, have no reason to become terrorists. Thanks to Bush, Afghanistan and Iraq now has the possibility of becominge such places.

But all, without exceptions, revolutions will cause turmoil. That can't be avoided. But that is a short term problem. We should aim for the long term sollutions. And the long term sollutions is stopping all tyrannies in the world.

And of course, the war on terror has severily limited the terrorist organisations infrastructure and economy. Saddam can no longer economically support palestinian terrorists. Al Qaida no more has training camps in Afghanistan. And international intelligence is cooperating better than ever, arresting Al Qaida members and leaders and stopping their bank accounts.
[/QUOTE]


That Saddam was no angel in his own country is clear. However, it is not up to the US to decide what is right for the Iraqi people.

First, only in a democracy can the people decide what's right for them. Under Saddam that was not possible. After the world, there's potential for a working democracy where the people can decide this.

Second, if you believe peace, safety and freedom is right, it's hypocracy to believe it's right for you and not for the Iraqis. And therefore it's immoral to accept their lack of freedom.

However, how you chose to fight, is another question. You of course don't need to support my way of fighting, but can chose your own. That is, I am not saying it's immoral to not support the war. I respect people having different sollutions. But i think it's utterly wrong to imply that it's wrong to say democrazy (and freedom) is not necessarily right.


According to the UN charter, it is not allowed to forcefully change a political system in a foreign and sovereign nation.

In effect this protects a despotic leaders right to do what he wants with the population in a state.

To me that is utterly wrong and immoral. I belive no leaders owns the people of his nation.


How would you like it if some arab nation invaded the US and decided that it was time to switch back to monarchy? Quite hypothetical situation, but I am sure you would not like it.

Of course not. I have a base belief in peoples right to freedom (etc.). And thus fighting for freedom is rigt, while fighting against freedom is wrong. It's logically impossible for a people to have freedom to chose their type of government under any other system than democracy. Without choice you have no freedom. Therefore it's right to fight for democracies.

Of course, arabs, or muslims, may believe their religion is the only right. And this may conflict with my view. That does not mean I should accept other people suffering under Islam (as in former Afghnistan). Because that means I accept that other people do to other something that I mean is absolutely wrong. If I accept this for others, but not for myself, then I'm hypocritical.

What you're saying is called cultural relativism. And it's evil. It leads to acceptance of evil behaviour. It makes it impossible to critize bad behaviour, because all bad is right relative to some culture. It's culture relativism that leads to acceptance of mutilation of female genitalia. It's culture relativism that makes terrorists into freedom fighters.


Only the power of the people of a nation can overthrow a ruler and change a political system. Only the will of the people can result in the forming of a constitution which is acceptable for all of the nation.

That's wrong. You imply that helping in some magical way makes it impossible to form a constituion. That argument has no logic.

Also a civil war would cause much more suffering, for a much longer timer and to a lot more people than the US lead war did.


Dictating the formation of a democracy, hard-pressing people into a political system which is alien to them, cannot work. You'll never make Iraq a democracy because that is not how the arab world works.

Implying that arabs are unable to form a democracy is frankly racism. I'm not calling you a racist, I don't believe that you are. It's jsut the argument.

Yeah? Alright then. Thanks for the info. I'll stop responding then. That crap really gets my ire up.

I hope a chunk of the Berlin wall fell on his foot when it came crashing down...

They used to get me in too but then I realised they only say things like that to irritate people.

Your country saved his country 60 years ago? and you're using that against him now?

I see how this is working o.O

Using it "against" him?

I can see you're ignorant and a waste of time... nevermind the response

Yes, we'd still have good old Saddam in power murdering his citizens and making himself richer on the Food for Oil rort. Not to mention Iraq possibly becoming a training ground for terrorists if it already wasn't through funding alone. What was America thinking...

Everybody knows that America pretended there were WMD's so they could get rid of a tyranical dictator and STOP Iraq becoming a training ground for terrorists.

(correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there more terorism in Iraq these days?)

Who is in prison? That's not very smart!

Ditto. You want help from us in Iraq? Fight your own battles and face the consequences of fuelling terrorism world wide.

You got 60 years of gratefulness and payments of money from Germany for "freeing us" while also dividing Germany into 2 nations. The victors of WW2 were 4: US, UK, France and USSR. I for one will never thank you for what you made out of Germany after WW2. You divided what was unified and looted a people of many of its possessions. Your next argument will probably be, that I should be grateful that you didnt eradicate Germany from the face of earth and graciously let the German people live. What good you did 60 years ago, does not entitle you to do crap now. Hitler was a threat to Europe, he waged war, he got millions of people killed, he wanted Germany to be a "super power" at all costs. That he was defeated, was good for the US and the USSR aswell as all the nations Germany had "conquered" back then. I am not so sure if it was good for Germany. After all being a super power seems to be something nice - seeing how the US flaunt that "status" up and down the world every day. It is impossible to say what would have happened, had Hitler not been defeated. History however happened the way it did. We adapted to live with it and learn from the past mistakes. Now, we as a free people, that was free before Hitler and was free after Hitler, have the same right to criticize the US, as you have the right to defend yourself, should you be attacked by another nation. Nobody will criticize you, if you truly defend yourself against aggression,but we will criticize you for waging wars of aggression throughout the world.

blah blah blah ... you need us way, way, way more than we need you. Actually, I don't know that we need you whatsoever. Hmm... let's see. Does Germany have any natural resources we need or to trade? Nope. Any items of any kind we need or to trade? Nope. You better start learning to take care of yourself. Pretty soon, they'll be no more American troops in Germany to protect your freedom to be a hater after the troop pullouts are done. Europe does not need us. You should be on your own. I hope you and your families do okay though, I still have sympathy for innocent victims of terrorism, no matter where they are in the world.

Weird enough, Germany did not take part in the Iraq war and is not at threat of terrorism right now. The terrorists, strangely enough, only target nations that attacked Iraq directly or aided the US in some form. Wow... they might actually not target nations that chose to stay neutral during this or oppose the war... what surprise.

Everybody knows that America pretended there were WMD's so they could get rid of a tyranical dictator and STOP Iraq becoming a training ground for terrorists.

For a start they did not pretend. The CIA, Russian intelligence and British intelligence as well as intelligence reports from the UN suggested Iraq had WMD. But, for the sake of argument, if they did pretend there were WMD the problem with that is? Unless you are disappointed that a tyrant has been deposed?

(correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there more terorism in Iraq these days?)

Against my better judgement I will explain this to you. The war in Iraq is a crucial battle in the Middle East. If the Coalition succeeds and Iraq becomes a democratic and free nation then it will have a resounding effect on the entire region. It will open the eyes of the citizens of other nations under oppressive regimes. The terrorist organisations know this and are therefore doing all they can to destabilise the process of implementing democracy. Foreign insugents and Baathists are hell-bent on making sure that democracy does not succeed so they can continue their reign of oppression and fear.

I suggest you look at the bigger picture and see what can become of the situation rather than crapping on about short-sighted conspiracy theories.

Weird enough, Germany did not take part in the Iraq war and is not at threat of terrorism right now. The terrorists, strangely enough, only target nations that attacked Iraq directly or aided the US in some form. Wow... they might actually not target nations that chose to stay neutral during this or oppose the war... what surprise.


Thats the kind or thinking that leaves your country wide open for a terrorist attack. Lets hope your government and security forces are a little less naive than you.

reign of oppression and fear

Hmm somehow this is familiar. Fear.. "terrorists attack you if we withdraw", "Iraq is a threat to the US and the world.. bla bla". Oppression.. hmm Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, ignoring the majority of the UN and unilaterally deciding things... hmm yep. Clearly, fits on the US.

Weird enough, Germany did not take part in the Iraq war and is not at threat of terrorism right now.

Of course not. You do what the terrorists want you to. But step out of line...


The terrorists, strangely enough, only target nations that attacked Iraq directly or aided the US in some form. Wow... they might actually not target nations that chose to stay neutral during this or oppose the war... what surprise.
Actually the terrorists attack those who do not do what the terrorists want in an effort to force them too into servility.

Personally I think that should be really obvious.
Edit: It's the other effect, pressure causing internal disruption, I would think was the less obvious reason for terrorism that would sometimes need explanaition.

Thats the kind or thinking that leaves your country wide open for a terrorist attack. Lets hope your government and security forces are a little less naive than you.
Quote at the contrary, I believe that staying neutral or opposing wars, will keep us out of the line of fire of terrorists. The Swiss did that very good so far, just like Scandinavia, Benelux etc. There are a lot of nations that are peaceful and try to stay neutral in the world. I have yet to see or hear of any terrorist attacks in such nations. Why would terrorists attack peaceful nations anyway - they'd make more unneccessary enemies.

Buggard

"Implying that arabs are unable to form a democracy is frankly racism. I'm not calling you a racist, I don't believe that you are. It's jsut the argument."

Well: Elections doesn´t solve anything. Democracy needs a certain social, political and economic development. Just think of Algeria. The democratic elections in 1991 resulted in the victory of Islamists (fortunately the Algerian military prevented them from power). That would be also the case in many arab countries if there are free elections (for example in Egypt or even in Jorden - and propably also in Iraq).
After all: Hitler and his party achieved a relative majority in elections as well.

So: elections alone are not a solution giving the hatred, the economic underdevelopment of a potentially prosperous region, the nationalism, islamism, anti-semitism and anti-americanism in that region.
I think the US needs partners to find a way to push for changes in the region and to stabilize it. However: the partners must be willing to act as partners and not as Chirac or Schröder.
Blair played a very important role here to keep the transatlantic alliance alive. After all: 13 out of the 25 EU members pledge support to the US. Only 4 countries openly opposed it (France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg). That are important countries, but they are not Europe, they are only a part of Europe. And a huge other part worked with the US.

Of course not. You do what the terrorists want you to. But step out of line...


Actually the terrorists attack those who do not do what the terrorists want in an effort to force them too into servility.

Personally I think that should be really obvious.
It is really obvious that this is what the US are doing. Not the terrorists.

Weird enough, Germany did not take part in the Iraq war and is not at threat of terrorism right now. The terrorists, strangely enough, only target nations that attacked Iraq directly or aided the US in some form. Wow... they might actually not target nations that chose to stay neutral during this or oppose the war... what surprise.

Really? Is that a fact? Here's a tidbit right off your country's official 'homepage'... http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/697.99.html (http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/697.99.html)

Terrorism

As the attacks on September 11, 2001 have shown, international terrorism has now evolved into a worldwide threat. The degree of violence to which terrorists are willing to resort, their logistical networks and the long-term planning that goes into their cross-border methods of attack have clearly demonstrated the dangers. In order to combat international terrorism more effectively, German parliament passed a number of amendments to existing laws. For example, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution was granted the right to monitor activities directed against the peaceful coexistence of different peoples, since such activities spawn a favorable, dangerous seedbed for the spread of terrorism. The office also has the right to gather information on bank accounts and account-holders suspected of extremist undertakings or activities that might endanger security or are connected with secret service work.

In the case of certain serious forms of data network criminality, the Federal Criminal Office can initiate prosecution without having to submit a request to a public prosecutor and without receiving instructions from the Federal Minister of the Interior. The Federal Border Guard has clear instructions for the deployment of security forces in German airplanes (flight safety personnel). Changes to the Aliens Act now mean that persons who would endanger the free and democratic constitutional order or the security of the Federal Republic can be refused a visa or a residence permit for Germany. As regards the right of association, the “religious privilege”, as it was termed, has been abolished. Religious groups that direct their activities against the constitutional order and come into conflict with penal law or disregard the principle of understanding between peoples can now be prohibited. Additionally, the conditions under which an organization can be banned under the law of association have been expanded: proceedings can now also be initiated against the kind of foreign associations that support violent foreign or terrorist organizations. In the passport and identification card law, the option for storing biometric features on such documents has now been included.

Gosh, that's an awful lot of new legislation and preparedness for a country with no "threat of terrorism right now". Pffft ... you know as little about your own country as you do about mine. You might as well just shut up now Gigatron. You're dumb like Bush :rolleyes:

Really? Is that a fact? Here's a tidbit right off your country's official 'homepage'... http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/697.99.html (http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/697.99.html)



Gosh, that's an awful lot of new legislation and preparedness for a country with no "threat of terrorism right now". Pffft ... you know as little about your own country as you do about mine. You might as well just shut up now Gigatron. You're dumb like Bush :rolleyes:
I'd not consider this homepage our "official" homepage. While I do not like many restrictions of freedomsin Germany, they are not radical enough yet to endanger the normal population while reducing the risk of terrorism breeding in Germany. There is little reason to say that Germany is at threat directly, because Germany is not aggressive against Islam nations and does not attempt to spread its culture (anymore). Terrorists attacking Germany now, would have a strong enemy in Europe, which would most likely not fit into their plans, whatever that may be.

Weird enough, Germany did not take part in the Iraq war and is not at threat of terrorism right now. The terrorists, strangely enough, only target nations that attacked Iraq directly or aided the US in some form. Wow... they might actually not target nations that chose to stay neutral during this or oppose the war... what surprise.

Wrong.
I just remember you that 9/11 was BEFORE the actions against Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no safety from terrorism.
Al-Quaida treatens all countries that oppose terror: France and Germany are part of the enemy (as Osamas deputy al-Zawahirit put it). The French law against the scarf in schools - which I applaude - caused a series of threats by islamic terrorists against that country.
Islamic terrorists (and al Quaida) threaten all non-muslim nations and moderate muslim leaders: Turkey, Spain, India, Russia were victims as well.
And also German nationals were killed by terrorism: many in Egypt and in two in Iraq as well. And that terrorists cells are operating in Europe and in Germany is a known fact. After all: Police was able to prevent planned attacks on the IAA in Frankfurt (Germany) and the Christmas market in Strassbourg (France). The thread is real and it is an illusion that it is possible to appease terrorists.

Hussein is also a better leader than Bush.

Well: Elections doesn´t solve anything. Democracy needs a certain social, political and economic development.

I never said it would be easy. I said just the poopsite, any revolution will cause problems. But this is short term problems, it's the long term that matters.


I think the US needs partners to find a way to push for changes in the region and to stabilize it. However: the partners must be willing to act as partners and not as Chirac or Schröder.

I absolutely agree with you on this point. I so much wish that the UN would put all the pety political disagreements aside and focus on this opportunity that is given. That is so much more important, both for the Iraqi people and the stability of the middle east and thus the whole world.



Blair played a very important role here to keep the transatlantic alliance alive. After all: 13 out of the 25 EU members pledge support to the US. Only 4 countries openly opposed it (France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg). That are important countries, but they are not Europe, they are only a part of Europe. And a huge other part worked with the US.
There's a lot of controversity in Europe. In general there was more support from eastern Europe than from western Europe. The reason for this is, in my oppinion, that this new Europe has a more recent history of oppression than old Europe.

My own country (Norway) sent forces to Iraq. Not to fight, but to help rebuild. Still there has been a lot of controversy around this. Politicans on one side insisting that government calls this participating in the war, and the government dismissing the issue. A whole lot of bullshit semantics designed to create negative associations with our troops.

Wrong.
I just remember you that 9/11 was BEFORE the actions against Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no safety from terrorism.
Al-Quaida treatens all countries that oppose terror: France and Germany are part of the enemy (as Osamas deputy al-Zawahirit put it). The French law against the scarf in schools - which I applaude - caused a series of threats by islamic terrorists against that country.
Islamic terrorists (and al Quaida) threaten all non-muslim nations and moderate muslim leaders: Turkey, Spain, India, Russia were victims as well.
And also German nationals were killed by terrorism: many in Egypt and in two in Iraq as well. And that terrorists cells are operating in Europe and in Germany is a known fact. After all: Police was able to prevent planned attacks on the IAA in Frankfurt (Germany) and the Christmas market in Strassbourg (France). The thread is real and it is an illusion that it is possible to appease terrorists.
From the net:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0415-05.htm

Osama Bin Laden Speech Offers Peace Treaty with Europe, Says Al-Qa'ida
'Will Persist in Fighting' the US


MEMRI has obtained and translated a copy of the most recent speech by Osama bin Laden, purportedly offering a peace ["sulh"] treaty to European countries that withdraw soldiers from Arab countries, while still maintaining the United States as a legitimate target. The following are excerpts from the speech:(1)

'September 11 and March 11 is Your Own Merchandise Coming Back to You'

"This is a message to our neighbors north of the Mediterranean, with a proposal for a peace treaty, in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.

"What happened in September 11 and March 11 is your own merchandise coming back to you. We hereby advise you ... that your definition of us and of our actions as terrorism is nothing but a definition of yourselves by yourselves, since our reaction is of the same kind as your act. Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.

"It suffices to see the event that shocked the world - the killing of the wheelchair-bound old man Ahmad Yassin - Allah's mercy upon him - and we pledge to Allah to avenge [his murder] on America, Allah willing.

"By what measure of kindness are your killed considered innocents while ours are considered worthless? By what school [of thought] is your blood considered blood while our blood is water?

"Therefore, it is [only] just to respond in kind, and the one who started it is more to blame..."

We will Continue to Fight the U.S. and U.N.

"When you look at what happened and is happening, the killing in our countries and in yours, an important fact emerges, and that is that the oppression is forced on both us and you by your politicians who send your sons, against your will, to our country to kill and to be killed.

"Therefore, both sides have an interest in thwarting those who shed the blood of the peoples for their own narrow interests, out of vassalage to the White House gang...

"This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies...

"It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes.

"President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. ... all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. Allah willing, we will persist in fighting them...

'I Hereby Offer [Europe] a Peace Treaty'

"Therefore, in order to thwart opportunities for the merchants of war, and in response to the positive developments that were expressed in recent events and in the public opinion polls, which determined that most European peoples want peace, I urge ... the establishment of a permanent commission to nurture awareness among Europeans regarding the justness of our causes, particularly the cause of Palestine, and that use be made of the vast media resources to this end.

"I hereby offer them a peace treaty, the essence of which is our commitment to halt actions against any country that commits itself to refraining from attacking Muslims or intervening in their affairs, including the American conspiracy against the larger Islamic world.

"This peace treaty can be renewed at the end of the term of a government and the rise of another, with the agreement of both sides.

"The peace treaty will be in force upon the exit of the last soldier of any given [European] country from our land.

"The door of peace will remain open for three months from the broadcast of this statement. Whoever rejects the peace and wants war should know that we are the men [of war], and whoever wants a peace treaty and signs it, we hereby allow this peace treaty with him.

"Stop shedding our blood in order to protect your own blood. The solution to this easy-difficult equation is in your own hands. You should know that the longer you delay, the worse the situation will become, and when that happens, do not blame us, blame yourselves...

"As for those who lie to people and say that we hate freedom and kill for the sake of killing - reality proves that we are the speakers of truth and they lie, because the killing of the Russians took place only after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya; the killing of the Europeans took place only after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; the killing of the Americans in the Battle of New York took place only after their support for the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian Peninsula; their killing in Somalia happened only after Operation Restore Hope. We restored [i.e. repelled] them without hope, by the grace of Allah."

It is really obvious that this is what the US are doing. Not the terrorists.
You know. You started out with some serious arguments. Now you've fallen back on bullshit rhetorics. I'm a bit disapointed. Did you just repeat propaganda since you now don't seem able to defend it?

But on the other hand, I don't have time to argue too much more, so it's also practical for me.

You know. You started out with some serious arguments. Now you've fallen back on bullshit rhetorics. I'm a bit disapointed. Did you just repeat propaganda since you now don't seem able to defend it?

But on the other hand, I don't have time to argue too much more, so it's also practical for me.
I know that Bush didnt want a peaceful solution for Iraq. He wanted the war and did everything to get it, right after 9/11. Iraq did not "cooperate" (read: submit itself to servitude) to the fullest with the US, and thus was invaded. Thats terrorism according to your definition.

Quote at the contrary, I believe that staying neutral or opposing wars, will keep us out of the line of fire of terrorists. The Swiss did that very good so far, just like Scandinavia, Benelux etc. There are a lot of nations that are peaceful and try to stay neutral in the world. I have yet to see or hear of any terrorist attacks in such nations. Why would terrorists attack peaceful nations anyway - they'd make more unneccessary enemies.

Terrorists are not fighting nations, they are fighting Western society. Al Qaeda wants every human being on this planet to convert to Islam or be killed as infidels. Heres a new flash for you..they don't care if you are neutral, you either convert or die. Nations like the US, Britain, Italy, Australia, Poland, Ukraine etc etc realise this and are doing their best to make sure Al Qaeda is eradicated.
Did you realise that the foiled Al Qaeda attack prior to 9/11 was planned for France? It was accidentally uncovered in Germany while investigating another crime. Christmas market in Strasbourg on Christmas eve...that was the date it was planned for. The terrorists had video taped the area and everything was ready to go..it was that close. I wonder, if that had not been uncovered and the attack went ahead....how different would these conversations be.
This detection opened the international communities eyes to Al Qaeda, except the cell based in Hamburg was missed...they ended up going to the US and well, the rest, as they say, is history.

Peave between Al Qaida and Europe. How convenient ... for Al Qaida.

During this peace Al Qaida can build their network and logistics, gather resources, do recruitment and training and generally prepare. So when the day comes that Europe should support something not to the terrorist likings, they're prepared to do what it takes through terror to force Europe back into a new period of peace and servility.

Here's a simple fact. When you're fighting terrorism, the terrorists will fight back. That's why there's an increased amount of terrorism towards those fighting.

When someone is targetted by terrorism, it's an indication that that someone is doing the right thing!

From the net:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0415-05.htm

Osama Bin Laden Speech Offers Peace Treaty with Europe, Says Al-Qa'ida
'Will Persist in Fighting' the US


MEMRI has obtained and translated a copy of the most recent speech by Osama bin Laden, purportedly offering a peace ["sulh"] treaty to European countries that withdraw soldiers from Arab countries, while still maintaining the United States as a legitimate target. The following are excerpts from the speech:(1)

'September 11 and March 11 is Your Own Merchandise Coming Back to You'

"This is a message to our neighbors north of the Mediterranean, with a proposal for a peace treaty, in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.

"What happened in September 11 and March 11 is your own merchandise coming back to you. We hereby advise you ... that your definition of us and of our actions as terrorism is nothing but a definition of yourselves by yourselves, since our reaction is of the same kind as your act. Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.

"It suffices to see the event that shocked the world - the killing of the wheelchair-bound old man Ahmad Yassin - Allah's mercy upon him - and we pledge to Allah to avenge [his murder] on America, Allah willing.

"By what measure of kindness are your killed considered innocents while ours are considered worthless? By what school [of thought] is your blood considered blood while our blood is water?

"Therefore, it is [only] just to respond in kind, and the one who started it is more to blame..."

We will Continue to Fight the U.S. and U.N.

"When you look at what happened and is happening, the killing in our countries and in yours, an important fact emerges, and that is that the oppression is forced on both us and you by your politicians who send your sons, against your will, to our country to kill and to be killed.

"Therefore, both sides have an interest in thwarting those who shed the blood of the peoples for their own narrow interests, out of vassalage to the White House gang...

"This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies...

"It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes.

"President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. ... all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. Allah willing, we will persist in fighting them...

'I Hereby Offer [Europe] a Peace Treaty'

"Therefore, in order to thwart opportunities for the merchants of war, and in response to the positive developments that were expressed in recent events and in the public opinion polls, which determined that most European peoples want peace, I urge ... the establishment of a permanent commission to nurture awareness among Europeans regarding the justness of our causes, particularly the cause of Palestine, and that use be made of the vast media resources to this end.

"I hereby offer them a peace treaty, the essence of which is our commitment to halt actions against any country that commits itself to refraining from attacking Muslims or intervening in their affairs, including the American conspiracy against the larger Islamic world.

"This peace treaty can be renewed at the end of the term of a government and the rise of another, with the agreement of both sides.

"The peace treaty will be in force upon the exit of the last soldier of any given [European] country from our land.

"The door of peace will remain open for three months from the broadcast of this statement. Whoever rejects the peace and wants war should know that we are the men [of war], and whoever wants a peace treaty and signs it, we hereby allow this peace treaty with him.

"Stop shedding our blood in order to protect your own blood. The solution to this easy-difficult equation is in your own hands. You should know that the longer you delay, the worse the situation will become, and when that happens, do not blame us, blame yourselves...

"As for those who lie to people and say that we hate freedom and kill for the sake of killing - reality proves that we are the speakers of truth and they lie, because the killing of the Russians took place only after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya; the killing of the Europeans took place only after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; the killing of the Americans in the Battle of New York took place only after their support for the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian Peninsula; their killing in Somalia happened only after Operation Restore Hope. We restored [i.e. repelled] them without hope, by the grace of Allah."


Yes, and after Spain withdrew from Iraq they got another bomb on a train line as a going away gift.
The only way Al Qaeda will have any chance of success in the war on terror is to splinter the west. By offering a peace treaty to European nations bin Laden was hoping to create more factions in the west and weaken their resolve. By signing a peace treaty with a terrorist group you are condoning their activities and are a terrorist yourself. There is only one acceptable result and that is the destruction of Al Qaeda and terrorism. Appeasement is not an option.

Peave between Al Qaida and Europe. How convenient ... for Al Qaida.

During this peace Al Qaida can build their network and logistics, gather resources, do recruitment and training and generally prepare. So when the day comes that Europe should support something not to the terrorist likings, they're prepared to do what it takes through terror to force Europe back into a new period of peace and servility.

Here's a simple fact. When you're fighting terrorism, the terrorists will fight back. That's why there's an increased amount of terrorism towards those fighting.

When someone is targetted by terrorism, it's an indication that that someone is doing the right thing!
Which brings us back to the "rule of fear and oppression". You cannot assume that Al Qaeda would do what you say. You have no precedende, no evidence proving otherwise. If you do, show it to me and I'll check it out. What Al Qaeda did so far was as a reaction to aggression against Islamic people by the US, Europe or Russia. Read what Osama apparently said about a peace treaty with Europe. We could have accepted it and see if they meant what they said or refuse it and see if they would still not attack us. I would accept a peace treaty if I have no reason to believe that its a worthless peace treaty. I dont trust Bush any more than I trust Osama, so either way makes no difference.

Had Europe "signed" the peace treaty and Al Qaeda had still attacked us, it would have been reinforcement for the US strategies and the "war against terrorism". Unfortunately we will never know. Afaik no European nation reacted to this speech and thus now Osama can say, he gave us a chance for peace and we refused it. Fear and oppression.. yes, I am sure thats how the world will end.

What pre 9/11 agression are you talking about?

If general 'imperialism', I've already covered that issue in a previous answer to you.

Also terrorist cells in Europe was also prepared pre 9/11.

What pre 9/11 agression are you talking about?

If general 'imperialism', I've already covered that issue in a previous answer to you.
Read the Osama speech. He says why they did 9/11.

Which brings us back to the "rule of fear and oppression". You cannot assume that Al Qaeda would do what you say. You have no precedende, no evidence proving otherwise. If you do, show it to me and I'll check it out. What Al Qaeda did so far was as a reaction to aggression against Islamic people by the US, Europe or Russia. Read what Osama apparently said about a peace treaty with Europe. We could have accepted it and see if they meant what they said or refuse it and see if they would still not attack us. I would accept a peace treaty if I have no reason to believe that its a worthless peace treaty. I dont trust Bush any more than I trust Osama, so either way makes no difference.

We can only hope that naive people like you never lead their country. With such short-sightedness and selfishness it could only lead to disaster.

We can only hope that naive people like you never lead their country. With such short-sightedness and selfishness it could only lead to disaster.
Short-sightened and selfish how? Because I dont buy into the fear mongering the US spread? You'll have to be a littlemore convincing with hard evidence before I can consider your "facts" worth the letters they are written with. Seeing how incompetent the CIA and other intelligence agencies world wide are, I am sceptical that anything I read about terrorism these days holds any truth.

Short-sightened and selfish how? Because I dont buy into the fear mongering the US spread? You'll have to be a littlemore convincing with hard evidence before I can consider your "facts" worth the letters they are written with. Seeing how incompetent the CIA and other intelligence agencies world wide are, I am sceptical that anything I read about terrorism these days holds any truth.

I said naive, short-sighted and selfish.

Naive: believing a terrorist organisation who states that their aim is to convert everyone to Islam or kill them as infidels will honour a peace treaty with a huge non-Muslim region of the world.

Short-sighted: looking only at now and not tomorrow. Seeing Iraq as a disaster when it is currently undergoing rebuilding..you are aware that Germany took decades to rebuild after WWII...of course..you are German. Thinking that because Germany is not involved in Iraq that it is not a terrorist target (that could come under naive also).

Selfish: declaring that you would sign a treaty with a terrorist group or groups to save your own arse. What you are saying in a long winded and roundabout way is "I don't care how many people get killed by Al Qaeda as long as we kiss their arse we will be safe." Also could be classified as naive.

So while other nations make sacrifices to remove a threat to the safety of EVERYONE you are happy to sit back and kiss terrorist's arses all in the hope that you don't get blown up. I am sure, if the war is successful, you will bask in the freedom of a world without terrorism. Or will you cry out for your lost allies?

Read the Osama speech. He says why they did 9/11.
First, this is propaganda. Believing that what Osama says in propaganda is really what Osama means is naive.

Second, this is the motives. Motives and the cause behind them are two different things.

Third, this is the extremist speaking. Extremists will always exist. What really is interesting is how the extremist recruits people. What are the motives and the causes behind the foot soldiers. Foot soldiers are a necessary resource. And this resource can be limited. And this I've adressed before.
*

So while other nations make sacrifices to remove a threat to the safety of EVERYONE you are happy to sit back and kiss terrorist's arses all in the hope that you don't get blown up. I am sure, if the war is successful, you will bask in the freedom of a world without terrorism. Or will you cry out for your lost allies?
Terrorists are not a threat to the safety of everyone. Right now, terrorists are a threat to the safety of nations that helped the US attack Iraq and the US itself. I see no reason why we would cry for allies. Those who we are allied with usually respect our pov and work to reach a compromise that is acceptable for all. The US are not considered an ally in my eyes. You want to do things your way, go ahead. But don't expect us to help you with illegal wars and murdering of people that are not your concern. If you want to fuel terrorism that way, go ahead. Its terrorism that will come right back to you. What's another high buidling in NY? Maybe you should watch out :)

Terrorists are not a threat to the safety of everyone. Right now, terrorists are a threat to the safety of nations that helped the US attack Iraq and the US itself.

And just in case there were any doubts about your naivity. Terrorism is a threat to EVERYONE. Your complacency is an invitation to disaster. As I would hope, and as was shown in the article earlier, your country does not share your blind faith in Al Qaeda.

I see no reason why we would cry for allies. Those who we are allied with usually respect our pov and work to reach a compromise that is acceptable for all. The US are not considered an ally in my eyes.

I was not referring to the US as your allies, I was referring to the terrorists you said you would sign a treaty with. Please read the posts carefully.

You want to do things your way, go ahead. But don't expect us to help you with illegal wars and murdering of people that are not your concern. If you want to fuel terrorism that way, go ahead. Its terrorism that will come right back to you. What's another high buidling in NY? Maybe you should watch out :)

Terrorism was around before the war in Iraq. The wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan were after the 9/11 attack. The war on terror will save lives in the end, a hell of a lot more lives would be saved if the UN put aside its pettiness and actually assisted in securing and rebuilding Iraq. Yet, you do not seem too concerned with terrorists murdering people that are not their concern.
Finally, I am not American so it is unlikely I will be a victim of an attack on a building in New York. That said, your delight at the prospect of such an event occurring pretty much sums up the piece of crap that you are.

Peave between Al Qaida and Europe. How convenient ... for Al Qaida.

During this peace Al Qaida can build their network and logistics, gather resources, do recruitment and training and generally prepare. So when the day comes that Europe should support something not to the terrorist likings, they're prepared to do what it takes through terror to force Europe back into a new period of peace and servility.

Here's a simple fact. When you're fighting terrorism, the terrorists will fight back. That's why there's an increased amount of terrorism towards those fighting.

When someone is targetted by terrorism, it's an indication that that someone is doing the right thing!
there is a difference between a terrorist attack and a normal attack. terrorist attacks have increased, that does not include skirmishes between other people, thos are not terrorist attacks

and you would think some one in charge would have half a clue how to fight terrorists. YOU DONT TARGET PEOPLE IN A WAR ON TERRORISM, that makes martyrs. bush loves to point out how terrorists arnt an organzied fighting force so he doesnt have to give the mgeneva convention status but he likes to pretend they are when fighting them, he pretends the war on terrori is a war o na person, not on an idea

Yes, and after Spain withdrew from Iraq they got another bomb on a train line as a going away gift.
The only way Al Qaeda will have any chance of success in the war on terror is to splinter the west. By offering a peace treaty to European nations bin Laden was hoping to create more factions in the west and weaken their resolve. By signing a peace treaty with a terrorist group you are condoning their activities and are a terrorist yourself. There is only one acceptable result and that is the destruction of Al Qaeda and terrorism. Appeasement is not an option.
the bomb was BEFORE they withdrew troops from iraq, try and do research before blithering

I said naive, short-sighted and selfish.

Naive: believing a terrorist organisation who states that their aim is to convert everyone to Islam or kill them as infidels will honour a peace treaty with a huge non-Muslim region of the world.

Short-sighted: looking only at now and not tomorrow. Seeing Iraq as a disaster when it is currently undergoing rebuilding..you are aware that Germany took decades to rebuild after WWII...of course..you are German. Thinking that because Germany is not involved in Iraq that it is not a terrorist target (that could come under naive also).

Selfish: declaring that you would sign a treaty with a terrorist group or groups to save your own arse. What you are saying in a long winded and roundabout way is "I don't care how many people get killed by Al Qaeda as long as we kiss their arse we will be safe." Also could be classified as naive.

So while other nations make sacrifices to remove a threat to the safety of EVERYONE you are happy to sit back and kiss terrorist's arses all in the hope that you don't get blown up. I am sure, if the war is successful, you will bask in the freedom of a world without terrorism. Or will you cry out for your lost allies?
clue time

without support for the US or Israel, germany is NOT a target for al-quieda, there are much larger fish to fry and hopefully some one will learn how to fight terrorism before they are taken out

And just in case there were any doubts about your naivity. Terrorism is a threat to EVERYONE. Your complacency is an invitation to disaster. As I would hope, and as was shown in the article earlier, your country does not share your blind faith in Al Qaeda.

My faith is not blind. I am willing to give people the chance of proving themselves. If they fail, then they wasted that chance. However, our government decided to not give them that chance at all. Had we signed a "peace treaty" and Bin Laden had violated it, then you would have much more support from me and others in the war against terrorism. So I cannot understand why you are so adamantly against giving people the chance to prove their intentions? Would you rather want me and the rest of Germany to "share blind faith" in the US and Bush? After what happened with the UN, the lies and atrocities in Iraq? No way. That it happened anyway just proves my point. Bush was not trustworthy when he came to power and he never will be trustworthy, even if he gets another 4 years. As long as he is in power, I will oppose US foreign policy (imperialism).


I was not referring to the US as your allies, I was referring to the terrorists you said you would sign a treaty with. Please read the posts carefully.

Signing a "peace treaty" with the leader of a terrorist organisation does not make them allies. We would not help them directly, as allies would do. Instead we'd give them the chance to prove their intentions to us. No peace treaty = no chance for peace. Peace treaty = a chance for peace and security. At least for Europe that could have been an option. If this "treaty" had failed, and Al Qaeda had still attacked Europe, then their intention would have bene clear as day and I'd not have to argue with you now.


Terrorism was around before the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq and in Afghanistan was after the 9/11 attack. The war on terror will save lives in the end, a hell of a lot more lives would be saved if the UN put aside its pettiness and actually assisted in securing and rebuilding Iraq. Yet, you do not seem too concerned with terrorists murdering people that are not their concern.
Finally, I am not American so it is unlikely I will be a victim of an attack on a building in New York. That said you delight at the prospect of such an event occurring pretty much sums up the piece of crap that you are.
Terrorism was around before the war on Iraq just like US imperialism was around before the war on Iraq and will continue to be around. Unilateral decisions, ignoring the UN and long-time allies, does not change that image, in fact it reinforces it.

I do not wish the US another attack on a NY building, but it is possible that it will happen again. Even more so now, that terorrism is rising each year and reaching new heights of violence and bloodshed. The US are not immune to attacks on their own soil and will never be, unless they eradicate all of mankind around them and remove all civil freedoms from their own population. You can try to prevent terrorist attacks in your own country, like we do in Germany. But you cannot prevent them by bombing countries to hell and back. Sure, you remove the terrorist camps in that country, but with the civilian casualties and your mere presence in a region of the world where you are not welcome, you fuel terrorism in other regions and once you are gone from the country (Iraq), terrorism can just as easily restart. It is a movement among arab people, not just a small group that needs to be hunted and "bombed out of their holes". With aggression, you produce counter-aggression.

4) Their respect couldn't get much lower... Like it or not, the world hates the most advanced super power. They've been hating us since the early 1950's.


Right. I've had just about enough of this shit.

Can you kindly go and shove your ego. Yes thats right - the big thing inside your brain that gives you a superiority complex. And shove it up your fucking arse? I live in Europe, a hotbed of Intellectual discussion on America's foreign policy (otherwise dismissed in 'the land of the free' as 'anti-americanism') and I can safely say no-one of these people are jealous of America in any way.

I mean what are they jealous of? The fact they have the largest economy in the World and can't provide basic health care? The fact that some inner city LA and New York areas are equivalent to that of a third world country? The fact Over 30 Million people live in poverty? The fact your Corporations are so unregulated - they could effectively commit genocide and get away with it?

Wake up you moron!

People don't like America because its Foreign Policy encourages double standards, no wait, it actively pursues double standards. Props up tyranical regimes it likes, gets rid of those it no longer deems an asset (always using humanitarian intervention as a guise) and destabilizes the whole world with thier cowboy politics.

Sorry for the large amount of swearing - I really just hate fuckheads like this who think people hate America due to 'jealousy', it really isn't true - and furthermore - its a myth actively pursued and forwarded by the American Right.

*applause*

*applause too*

the bomb was BEFORE they withdrew troops from iraq, try and do research before blithering

Actually they found another one that had not been detonated shortly after the withdrawal.

A bomb was found on April 2nd 2004 on a train line.

On the evening of Saturday April 3rd, the police trapped the terrorist cell (headed by Jamal Zougam, Serhane Abdelmaji "the Tunisian" and Jamal Ahmidan "the Chinese") suspected of being the material authors of the attacks in their apartment in Leganés, south of Madrid. At 9:03 pm, when the police started to assault the premises (which by then had already been evacuated), the terrorists decided to immolate themselves, causing a big explosion which also killed one of the policemen. The investigators also found that the explosives used in the March 11th attacks and in the Leganés explosion were of the same type as the 12 kg used in the thwarted bombing of the high-speed train AVE just a day before on April 2nd. The investigation on how the terrorists got those explosives (a total of around 200 kg) is currently being undertaken. The police believes that there are others involved in the March 11th attacks who managed to escape.

(Source: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/March_11,_2004_Madrid_attacks)

Spain withdrew from Iraq in mid-March 2004 as shown by this article:

http://globalsecurity.com/world_politics/spain's_decision.htm


Amazing what a little research can find....

clue time

without support for the US or Israel, germany is NOT a target for al-quieda, there are much larger fish to fry and hopefully some one will learn how to fight terrorism before they are taken out

Then why the security measures if Germany is 100% safe?

Then why the security measures if Germany is 100% safe?
its not 100% safe, its just a pointless target, there is no reason to attack them specifically, there are other people to take care of first: britain, america, and anyone else supporting america

Actually they found another one that had not been detonated shortly after the withdrawal.

A bomb was found on April 2nd 2004 on a train line.



(Source: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/March_11,_2004_Madrid_attacks)

Spain withdrew from Iraq in mid-March 2004 as shown by this article:

http://globalsecurity.com/world_politics/spain's_decision.htm


Amazing what a little research can find....
they still withdrew troops after the bombing,

In reply...
2) Wow really? I haven't seen a city go up in a mushroom cloud, or a plane fly into a building since 9/11. You must have seen something I haven't, or you must be living on another world, because there hasnt been a terrorist attack since 9/11 on our home soil.


Man oh man am I sick of people using this argument. You're right, yes, there hasn't been an attack on US mainland soil since 9/11/01 ...

Then again, *before* 9/11/01 there hadn't been a foreign terrorist attack on US mainland soil since 1993 - but ya'll would never give Bill Clinton credit for that, would ya? Of course not.

Bush - 13 votes
Hussein - 19 votes
Opal - 12 votes.

I hate that you guys can't see that I am smarter than George W. Bush, but I can't blame you for calling Hussein smarter than me. Anyways, at least I'm close...

WOW 6 pages and alot of rhetoric and alot of facts with baseless rebuttals.

Ok US Warships and Embassies are considered US SOIL!

Thus 1993 was an attack on US Soil (WTC parking garage)
1998 was an attack on US Soil (Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania)
2000 was an attack on US Soil (USS Cole)

so far I counted 4 attacks on US Soil, all under the Clinton Administration!

2001 was an attack on US Soil (WTC both towers, the pentagon and Pennsylvania!

Yesterday an attack on US Embassy in Uzbekistan!

That is (since 2001 was all on US National and not US Foreign Soil), 2 terror attacks on US Soil!

WOW 6 pages and alot of rhetoric and alot of facts with baseless rebuttals.

Ok US Warships and Embassies are considered US SOIL!

Thus 1993 was an attack on US Soil (WTC parking garage)
1998 was an attack on US Soil (Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania)
2000 was an attack on US Soil (USS Cole)

so far I counted 4 attacks on US Soil, all under the Clinton Administration!

2001 was an attack on US Soil (WTC both towers, the pentagon and Pennsylvania!

Yesterday an attack on US Embassy in Uzbekistan!

That is (since 2001 was all on US National and not US Foreign Soil), 2 terror attacks on US Soil!
So...2 attacks on America in 4 years (.5) vs 3 attacks on Americans in 8 years (.375). Bush has a better batting average...however, Middle East terrorism has increased dramatically as well...

EDIT: Sorry, that was 4/8 so Clinton and Bush are tied. But Mid East terrorism still increased.

Ok US Warships and Embassies are considered US SOIL!



I said mainland US soil.

I said mainland US soil.
Since when did attacks on citizens that aren't Americans or attacks that aren't on US soil stop being Terrorism?

In reply...
1) What war? More people in the US will die tonight from murder than a serviceman in Iraq.

2) Wow really? I haven't seen a city go up in a mushroom cloud, or a plane fly into a building since 9/11. You must have seen something I haven't, or you must be living on another world, because there hasnt been a terrorist attack since 9/11 on our home soil.

3) Half of this country hated Bushy bush before the war started...

4) Their respect couldn't get much lower... Like it or not, the world hates the most advanced super power. They've been hating us since the early 1950's.

5)Right... and that is why we have been hit with many terrorist attacks, right?

6)Yea... And he's living in a hole. Great way to be at large. (although, you may be right that he is in a prison to be released right before the elections. That would sure as hell sway the vote, wouldn't it... Maybe Bush isn't as stupid as you think.)

7) Uhm? What is your point here? We have him. He is rotting away in an american cell. Bush is not rotting away in an Iraqi cell? What is your point?

BEWM
Nicely done.
Neways, this is stupid. There have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. If they happen in the Middle East, why should we care? They complain so much about the US that you would think they could stop blowing each other up long enough to fight. Saddam is so f-ing brilliant that he takes a limited number of men, puts them up against the most powerful army in the world, and then tells whoever lives and doesn't get captured to go blow themselves up. He can't stop killing his own people long enough to fight the US! At this rate, the war will be over soon. That is because every single Iraqi will have either been blown up or blown themselves up. Then we can build a really big mall/waterpark over Iraqi and put that land to good use.

And besides, people can hate America all they want, but the truth is that the only power behind the UN is us. In fact, the cornerstone to the entire world economy is us. That is why we can afford to take out Afghanistan, and a dick like Saddam too if we want to. Like it or not, those are good things for the world. It's not like we needed anyone to help us. And if someone thinks, they might realise that if a terrorist faction pulled off a truly devastating attack, it would probably crash the US economy. If that happens, we pull the rest of the world with us. So as far as I'm concerned, the US is just looking out for the rest of the world, while lookin out for numero uno at the same time.

Buggard

"Implying that arabs are unable to form a democracy is frankly racism. I'm not calling you a racist, I don't believe that you are. It's jsut the argument."

Well: Elections doesn´t solve anything. Democracy needs a certain social, political and economic development. Just think of Algeria. The democratic elections in 1991 resulted in the victory of Islamists (fortunately the Algerian military prevented them from power). That would be also the case in many arab countries if there are free elections (for example in Egypt or even in Jorden - and propably also in Iraq).
After all: Hitler and his party achieved a relative majority in elections as well.

So: elections alone are not a solution giving the hatred, the economic underdevelopment of a potentially prosperous region, the nationalism, islamism, anti-semitism and anti-americanism in that region.
I think the US needs partners to find a way to push for changes in the region and to stabilize it. However: the partners must be willing to act as partners and not as Chirac or Schröder.
Blair played a very important role here to keep the transatlantic alliance alive. After all: 13 out of the 25 EU members pledge support to the US. Only 4 countries openly opposed it (France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg). That are important countries, but they are not Europe, they are only a part of Europe. And a huge other part worked with the US.

Hitler only got a seat in parliament type election. He gained the rest of the rulingship after he got the whole thing filled wioth his party (kinda like Bush did to win the 2000 electoral election after losing the popular lol)
After this he threatened to stalement everything unless he was made leader.
The guy gave in and so Hitler became a ruler.


And besides, people can hate America all they want, but the truth is that the only power behind the UN is us. In fact, the cornerstone to the entire world economy is us. That is why we can afford to take out Afghanistan, and a dick like Saddam too if we want to. Like it or not, those are good things for the world. It's not like we needed anyone to help us. And if someone thinks, they might realise that if a terrorist faction pulled off a truly devastating attack, it would probably crash the US economy. If that happens, we pull the rest of the world with us. So as far as I'm concerned, the US is just looking out for the rest of the world, while lookin out for numero uno at the same time.

Yes and that spliting the troops is why we only have control over the capital in Afganistan the rest is owned by terrorist and warlords. Gee, I feel safe.
Look you and I both know that we should have freed afganistan(of all Al-queda and rest of Terorrist there) before taking on Iraq. You can't seriuiosly tell me you'd rather send 10% of your troops than 30% so it gets down quicker and more efficient.
You'll probably say, "but we took out Taliban." But theres still lots o terrorist in Afganistan I say. So we should have finished the job before attacking Iraq, no?

BEWM
Nicely done.
Neways, this is stupid. There have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. If they happen in the Middle East, why should we care? They complain so much about the US that you would think they could stop blowing each other up long enough to fight. Saddam is so f-ing brilliant that he takes a limited number of men, puts them up against the most powerful army in the world, and then tells whoever lives and doesn't get captured to go blow themselves up. He can't stop killing his own people long enough to fight the US! At this rate, the war will be over soon. That is because every single Iraqi will have either been blown up or blown themselves up. Then we can build a really big mall/waterpark over Iraqi and put that land to good use.
That's bullshit right there. We cared enough about them to justify Bush's crusade but since we subjected them to unheard of amounts of terror it doesn't matter because they're not Americans? Fucking indispicable prick. And yes he is brilliant. You and I and the rest of the world know that there is no way that even the entire Iraq population could hold back Bush's coalition even if it was just us and the UK. Casualties would just be higher. Think about the Revolutionary War. When the Rebels knew they were outnumbered and out-trained they took to the hills and conducted geurilla warfare, exactly like what is going on in Iraq. And it's more successful for them. They aren't trying to win the war. They know that's impossible.

You just walked into this one you fool. You seem to care enough about the the Middle Eastern population to use increased terrorist attacks as a crutch to support your dipshit ideals. However, you don't care enough to support a war that will liberate them. I happen to know exactly what I said, and the reason I worded it that way was just so that you would answer the way you did. From now on, choose a side, don't work em both.

You just walked into this one you fool. You seem to care enough about the the Middle Eastern population to use increased terrorist attacks as a crutch to support your dipshit ideals. However, you don't care enough to support a war that will liberate them. I happen to know exactly what I said, and the reason I worded it that way was just so that you would answer the way you did. From now on, choose a side, don't work em both.
I don't care what side America is on as long as America is on one side, which we apparantly weren't. I would have preferred we stayed out of Iraq, but since we didn't we have the responsibility of making sure it's not just one huge hell-hole. I didn't want to go into Iraq not because I don't care about the Middle East but because I didn't feel that Iraq was a threat to us and I kind of had a feeling that overthrowing a dictatorship in Iraq would turn out about the same as overthrowing a government in Afghanistan, and guess what? It did. Only worse.

By the way, don't be a hypocrite. You gotta choose a side to, so which is it for you?

And besides, people can hate America all they want, but the truth is that the only power behind the UN is us. In fact, the cornerstone to the entire world economy is us. That is why we can afford to take out Afghanistan, and a dick like Saddam too if we want to. Like it or not, those are good things for the world. It's not like we needed anyone to help us. And if someone thinks, they might realise that if a terrorist faction pulled off a truly devastating attack, it would probably crash the US economy. If that happens, we pull the rest of the world with us. So as far as I'm concerned, the US is just looking out for the rest of the world, while lookin out for numero uno at the same time.

That's gotta be the biggest pile of steaming crap I've ever seen spewed forth from the stinking, gaping mouth of an American. Go back to Texas and herd your cattle, thats where you belong.

At the same time, fuck off from the UN and dont ask Europe to pay for rebuilding the Iraq you destroyed. Pay for it yourself and see how good it does your economy if you have to support an entire nation. With pricks like you supporting Bush and his cronies, the risk of terrorist attacks on *your* soil grow a ton because you even enrage people like me by saying such idiotic shit which is exactly why the majority of the world hates the US.

WOW 6 pages and alot of rhetoric and alot of facts with baseless rebuttals.

Ok US Warships and Embassies are considered US SOIL!

Thus 1993 was an attack on US Soil (WTC parking garage)
1998 was an attack on US Soil (Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania)
2000 was an attack on US Soil (USS Cole)

so far I counted 4 attacks on US Soil, all under the Clinton Administration!

2001 was an attack on US Soil (WTC both towers, the pentagon and Pennsylvania!

Yesterday an attack on US Embassy in Uzbekistan!

That is (since 2001 was all on US National and not US Foreign Soil), 2 terror attacks on US Soil!
embassies are technicalluy us soil, but guess what they ARNT in the US, try again
uss cole - boat.
and the first bombing was a engineered car bomb, that was so obvious

lets see 2001, 4 hijacked passenger airlines, 2 rammed into scyscrapers, one downed in a PA field. tell me how hard that is to not see and stop, especially after the first one.

and 93, 98, and 2000 ar THREE

That's gotta be the biggest pile of steaming crap I've ever seen spewed forth from the stinking, gaping mouth of an American. Go back to Texas and herd your cattle, thats where you belong.

At the same time, fuck off from the UN and dont ask Europe to pay for rebuilding the Iraq you destroyed. Pay for it yourself and see how good it does your economy if you have to support an entire nation. With pricks like you supporting Bush and his cronies, the risk of terrorist attacks on *your* soil grow a ton because you even enrage people like me by saying such idiotic shit which is exactly why the majority of the world hates the US.

Hey, asshole, in that case why don't you punk ass foreigners stop asking the US for billions of dollars to pay for shit you want to do. Anyone remember Kofi Annan recently asking the US for 1 billion to fight AIDS. You know why they come to the US for a billion dollars? Because nobody else can give it to them. So why don't you go tell your French whore of a wife to shave her fucking armpits, and afterwards she can fly over here and turn a trick for a $5. You little prick, I'm from South Carolina, and if you are enraged then I encourage you and your country to come on over to the South. We'll hand you your asses even without the military. The reason you hate the US is because you need it. Without us, there is no world organization, or at least not and effective one. Like I said, if you are that pissed, I'll pay for you to fly over here and get your ass handed to you.

And Opal, I have picked a side. I support the war because in the long run it will be a huge benefit. And honestly, I don't really care if there are more terrorist attacks in the Middle East, IMHO, it is their own fault for walking around blowing each other up. If they were smart, they would actually attack Americans. Thank God they haven't does as much of that.

BEWM
Nicely done.
Neways, this is stupid. There have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. If they happen in the Middle East, why should we care? They complain so much about the US that you would think they could stop blowing each other up long enough to fight. Saddam is so f-ing brilliant that he takes a limited number of men, puts them up against the most powerful army in the world, and then tells whoever lives and doesn't get captured to go blow themselves up. He can't stop killing his own people long enough to fight the US! At this rate, the war will be over soon. That is because every single Iraqi will have either been blown up or blown themselves up. Then we can build a really big mall/waterpark over Iraqi and put that land to good use.

And besides, people can hate America all they want, but the truth is that the only power behind the UN is us. In fact, the cornerstone to the entire world economy is us. That is why we can afford to take out Afghanistan, and a dick like Saddam too if we want to. Like it or not, those are good things for the world. It's not like we needed anyone to help us. And if someone thinks, they might realise that if a terrorist faction pulled off a truly devastating attack, it would probably crash the US economy. If that happens, we pull the rest of the world with us. So as far as I'm concerned, the US is just looking out for the rest of the world, while lookin out for numero uno at the same time.
another person who believes iraq is responsible for 9/11, you have to be pretty damn stupid to still believe that

In reply...
1) What war? More people in the US will die tonight from murder than a serviceman in Iraq.

Maybe that has something to do with there being a lot more people in the US than there are servicemen in Iraq. I think if you were to do it by percentages, it might be a little different outlook.

Since when did attacks on citizens that aren't Americans or attacks that aren't on US soil stop being Terrorism?

Where did I say such attacks weren't terrorism?

I was talking about US mainland soil and about nothing but US mainland soil.

Geeze ... no wonder your poll doesn't have you as smarter than Bush. :p

Thanks for ignoring my reply to you Hades.

sorry, didn't see it at first

look at the end of my other post

Where did I say such attacks weren't terrorism?

I was talking about US mainland soil and about nothing but US mainland soil.

Geeze ... no wonder your poll doesn't have you as smarter than Bush. :p
Haha. Yea...but I never said mainland terrorism is at an all time high, but you guys are saying "Mainland US Terror hasn't happened since 9/11!!!1!one!!1" when my original post said "Terrorism is at an all time high" and I didn't limit it.

sorry, didn't see it at first

look at the end of my other post
As long as you've admitted to not caring about Iraqis then I've got no beef with ya.

Hey, asshole, in that case why don't you punk ass foreigners stop asking the US for billions of dollars to pay for shit you want to do. Anyone remember Kofi Annan recently asking the US for 1 billion to fight AIDS. You know why they come to the US for a billion dollars? Because nobody else can give it to them. So why don't you go tell your French whore of a wife to shave her fucking armpits, and afterwards she can fly over here and turn a trick for a $5. You little prick, I'm from South Carolina, and if you are enraged then I encourage you and your country to come on over to the South. We'll hand you your asses even without the military. The reason you hate the US is because you need it. Without us, there is no world organization, or at least not and effective one. Like I said, if you are that pissed, I'll pay for you to fly over here and get your ass handed to you.

And Opal, I have picked a side. I support the war because in the long run it will be a huge benefit. And honestly, I don't really care if there are more terrorist attacks in the Middle East, IMHO, it is their own fault for walking around blowing each other up. If they were smart, they would actually attack Americans. Thank God they haven't does as much of that.
Bah.. I'd rather have a French wife with hairy armpits than a fat, wobbling pile of steaming shit called an American.

That Saddam was no angel in his own country is clear. However, it is not up to the US to decide what is right for the Iraqi people. Once upon a time, the US encouraged the kurds to revolt against Saddam and then abandoned them which resulted in the dead "hundreds of thousands" you now cite as reason for your war.

Furthermore, a bunch of those Kurds died as a result of chemical and biological agents supplied to Mr. Hussein by those conservative idols, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, who gave them to him despite knowing he had used similiar weaponry against humans and would probably repeat such actions.

Furthermore, a bunch of those Kurds died as a result of chemical and biological agents supplied to Mr. Hussein by those conservative idols, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, who gave them to him despite knowing he had used similiar weaponry against humans and would probably repeat such actions.
Tons of Iraqis have been dieing from cancer from depleted uranium from left over weaponry from the first Gulf War as well...

Bah.. I'd rather have a French wife with hairy armpits than a fat, wobbling pile of steaming shit called an American.
Eh...let's not make cultural attacks? Not all Americans are fat and not all French women are hairy.

Eh...let's not make cultural attacks? Not all Americans are fat and not all French women are hairy.
Tell that to Hadessomething. I got no issues wit hthe average, informed American, but I have issues with the uninformed idiots like him that support Bush & Co.

Tell that to Hadessomething. I got no issues wit hthe average, informed American, but I have issues with the uninformed idiots like him that support Bush & Co.
Out of curiousity can I ask what country you are from?

Haha. Yea...but I never said mainland terrorism is at an all time high, but you guys are saying "Mainland US Terror hasn't happened since 9/11!!!1!one!!1" when my original post said "Terrorism is at an all time high" and I didn't limit it.

Oh I know ... and I agree 100% ... I was replying to the ass who pointed out the "no attacks on US soil since 9/11 thanks to Bush" by showing him the error of his ways.

Basically, you can't thank Bush for no attacks on US soil since 9/11 with the decision that only mainland US is the entirety of the US unless you can also thank Clinton (which no neocon would ever do, they blame him for everything bad that has ever happened in this country since July 4, 1776) for no attacks on US soil between 1993 and 2001 by using the same logic of what the US is.

I know ... I think I just confused myself ... shoulda taken Chaser(tm)

Out of curiousity can I ask what country you are from?
Germany.

Germany.
Okay. I kind of wish that Americans (I myself am an American) would wake up and realize that Europeans aren't dumb and there is probably a good reason such a large majority of them oppose the war. Have you heard any stats on polls as to how many Germans are opposed to the US's war in Iraq?

By the idiots who support Bush & Co., you do realize you are talking about a majority of the country right? And as for uninformed, I have an IQ of 140 and I have a 4.0 GPA. I also manage to play football and hockey, and I am going to Georgia Tech. So spare me your superior bullshit.

By the idiots who support Bush & Co., you do realize you are talking about a majority of the country right? And as for uninformed, I have an IQ of 140 and I have a 4.0 GPA. I also manage to play football and hockey, and I am going to Georgia Tech. So spare me your superior bullshit.
Uh...by a majority of the country, you do mean about 49% right? Another 49% hate Bush, and about 2% are undecided. Kinda fuzzy math logic for a compsci major...

Who is more foolish... the fool or the fool who follows him?

Your country elected him, dimwits.

This statement got to me, it was posted after a little 'discussion' by the Bush-trolls about the fate of the German nation post WWII.

If you look at the history of the rise of fascism in Germany, it is very clear that the German people did not vote that way. In fact, the party had less than a third of the support of the nation.

What they did, was disrupt the election. Party hardliners would be at the ballot boxes, checking the votes to ensure that they were for their party. The election that brought the madness of fascism to a proud country was, of course, rigged.

The election that brought ruin to a proud country was, of course, rigged.

Of course, in this day and age, all they'd have to do to ensure their party's victory is change a few numbers in a database. If that doesn't scare the hell out of you Americans, it should.

The revolution will not be televised, but that's a shame, cause if it were, it might be easier to get the American couch potatoes to support it.

By the idiots who support Bush & Co., you do realize you are talking about a majority of the country right? And as for uninformed, I have an IQ of 140 and I have a 4.0 GPA. I also manage to play football and hockey, and I am going to Georgia Tech. So spare me your superior bullshit.
1) last i checked bush's approvel rating was below 50%
2) your iq, gpa, college, and sports activities have jack shit with you being informed

Heh, our country did elect him I guess...but we elected Gore by about a half a million more...

By the idiots who support Bush & Co., you do realize you are talking about a majority of the country right? And as for uninformed, I have an IQ of 140 and I have a 4.0 GPA. I also manage to play football and hockey, and I am going to Georgia Tech. So spare me your superior bullshit.

I find college students to be among the most ill-informed people on the planet. They often either cannot see the forest for the trees or they are blind to the hand in front of their face.

As for your IQ, 140 falls in the category of "too smart to realize just how dumb you really are".

As for the 4.0 GPA, that shows you follow instructions well. Congrats.

College is prepatory ... we'll talk when you're in the real world.

Oh ... and I am a college grad ... Rice University.

:rolleyes:

Okay. I kind of wish that Americans (I myself am an American) would wake up and realize that Europeans aren't dumb and there is probably a good reason such a large majority of them oppose the war. Have you heard any stats on polls as to how many Germans are opposed to the US's war in Iraq?
There are a number of polls, a US made poll is here:
http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=456

Some more, also comparing European opinion on Bush and Clinton:

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=39

And another about the American image in Europe:

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=683

Without using namecalling, insults, and blame, I would have to challenge everyone here to think of the topic (Is Hussein smarter than Bush?) as a question that is not postulated correctly in the first place.

How do you measure intelligence (smartness)? Do you measure their aptitude on a test like the SAT, college entrance exam, street smarts, or how well they play Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy?

SATs and other college entrance exams are good for testing book smarts.


President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

~~~~
In his senior year, Bush applied to only two colleges, the University of Texas and Yale. Barbara Bush said in an interview that her son was determined to go to his father's alma mater, but knew it was not a sure thing that he would be admitted.

"George started hyping up the University of Texas, how he was going to love being a Longhorn," said Doug Hannah, a Houston friend who talked to Bush over Christmas holidays of his senior year. "My recollection was that he was shocked that he got into Yale."



History of Saddam Hussein
President of Iraq (1979 - ). Born April 28, 1937, in the poor farming village of Tikrit, Iraq, where he was raised by his widowed mother. In 1955, he moved to the neighboring city of Baghdad, where he became involved in the Arab Nationalist Movement. As a fervent member of the Arab Baath Socialist Party, Hussein orchestrated the 1959 assassination attempt of Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim. After the failed effort, Hussein escaped to Egypt. He settled in Cairo, where he attended the Cairo School of Law.

~~~~
Mustanseriya University, Baghdad, however he did not finish his college education.


Street Smarts

Street smarts are things you learn in your everyday life, your wit, your wisdom, your political and world views and your experiences at home, your neighborhood, etc.


Like his father, Bush could display good breeding along with his rough Texas edges. Several former classmates recall him going door to door with a sympathy card for a classmate from the West Indies – one of the few blacks on campus – who had lost his mother. Another classmate who hailed from a public school said he was struck by Bush's efforts to reach out beyond his social circle.

"George moved seamlessly among all the different groups," recalled Ken Cohen, today a dentist in Georgia. At the same time, Cohen noted, "he was a Bush and he had a sense of who he was ... his family tradition. He was not a rebel."

~~~
Lanny Davis, a Washington lawyer who was one of President Clinton's most visible defenders throughout various White House scandals, was a fraternity brother of Bush's and also lived in Davenport. During the height of the Clinton scandal last year, he suggested on national television that Bush might have some skeletons in his college closet, then quickly retracted the comment.

Davis says today he has only fond memories of Bush during those years and praised what he calls Bush's "analytical people skills."

"He could capture somebody's essence very quickly. What I remember is sitting around with George [and] listening to his analysis of people. He was extremely witty, which is something I don't see in his public persona today," said Davis.

"Was he a spoiled, wealthy kid? Absolutely not. And I say this as a Democrat who hopes he does not get elected. The one thing he conveyed was a lack of pretense. You never would have known who his father was, what kind family he came from. There was nothing hierarchical about him."



The man who would become known as the enemy of the Western world had beaten the odds before. Hussein grew up in Auja, a village of mud-brick huts northwest of Baghdad. His parents were poor farmers, but inspired by his uncle Khayrallah Tulfah, an Iraqi army officer and crusader for Arab unity, Hussein gravitated to politics as a teenager.
Saddam joined the socialist Baath party when he was 19. He made his mark three years later when he participated in a 1959 assassination attempt against Iraqi Prime Minister Abudul Karim Kassim. Saddam was shot in the leg during the botched effort and fled the country for several years, first to Syria, then Egypt.
In 1968 he helped lead the revolt that finally brought the Baath party to power under Gen. Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In the process, he landed the vice president’s post, from which he built an elaborate network of secret police to root out dissidents. Eleven years later he deposed Bakr and plastered the streets with 20-foot-high portraits of himself.

Saddam’s years as a revolutionary left him keenly aware of the danger of dissent. Shortly after taking office, he purged and murdered dozens of government officials suspected of disloyalty. In the early 1980s, he used chemical weapons to crush a Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq. Saddam’s power struggles extended well beyond his country’s borders; bent on dominating the Muslim world, he attacked neighboring countries. In 1980 he invaded Iran, launching an eight-year war that ended in stalemate.
In August 1990 he invaded the oil sheikdom of Kuwait, proclaiming it Iraq’s 19th province. He defied U.N. directives to retreat from Kuwait, provoking what he called “the mother of all battles,” the Persian Gulf War. That brief conflict decimated Saddam’s military forces, but he has managed to rebuild his republic and his power base, beginning with the secret police force.


My point for these quotes on Bush and Saddam is to show their extremely different lives, their view points on life. They both went to college. Bush struggled in some subjects, haven't we all. Saddam never finished college.
Bush was a maverick and loyal to his family. Saddam killed many people before he was 20 years old. Bush is Pro Life, Saddam obviously had no regard for life, killing 300,000 of his own people, genocide of Kurdish Iraqis.

Tell me, how does all this tell you who is the smarter man?
I believe intelligence is not as big a deal as having wisdom, charitability, and being just to all.

Well, OK then Keruvalia. Weren't you the one in the other post who said your family was rich? What, exactly, does that mean for you in the real world? As for being informed, it is only the fool who cannot think of anything else to say that tries to undermine his opponent's credibility. You are pathetic for falling to such a sham tactic. Obviously you couldn't debate for shit, so you had to resort to something as weak as this. Keruvalia, you don't know shit about college students. You may think you know more because of experience, but remember the old saying. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. The fact is, the older you get the less likely you are to be open to new ideas. So you can take your superior attitude and shove it up your pompous ass. If you have something of value to say, please go ahead.

I should also point out that Bush is still ahead of Kerry in the percentages, although by margins of 1 or 2 percent. That is why I said it was a majority of the country. It is, at least, a majority of the part of the country that has decided.

Well, OK then Keruvalia. Weren't you the one in the other post who said your family was rich? What, exactly, does that mean for you in the real world? As for being informed, it is only the fool who cannot think of anything else to say that tries to undermine his opponent's credibility. You are pathetic for falling to such a sham tactic. Obviously you couldn't debate for shit, so you had to resort to something as weak as this. Keruvalia, you don't know shit about college students. You may think you know more because of experience, but remember the old saying. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. The fact is, the older you get the less likely you are to be open to new ideas. So you can take your superior attitude and shove it up your pompous ass. If you have something of value to say, please go ahead.
you are naive and egotistical, both are quite obvious for listing bullshit like gpa and iq to show how informed you are then bitching about other peopel not being informed as you cuz they are older


if you want to convince me you are informed why dont you list some daily habits or some informatory classes: i read the news everyday and my school places top 10 in the nation in the "we the people" competetion which involves an in depth knowledge of the government and government policies

HadesRulesMuch, I think your foul mouth is uncalled for in any forum discussion. Does name calling and using profane language make you feel better, more superior? State what you think or believe or agree with or disagree with without all the foul mouth talk. I beg of you.

There are a number of polls, a US made poll is here:
http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=456

Some more, also comparing European opinion on Bush and Clinton:

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=39

And another about the American image in Europe:

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=683
Thanks.

Peave between Al Qaida and Europe. How convenient ... for Al Qaida.

During this peace Al Qaida can build their network and logistics, gather resources, do recruitment and training and generally prepare. So when the day comes that Europe should support something not to the terrorist likings, they're prepared to do what it takes through terror to force Europe back into a new period of peace and servility.

Here's a simple fact. When you're fighting terrorism, the terrorists will fight back. That's why there's an increased amount of terrorism towards those fighting.

When someone is targetted by terrorism, it's an indication that that someone is doing the right thing!

I agree with you. By the way: there are many things Al Quaida doesn´t like about Germany and France: their membership in Nato, the leading role Germany plays in Afghanistan (France has also troops there as a matter of fact) and a new law passed in France - which I applaude - banning the scarf in schools - also for the students.
Al Quaida reacted to the bill with terror threads. None the less it was passed of course with the conservative and even most of the political left supporting it.
In Germany that is now also under discussion. How ever less far going: It is about teachers wearing the scarf. The supreme court ruled that it is a state issue (for the 16 german states to decide) and that they need a legal basis for that. So: Many german states - mainly those with conservative-liberal governments (which are currently most of the states) but also the left-wing ruled stated of Berlin (government of the SPD and the former communists of East Germany: the PDS) have passed or are going to pass laws soon to ban the scarf for teachers.
Of course a thing Al Quaida rejects because it restricts the room islamists of all kind can operate and infiltrate our state instituitions.
Furthernmore the crack-down on islamists organisations which the interior minister Otto Schily introduced - one of the very few ministers in the current administration which does a good job - is a thing they don´t like as well.

The offer is a propaganda trick. You can not give up to terrorists. That is an experience Germany actually knows from the past in the battle against domestic terrorism: RAF (the Red Army fraction) began that in the 70s. In 1975 the government responded to blackmail after the hostage taking of conservative politican Peter Lorenz (CDU) with fulfiling the demands of the terrorists and releasing prisoners. The effect was that they felt encouraged to continue their evil actions. Many of the released participated in future terrorist attacks. In autum 1977 the RAF finally started several attacks: taking hostage the chairman of the organisation of employers and taking an airplane of Lufthansa hostage to Mogadischu (Somalia).
At that time the goverment didn´t repeat the mistakes of 1975 and stood firm in opposing the terrorism. The plaine was stormed by a special unit, the terrorist mostly killed or captured.
A policy of strength finally led to the decline of this organisation which doesn´t even exist anymore.
Giving up to terrorism always means to encourage the terrorists. That is actually a message the political class of Germany (West Germany) has learned. And since Germany today is from its population more than 80% West German - as well as the political class - I´m shure that remains the case.
You have to know that Giga is from the east. They have a different history at that time. After all: as we heard after the reunification the communists even gave some terrorists save haeven - of course not publicly but privately.
I do assume that Iran, Syria and others may do that as well - not publicly admitting it of course. But it can not be excluded.

To shorten the search for you, 82% of the Germans opposed the Iraq war. Note however that this opposition was due to the way Bush went about it. Had he gotten a UN mandate or had the UN weapons inspectors found any WMD, this number would most likely have been in support of an Iraq war.

I sincerely hope that all ties are severed, aside from trade of course, and Europe can fend for themselves.

And should a European country capture a terrorist or have information concerning terrorism that the US hasn't found, would you prefer that they share it, or keep it to themselves?

I got a better idea. If you want to go forum police on me, then do it to every other guy who posts a curse word. Otherwise, shut your hypocritical mouth. I should point out that this is not name-calling, because unless you harass all posters equally and not simply the ones you disagree with, then you are a hypocrit.

And OK Chess Squares, I'll list my daily habits for you. I do read the news paper, (I started because I was getting so bored at work, then decided I actually liked it). I am on my schools debate team. I am also number two in the county on the Academic team, and many of the questions used in the contests are based in current events. I watch C-SPAN (which no one does), and I spend half my time on the internet looking at forums like this one learning about whats going on and checking other people's facts as well as my own. As far as informed goes, I'm not too bad. As far as naive and egotistical goes, well, thats just plain stupid.

To shorten the search for you, 82% of the Germans opposed the Iraq war. Note however that this opposition was due to the way Bush went about it. Had he gotten a UN mandate or had the UN weapons inspectors found any WMD, this number would most likely have been in support of an Iraq war.
Yea...the US approval of the war would have been higher too because there are a few Americans who pay attention to the world. I don't know if it would've been much more than 1-2% however...because they pay-attentioners aren't a large portion of America...

I agree with you. By the way: there are many things Al Quaida doesn´t like about Germany and France: their membership in Nato, the leading role Germany plays in Afghanistan (France has also troops there as a matter of fact) and a new law passed in France - which I applaude - banning the scarf in schools - also for the students.
Al Quaida reacted to the bill with terror threads. None the less it was passed of course with the conservative and even most of the political left supporting it.
In Germany that is now also under discussion. How ever less far going: It is about teachers wearing the scarf. The supreme court ruled that it is a state issue (for the 16 german states to decide) and that they need a legal basis for that. So: Many german states - mainly those with conservative-liberal governments (which are currently most of the states) but also the left-wing ruled stated of Berlin (government of the SPD and the former communists of East Germany: the PDS) have passed or are going to pass laws soon to ban the scarf for teachers.
Of course a thing Al Quaida rejects because it restricts the room islamists of all kind can operate and infiltrate our state instituitions.
Furthernmore the crack-down on islamists organisations which the interior minister Otto Schily introduced - one of the very few ministers in the current administration which does a good job - is a thing they don´t like as well.

The offer is a propaganda trick. You can not give up to terrorists. That is an experience Germany actually knows from the past in the battle against domestic terrorism: RAF (the Red Army fraction) began that in the 70s. In 1975 the government responded to blackmail after the hostage taking of conservative politican Peter Lorenz (CDU) with fulfiling the demands of the terrorists and releasing prisoners. The effect was that they felt encouraged to continue their evil actions. Many of the released participated in future terrorist attacks. In autum 1977 the RAF finally started several attacks: taking hostage the chairman of the organisation of employers and taking an airplane of Lufthansa hostage to Mogadischu (Somalia).
At that time the goverment didn´t repeat the mistakes of 1975 and stood firm in opposing the terrorism. The plaine was stormed by a special unit, the terrorist mostly killed or captured.
A policy of strength finally led to the decline of this organisation which doesn´t even exist anymore.
Giving up to terrorism always means to encourage the terrorists. That is actually a message the political class of Germany (West Germany) has learned. And since Germany today is from its population more than 80% West German - as well as the political class - I´m shure that remains the case.
You have to know that Giga is from the east. They have a different history at that time. After all: as we heard after the reunification the communists even gave some terrorists save haeven - of course not publicly but privately.
I do assume that Iran, Syria and others may do that as well - not publicly admitting it of course. But it can not be excluded.

Note that "blackmail" and a "peace treaty" is not the same.

Well, OK then Keruvalia. Weren't you the one in the other post who said your family was rich?

Not being able to read or pay attention isn't a good indication of what you claim is your IQ or GPA.

Otherwise, quote where I said my family was rich and I will concede.

I got a better idea. If you want to go forum police on me, then do it to every other guy who posts a curse word. Otherwise, shut your hypocritical mouth. I should point out that this is not name-calling, because unless you harass all posters equally and not simply the ones you disagree with, then you are a hypocrit.

And OK Chess Squares, I'll list my daily habits for you. I do read the news paper, (I started because I was getting so bored at work, then decided I actually liked it). I am on my schools debate team. I am also number two in the county on the Academic team, and many of the questions used in the contests are based in current events. I watch C-SPAN (which no one does), and I spend half my time on the internet looking at forums like this one learning about whats going on and checking other people's facts as well as my own. As far as informed goes, I'm not too bad. As far as naive and egotistical goes, well, thats just plain stupid.
good job, there you go something actually implies you are informed

It was a joke, Keruvalia. Actually it said your dad raised two kids on 26.5k a year. Can't read? What was that again? You really should stop trying to sound smart. You just come off as pompous. Didn't I tell you that already? Like when you talk about the real world? Ok, lets talk about the real world. The real world is where my dad got shot when I was 3 months old. It is also where my mother had to divorce her first husband because he was a drug addict (not my father). It is also where my uncle left his wife, took all my grandmother's money, and threatened to kill me, my brother, my sister, and his own 3 children. It is also where he was found dead with a prostitute. Now you want to preach to me about the real world? Get real, I know more than any kid should have had to learn at that age.

It was a joke, Keruvalia. Actually it said your dad raised two kids on 26.5k a year. Can't read? What was that again? You really should stop trying to sound smart. You just come off as pompous. Didn't I tell you that already? Like when you talk about the real world? Ok, lets talk about the real world. The real world is where my dad got shot when I was 3 months old. It is also where my mother had to divorce her first husband because he was a drug addict (not my father). It is also where my uncle left his wife, took all my grandmother's money, and threatened to kill me, my brother, my sister, and his own 3 children. It is also where he was found dead with a prostitute. Now you want to preach to me about the real world? Get real, I know more than any kid should have had to learn at that age.
http://www.babyandcompany.co.za/johnsons/johnsons6.jpg

Originally Posted by Gigatron
There are a number of polls, a US made poll is here:
http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=456

Some more, also comparing European opinion on Bush and Clinton:

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=39

And another about the American image in Europe:

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=683


I as an American cannot fully understand European's opinion of my country, my president or our way of life. What I find ironic though is that since the mid 1800s many millions of people from every single country around the world, for differing reasons, have come to the US to live. Why is that?

7 generations ago my mother's mother's family and my mother's father's family came to the US from Germany and France. They lived in relative peace as Catholics in the US. Many fought and died in wars past, many lived simple lives on farms, and they had large Catholic families and were fairly decent people, from what I have learned. They never owned slaves, yet a hundred years earlier those who came over from the British Isles to start this new country, many of them did have slaves. And slavery reigned in the South for almost a hundred years. What a vast difference in cultures and world views. It wasn't easy for all the cities on the East Coast (ie New York) for all these different cultures to come and blend together, live side by side. Some did so better than others, some created hate groups against others.

To me this is still going on, but the belief in the American dream is different I think. We have illegal immigrants coming here crossing borders and making a mockery out of the millions of immigrants who came 100 hundred years earlier and did things right. We have people who actually hate the American way of life moving here, studying in our universities and learning to fly planes into buildings. This America full of dreams and aspirations is much different than when my great great great great great grandfather came over from Baden Germany in 1800s. He is rolling over in his grave to see such corruption, dissidence, and illegal behavior.

So I ask you why do people still come here from other lands? If we are so great, why do many French, German and North Koreans hate us so?

I think it is fear, envy and frustration.

If people in other countries could straighten up their own countries first, they wouldn't have to depend on US aid and fear US as a rich nation. I feel blessed to be in a free nation, but I feel ashamed that many in my nation hate this nation and want it to be like France.

If you are American and hate America, move to France.
If you are not in America and hate America, stay where you are.
We don't need this fighting inside and outside the borders.
The US can and should help other nations, but only those that are respectful to her and don't send Anti American sentiments all over the place.

God help this nation heal. Help this world to heal.

I think it's probably because
1) Freedoms which aren't available everywhere and
2) We're the biggest bully and we're only looking out for ourselves so if you can't beat em, join em.

It was a joke, Keruvalia. Actually it said your dad raised two kids on 26.5k a year. Can't read? What was that again? You really should stop trying to sound smart. You just come off as pompous.

Your examples, while tragic, are not the real world ... they are your world. If they were the real world, then such would happen to everyone.

You have your experiences, I have mine. Neither makes us any better or more equipped to deal with life than the other as we take from our experiences what we will.

If I had been through what you have described, I would have taken different experiences from the situation. Likewise if you life were like mine, you would have taken different experiences.

That having been said, it has been my experience that people who find it necessary to constantly justify themselves through either what tragedies have befallen them or their statistical numbers such as GPA, SAT scores, IQ, etc. have not truly grasped what life really is.

Am I pompous? Yes I am ... I've earned it.

by HadesRulesMuch

I got a better idea. If you want to go forum police on me, then do it to every other guy who posts a curse word. Otherwise, shut your hypocritical mouth. I should point out that this is not name-calling, because unless you harass all posters equally and not simply the ones you disagree with, then you are a hypocrit.


I am not a hyprocrit, Hades, I haven't posted a curse word.
I am not harrassing you. I simply asked you to stop cursing.
And I ask all on this forum to nix the cursing. You can debate without cursing. You can get all rialed up and want to spew hate and death to your opponent, but where does that get you? Debate isn't about wishing ill to your opponent. A good debate helps you to convince others to your viewpoint, to your side.

I only saw your post and the language used, and it simply upset me that everywhere I go, forum to forum, most debates end up in name calling, evil personal attacks, and the issue is lost in all that hub bub.

We simply need to act professional, mature and that means no cursing or name calling. It's the Christian thing to do. And if you're not Christian, then it is the humane thing to do.

Put a better feeling in your heart than all the hate, angst and bitterness.

“A spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar.”
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Honey is sweet, Be SWEET in your debates.

Note that "blackmail" and a "peace treaty" is not the same.
My goodness. How naive are you????
Well: if Kerry wins you won´t see him holding a "peace" conference with Osama either.
This is pure propaganda by Al-Quaida. Of course there is the possibilty of peace with Al-Quaida: Lets all become muslim and make the burqa compulsory in Germany. Shure then the extremists may be satisfied. I´m not going to do that and to respond to this blackmail and - although we have a bad government- it isn´t going to do that either, fortunately.
By the way: you would be one of the first stoned to death if the islamists took over.

My goodness. How naive are you????
Well: if Kerry wins you won´t see him holding a "peace" conference with Osama either.
This is pure propaganda by Al-Quaida. Of course there is the possibilty of peace with Al-Quaida: Lets all become muslim and make the burqa compulsory in Germany. Shure then the extremists may be satisfied. I´m not going to do that and to respond to this blackmail and - although we have a bad government- it isn´t going to do that either, fortunately.
By the way: you would be one of the first stoned to death if the islamists took over.
Where did Osama ever state that he wants to convert the world to islam? Other than your propaganda and the propaganda from the US, I've yet to hear him say "I want to convert the entire world to Islam".

Where did Osama ever state that he wants to convert the world to islam? Other than your propaganda and the propaganda from the US, I've yet to hear him say "I want to convert the entire world to Islam".
Al Quaida is operating in Europe and this organisation has launched threads against France and Germany as well. Furthernmore it warned France to ban the scarf - which France of course ignored.
So obviously Al-Quaida intends to force its will upon us. It is trying to divide the west into to parts and is trying to get more support in the muslim community every where in the world- also in Europe. And since this community is growing in Europe it is a great threat for our national security. That´s even more the case for France which after all has a very big arab-muslim minority from Algeria and a lot of fundamentalism in this group. As a matter of fact: the fact that France has the most anti-semitic incidents and crimes are due to that group. Al-Quaida is one terrorists organisation which spreads an radical islamic ideology. This is a threat for every free and open society.
And there can´t be a compromise between tyranny and freedom. We can´t tolerate the intolerant, otherwise we give up our freedom. We must crack down on them up until they are disapear.
It is like with the Nazis: there is only one end: unconditional surrender.

Al Quaida is operating in Europe and this organisation has launched threads against France and Germany as well. Furthernmore it warned France to ban the scarf - which France of course ignored.
So obviously Al-Quaida intends to force its will upon us. It is trying to divide the west into to parts and is trying to get more support in the muslim community every where in the world- also in Europe. And since this community is growing in Europe it is a great threat for our national security. That´s even more the case for France which after all has a very big arab-muslim minority from Algeria and a lot of fundamentalism in this group. As a matter of fact: the fact that France has the most anti-semitic incidents and crimes are due to that group. Al-Quaida is one terrorists organisation which spreads an radical islamic ideology. This is a threat for every free and open society.
And there can´t be a compromise between tyranny and freedom. We can´t tolerate the intolerant, otherwise we give up our freedom. We must crack down on them up until they are disapear.
It is like with the Nazis: there is only one end: unconditional surrender.
Got any sources to back your claims? All I hear from you are unbased "facts" and propaganda. Whereas I actually posted a speech from Osama, which goes contrary to what you say. Why the scarf is being banned anyway is beyond me. I'd expect all cruzifixes and other symbols of christianity to be banned aswell. Everything else is hypocrisy. Considering the millions of dead christianity has caused during history, I wonder why especially that religion is so popular.

embassies are technicalluy us soil, but guess what they ARNT in the US, try again
uss cole - boat.
and the first bombing was a engineered car bomb, that was so obvious

lets see 2001, 4 hijacked passenger airlines, 2 rammed into scyscrapers, one downed in a PA field. tell me how hard that is to not see and stop, especially after the first one.

and 93, 98, and 2000 ar THREE

Chess Squares you are mistakin here. I will grant you this, it wasn't in America. The embassies though is considered America. That is a fact I guess you don't understand! So much for schooling!

1993 was on the WTC, no one can deny that this wasn't an attack on US Soil.

Now we get sticky. 1998 2 Embassies in TWO foreign countries. Both embassies destroyed basically. so now we are up to 3 Terror attacks on the USA! Not to mention Kobar towers was aimed at the American Military Personel there but since that wasn't technically American Soil, I'm leaving it off the charts for now! Now we move to 2000 and the USS Cole. Under international law, since that seems to be a big point with most on here, a warship is considered soil of that nation! Thus anything that attacks that ship is attacking US Soil. The Cole was bombed in October 2000 attack number 4. If you include the Kobar Towars in all of that, which was in 1995 I think! Making it 5! Now you have 1993, 1995, 1998, 2000! Four different years where the US was directly attacked by al Qaeda, all under the Clinton Administration. Five seperate attacks.

Under Bush, only 9/11 and the embassy attack in Uzbekistan yesterday have been the only attacks on US Soil. Thus, Clinton had more terror attacks on US Soil than President Bush has.

Chess Squares you are mistakin here. I will grant you this, it wasn't in America. The embassies though is considered America. That is a fact I guess you don't understand! So much for schooling!

1993 was on the WTC, no one can deny that this wasn't an attack on US Soil.

Now we get sticky. 1998 2 Embassies in TWO foreign countries. Both embassies destroyed basically. so now we are up to 3 Terror attacks on the USA! Not to mention Kobar towers was aimed at the American Military Personel there but since that wasn't technically American Soil, I'm leaving it off the charts for now! Now we move to 2000 and the USS Cole. Under international law, since that seems to be a big point with most on here, a warship is considered soil of that nation! Thus anything that attacks that ship is attacking US Soil. The Cole was bombed in October 2000 attack number 4. If you include the Kobar Towars in all of that, which was in 1995 I think! Making it 5! Now you have 1993, 1995, 1998, 2000! Four different years where the US was directly attacked by al Qaeda, all under the Clinton Administration. Five seperate attacks.

Under Bush, only 9/11 and the embassy attack in Uzbekistan yesterday have been the only attacks on US Soil. Thus, Clinton had more terror attacks on US Soil than President Bush has.

i JUST SAID embassies are technically on american soil but THEY ARE NOT IN AMERICA, last time i checked AFRICA OR ANYWHERE ELSE IS NOT THE USA


and blame the security for those embassies with them being blown up, they are not in the us, we cant sit aroundwatching them all day, they have hteir own security

and not a SINGLE one of your "examples" excpet the WTC bomb was on teh us soil, the ship was in port in a foreign port, all attacks were in foreign countries, not this country, the only one here was the one on the wtc.

and all were carried out discreetly: car bombs, suicide bombs, boat bomb

the 9/11 incident involved 4 major passenger aircraft being hijacked on the same day probably at the same time, then one a few minutes after another crashed into a standing structure. NOT A DAMN THING WAS DONE TO STOP IT.
it was NOT a discreet attack that no one wouldve noticed that much strange about it was a direct high profile attack


and i dont think FOUR PLANES WERE HIJACKED ON THE SAME DAY AND FLOWN INTO THEM

Chess Squares you are mistakin here. I will grant you this, it wasn't in America. The embassies though is considered America. That is a fact I guess you don't understand! So much for schooling!
1993 was on the WTC, no one can deny that this wasn't an attack on US Soil.
Now we get sticky. 1998 2 Embassies in TWO foreign countries. Both embassies destroyed basically. so now we are up to 3 Terror attacks on the USA! Not to mention Kobar towers was aimed at the American Military Personel there but since that wasn't technically American Soil, I'm leaving it off the charts for now! Now we move to 2000 and the USS Cole. Under international law, since that seems to be a big point with most on here, a warship is considered soil of that nation! Thus anything that attacks that ship is attacking US Soil. The Cole was bombed in October 2000 attack number 4. If you include the Kobar Towars in all of that, which was in 1995 I think! Making it 5! Now you have 1993, 1995, 1998, 2000! Four different years where the US was directly attacked by al Qaeda, all under the Clinton Administration. Five seperate attacks.
Under Bush, only 9/11 and the embassy attack in Uzbekistan yesterday have been the only attacks on US Soil. Thus, Clinton had more terror attacks on US Soil than President Bush has.

Well: What do you want to say with that?? And with this technical definition you miss the terror attacks on tourist destinations. Generally the terrorist activity has increased against westerners.
That is an unfortunate fact, though a tendency which is going on for some time.
As terrorism is concerned: I thing the US woke up after 9/11. Europe is still asleep - except Blair who realizes the magnitude of the threat. It is not that the terrorists may kill a few people like terrorists in the past. That can never ever be completly exclueded regardless how much security you have. It is the risk of gigantic attacks which may not have dozens or hundreds but thousands, ten thousands or even hundred thousands (in worst worst case even millions of victims).
9/11 was a hidious crime. Although there was one fortunate fact: Due to the time it was done the offices were not all full yet. The number of victims was 3000. It could have been 50.000 in the worst case szenario. Somehow peole in Europe don´t realize the magnitude of the attack. And the thread of bio-terror? And illusion??? No, we only have to think back to Aums attack on the subway in Tokio. Fortunately they made a mistake. Otherwise thousands of peole would have been killed and even more injured.
The threat of terrorism is real.

i JUST SAID embassies are technically on american soil but THEY ARE NOT IN AMERICA, last time i checked AFRICA OR ANYWHERE ELSE IS NOT THE USA

You are correct in that Africa is not in America. The Embassies are America is what I said. Thus the attack on the Embassies is attack on America.

and blame the security for those embassies with them being blown up, they are not in the us, we cant sit aroundwatching them all day, they have hteir own security

I do actually blame security for the screw ups at the embassy. Btw, The Embassies is considered US SOIL! Thus making them APART of the US Mainland! Something I guess you still haven't gotten through your head.

and not a SINGLE one of your "examples" excpet the WTC bomb was on teh us soil, the ship was in port in a foreign port, all attacks were in foreign countries, not this country, the only one here was the one on the wtc.

Again, you just missed the obvious. Something I notice alot in you. I'm 15 yo and I know this crap. An Embassy is considered part of the mainland of that country. Thus an Attack on an embassy is an attack on the mainland. The same goes for a ship. A ship is part of the mainland of the said nation.

and all were carried out discreetly: car bombs, suicide bombs, boat bomb

For once, I agree with you.
the 9/11 incident involved 4 major passenger aircraft being hijacked on the same day probably at the same time, then one a few minutes after another crashed into a standing structure. NOT A DAMN THING WAS DONE TO STOP IT.

I have a problem with this last statement. According to the 9/11 Report there wasn't much we could do. The attacks weren't preventable. The military had no time to blow up airliners. The FAA never notified the military about the 2nd plane, the Pentagon plane, nor the PA plane. The only that the military knew about was the 1st plane and that was to late to do anything. They little to no warning on the highjackings before they crashed.

it was NOT a discreet attack that no one wouldve noticed that much strange about it was a direct high profile attack

To a point your right. But only to a point. The FAA followed normal procedures for the loss of electronic data. Only when they showed erratic behavior did they know that something was wrong.

and i dont think FOUR PLANES WERE HIJACKED ON THE SAME DAY AND FLOWN INTO THEM

Ok and the point of this last line is?

I do actually blame security for the screw ups at the embassy. Btw, The Embassies is considered US SOIL! Thus making them APART of the US Mainland! Something I guess you still haven't gotten through your head.
hawaii and alaska arnt even part of the MAINLAND, much less EMBASSIES in AFRICA


Again, you just missed the obvious. Something I notice alot in you. I'm 15 yo and I know this crap. An Embassy is considered part of the mainland of that country. Thus an Attack on an embassy is an attack on the mainland. The same goes for a ship. A ship is part of the mainland of the said nation.
its considered part of the mainland of a country? READ ABOVE, and no, if its NOT on the mainland it is NOT part of the mainland, it is CONSIDERED US SOIL, that does NOT make it part of the mainland, it means it belongs to the united states





I have a problem with this last statement. According to the 9/11 Report there wasn't much we could do. The attacks weren't preventable. The military had no time to blow up airliners. The FAA never notified the military about the 2nd plane, the Pentagon plane, nor the PA plane. The only that the military knew about was the 1st plane and that was to late to do anything. They little to no warning on the highjackings before they crashed.
many things are preventable and after the first or second plane the rest shouldve been shot down, there was a communsication fuck up and thats not to mention preattack measures htat couldve been taken: extra security






Ok and the point of this last line is?
contrast to the car bombing and suicide bombings where nothing would be noitcable enough to really prevent without careful scrutiny

hawaii and alaska arnt even part of the MAINLAND, much less EMBASSIES in AFRICA

That arguement doesn't hold wait since Hawaii and Alaska is US Soil and States in the Union! Your logic is flawed there. The Embassies is US Soil thus making them A Part of the Country. Thus any attack there is an attack on US Continental Soil as well as on America as a whole.


its considered part of the mainland of a country? READ ABOVE, and no, if its NOT on the mainland it is NOT part of the mainland, it is CONSIDERED US SOIL, that does NOT make it part of the mainland, it means it belongs to the united states

I mean the National Soil thus the homeland thus it is an attack upon America. Thus rendering it an act of terro against the American People. Maybe in a foreign Country but since the embassy is the property of the US, it makes it an attack on our national soil.

many things are preventable and after the first or second plane the rest shouldve been shot down, there was a communsication fuck up and thats not to mention preattack measures htat couldve been taken: extra security

So your advocating shooting down EVERY AMERICAN PLANE? That'll kill even more than what happened at WTC and Pentagon and PA combined. Less than 3000 people died that day. Shooting down all planes? *shudders at the thought* There was no time to do so. Read the 9/11 report regarding how many minutes the military had!

contrast to the car bombing and suicide bombings where nothing would be noitcable enough to really prevent without careful scrutiny

On that I can agree with you but when a transponder goes off, it could've been caused by anything. Because they were turned off, the people tracking thought it was just an electrical problem. Its happen before. When this happened, they followed procedures. Flight 11 I think it was, did the FAA know something was wrong because the mic wasn't closed when the highjackers took the plane. At this time point, they thought it was just going to be the same as normal Highjacking. Only when they realized what was realy going to happen, it was too late.

I mean the National Soil thus the homeland thus it is an attack upon America. Thus rendering it an act of terro against the American People. Maybe in a foreign Country but since the embassy is the property of the US, it makes it an attack on our national soil.
good you get my point finally, well part of it



So your advocating shooting down EVERY AMERICAN PLANE? That'll kill even more than what happened at WTC and Pentagon and PA combined. Less than 3000 people died that day. Shooting down all planes? *shudders at the thought* There was no time to do so. Read the 9/11 report regarding how many minutes the military had!
yes i am advocatign that we shouldve SHOT DOWN the hijacked planes after the first one hit the trade center, and there is an air force base in what, virginia? scrambling cnat take that long and i know those planes should be able to go supersonic or at least near sonic

good you get my point finally, well part of it




yes i am advocatign that we shouldve SHOT DOWN the hijacked planes after the first one hit the trade center, and there is an air force base in what, virginia? scrambling cnat take that long and i know those planes should be able to go supersonic or at least near sonic

Problem is if the military doesn't have the info from the FAA it'll be very hard to do!

While yes an embassy is US soil , it has never been considered on any level an attack on "American mainland"

Same was true with Pearl Harbour, while Hawaii was American territory, it didn't actually become a state until August 21, 1959. Thus, it was an attack on American soil, but not an attack on America's mainland.

But it's really an argument in semantics. As far as the American soil is concerned I'm going to have to agree with Formal on this point. Only on that point though :p

While yes an embassy is US soil , it has never been considered on any level an attack on "American mainland"

Same was true with Pearl Harbour, while Hawaii was American territory, it didn't actually become a state until August 21, 1959. Thus, it was an attack on American soil, but not an attack on America's mainland.

But it's really an argument in semantics. As far as the American soil is concerned I'm going to have to agree with Formal on this point. Only on that point though :p

*has a heart attack* :p

While yes an embassy is US soil , it has never been considered on any level an attack on "American mainland"

Same was true with Pearl Harbour, while Hawaii was American territory, it didn't actually become a state until August 21, 1959. Thus, it was an attack on American soil, but not an attack on America's mainland.

But it's really an argument in semantics. As far as the American soil is concerned I'm going to have to agree with Formal on this point. Only on that point though :p
i NEVER denied embassies were on us soil, i refused to accept the inane idea they were part of the mainland

i NEVER denied embassies were on us soil, i refused to accept the inane idea they were part of the mainland

Then you would be correct.

2) Wow really? I haven't seen a city go up in a mushroom cloud, or a plane fly into a building since 9/11. You must have seen something I haven't, or you must be living on another world, because there hasnt been a terrorist attack since 9/11 on our home soil.


twice as many people have died so far this year due to terrorism as last year.

twice as many people have died so far this year due to terrorism as last year.

Not to mention 9/11 has only happened once ever in America, it has no frame of reference. There is nothing before or since to judge it by.

they still withdrew troops after the bombing,

My God, you really can't face the fact you opened your mouth wide enough to put your foot in it. The second bomb was set to go off 3 weeks after the withdrawal dimwit. Hence I was right when I said that Spain was rewarded for their withdrawal by another bomb placed on their train lines.

My faith is not blind. I am willing to give people the chance of proving themselves. If they fail, then they wasted that chance. However, our government decided to not give them that chance at all. Had we signed a "peace treaty" and Bin Laden had violated it, then you would have much more support from me and others in the war against terrorism. So I cannot understand why you are so adamantly against giving people the chance to prove their intentions?


Ok, using this logic...

We should teach our children the following:

If a stranger drives up and askes you to get into his car then you should really give him the chance to prove himself and get in the car. If he turns out to be a child molester and/or murderer then he has blown his chance and your child...well they are probably dead. But at least you gave him the chance.

Or as for Al Qaeda:

OK Osama, we won't hassle you as long as you promise not to blow anyone in Europe up. We want to give you a chance to prove yourself to us. Osama agrees! Al Qaeda cells in Europe, under the protection of the non-aggression pact, gradually increase in size and strength in Europe and go about planning their attacks. A few years later...terrorist attack in Europe! But at least you gave Osama the chance to prove himself. I mean, the people who have died in terrorist attacks during the time you tacitly condoned their activity during the non-aggression pact and in the eventual terrorist attack on Europe will understand that it was a risk that had to be taken...errr...wait..no it wasn't. Ooops.

I mean, the fact that Islamic terrorists were moments away from detonating another train bomb in Spain 3 weeks after they withdrew from Iraq says something for your kind of thinking. When threatening Spain bin Laden referred to the Spanish driving the Moors out of Spain in the 15th century as a reason for the attacks on Spain. See, no matter how much you kiss their arse or try and appease them they will find another reason. Your naive belief that by staying out of Iraq your country is not under threat is the kind of naivity that Al Qaeda preys on. I am thankful that your government is not as blinded by ideology as you are and have taken steps to prevent an attack occurring.

Hence I was right when I said that Spain was rewarded for their withdrawal by another bomb placed on their train lines.

Propganda ploy - Most in Spain think it was just a copycat killer trying to be funny.

Ahh Republicans - When will the ignorance end?

My God, you really can't face the fact you opened your mouth wide enough to put your foot in it. The second bomb was set to go off 3 weeks after the withdrawal dimwit. Hence I was right when I said that Spain was rewarded for their withdrawal by another bomb placed on their train lines.

Consider yourself warned. I'm sick of all the flaming. I have asked very nicely in three different threads now. Now warnings are being issued.

Knock it off! Every one!

Thank You
Stephanie
Game Moderator

Propganda ploy - Most in Spain think it was just a copycat killer trying to be funny.

Ahh Republicans - When will the ignorance end?

Did you even read the article?

Excuse me if I take actual evidence into account over your half-baked conspiracy theories.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not a Republican, we don't have a Republican party in Australia so don't try and write off logically argued points by using wrongly applied political labels.

And, Gigatron, in answer to your request for evidence of bin Laden and by extension Al Qaeda's demands to convert the world to Islam under Sharia Law:

From the bin Laden letter to Americans:

As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.


It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?


(Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)

And, Gigatron, in answer to your request for evidence of bin Laden and by extension Al Qaeda's demands to convert the world to Islam under Sharia Law:

From the bin Laden letter to Americans:





(Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)
thanks maybe that will shut up all the religious zealots whining about "this country was founded on christianity" they are all right wing nutcases so their religious zealousness will come to heads with their radical right wing egocentricity and we shall see who wins

shit i should sell tickets

Did you even read the article?

Excuse me if I take actual evidence into account over your half-baked conspiracy theories.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not a Republican, we don't have a Republican party in Australia so don't try and write off logically argued points by using wrongly applied political labels.

Republican can be used to denote anyone who is far right - as you appear to be. And its not a 'half baked conspiracy theory', do some research and you will find out that most Spanish Officials did not link it to International terrorism.

Moron Australian Bush Lovers.

Republican can be used to denote anyone who is far right - as you appear to be. And its not a 'half baked conspiracy theory', do some research and you will find out that most Spanish Officials did not link it to International terrorism.

Moron Australian Bush Lovers.

I am not far-right either, you don't know anything about me. Just because I support the actions in Iraq and against terrorism in general does not make me far-right. I also never said I loved Bush but I assume you enjoy taking artistic licence with people's posts when you cannot argue logically.

Also, seeing as there was a warning for flaming on this thread already I assume your calling me a moron will register on the radar of moderator Stephistan.

Can you provide a link that shows that most Spanish Officials did not link it to international terrorism? I mean, the previous Spanish government tried to blame the ETA for the March 11 bombings to deflect from the possibility it was linked to actions in Iraq. No-one bought it and they got voted out because of that attempted deception. Now the current government is saying the attempted bombing on April 2nd was not linked to Islamic terrorists because it would prove their withdrawal did nothing to remove the threat of terrorist attacks in Spain. How convenient for them.

Moron Australian Bush Lovers.

*Hits radar*

Yeah, please stop the name calling, attack the argument, not the poster.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

*Hits radar*

Yeah, please stop the name calling, attack the argument, not the poster.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Jeez steph! Your getting a work out in this thread aren't you?

Luckily for me, I've been good here!

sympathy for the US? doesnt anybody have any sympathy for the terrorists these men are willing to die for something they believe in so strongly, well as it is rather difficult to brainwash whole sections of communities into dying for your cause and i imagine osama inst capable of it, then maybe just maybe there is a problem and there is something in it, and maybe we could just try fixing that problem instead of killing thousands of them, which surely will make the problem worse and drive more to suicide attacks and eventually result in the anhilation of one side.
Oh hush you!! Logical thinking is NOT allowed in these threads!! :rolleyes:

sympathy for the US? doesnt anybody have any sympathy for the terrorists these men are willing to die for something they believe in so strongly, well as it is rather difficult to brainwash whole sections of communities into dying for your cause and i imagine osama inst capable of it, then maybe just maybe there is a problem and there is something in it, and maybe we could just try fixing that problem instead of killing thousands of them, which surely will make the problem worse and drive more to suicide attacks and eventually result in the anhilation of one side.

And you plan would be?

And, Gigatron, in answer to your request for evidence of bin Laden and by extension Al Qaeda's demands to convert the world to Islam under Sharia Law:

From the bin Laden letter to Americans:





(Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)
Your source and that letter, does not state that Bin Laden wants to convert the entire world to Islam. More interesting are these, which I tend to partly agree with:


As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.


(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!

(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.

(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.

(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"