NationStates Jolt Archive

Your leaders are lying to you.

http://www.rageboy.com/images/george-w-bush.jpg

This man recently said "We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom," (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html) and he has consistently attempted to portray the faithful warriors of the holy army as people who hate your freedoms and your way of life. This is a smokescreen to keep you from seeing the truth - that the holy warriors seek only to defend the land of the two holy places from the armies of the infidel. They are fighting a defensive war - and America is the aggressor.

"The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State’s list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

This means that the United States has troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html)

When your warlord president tells you that we hate freedom he is giving you a version of events that is diametrically opposed to the truth - in fact we love our freedom and have no problem with yours. We simply cannot abide the presence of foreign soldiers in our holy places. Could you?

If we turn our attention to your favourite bogeyman, Sheikh Usama bin Laden, you will see that he has never passed comment on any aspect of your society. He has no problem with your religion, your pornography, your violence, your disposable pop culture or your society in general. He has never targetted your cultural or religious icons but rather the icons of your military and economic power - including your world trade center.

You accuse him of terrorism - but what is this? He is valiantly fighting a defensive war against your occupying infidel forces with the only means available to him. It is rather like the school bully crying foul when his diminutive victims choose to fight back by lobbing missiles from a distance rather than meeting him in an open fight that they would be certain to lose. But I say again - it is a defensive war he fights, holy and justified.

There is still time for you to reconsider your nation's aggression against our peoples and to withdraw your occupying forces.

Peace be upon you

Allahu Akhbar

Anyone for fireworks?

Wow, I can't believe we finally have an Islamist!

Well well, this is new. Congratulations, you've managed to be a somewhat original troll. This is new, isn't it? I've never seem an Islamic troll before, although I haven't been around long.

This was an interesting analogy.
It is rather like the school bully crying foul when his diminutive victims choose to fight back by lobbing missiles
First, I read this as people firing missiles at a school bully, which would be somewhat foul. I understand now, but I'm not sure how lobbing missiles at a bully is supposed to help you.

Wow, I can't believe we finally have an Islamist!

Unfortunately I can't imagine he's going to stay around for long :(

Welcome to the forum The Love of Allah!

Heh infedels of the west? Hold on have we got any Chinese Christians here?:p

Heh infedels of the west? Hold on have we got any Chinese Christians here?:p

Indeed, any non-Muslim from the eastern hemisphere?

Indeed, any non-Muslim from the eastern hemisphere?
Chinese atheist, but I live in Australia. That doesn't count, does it?

Chinese atheist, but I live in Australia. That doesn't count, does it?

Two nations and atheist to boot. Aught to count twice. do I have any greater bids?

Chinese atheist, but I live in Australia. That doesn't count, does it?

Then hey to you Infedel of the East!:p

There is still time for you to reconsider your nation's aggression against our peoples and to withdraw your occupying forces.

You say that like I have power over my country's leader? If I could withdraw my country's troops I would.

Now that my opinion's out of the way.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6781/cidimage020jpg01c694471ot8.jpg

Meh, drive by C&P propaganda. It's more fun when the crazies stay around and try to respon while everyone laughs at their silliness. Though on the plus side there's no gun smilies, so not bad for a first post, relatively speaking.

If we turn our attention to your favourite bogeyman, Sheikh Usama bin Laden, you will see that he has never passed comment on any aspect of your society. He has no problem with your religion, your pornography, your violence, your disposable pop culture or your society in general. He has never targetted your cultural or religious icons but rather the icons of your military and economic power - including your world trade center.

The Taliban banned music, TV and movies and even sport and treated women horribly with no rights. One of the primary reasons Islamic fundamentalists always use when trying to justify their threats is what they see as the west's immorality (they then usually warn us to convert to Islam).

Oh, since when were 'holy warriors' concerned about the presence of American troops in Australia or the UK? :p

Aw, he's logged off already. Thats the problem with trolls these days, they get off to a good start but then there's no follow through. Most of the fun comes from "arguing" with them and getting them to spit our the most nonsensical crap, nothing more to see here though.

20pence says this guy is the re-incarnation of the fourth holy reich.

Aw, he's logged off already. Thats the problem with trolls these days, they get off to a good start but then there's no follow through. Most of the fun comes from "arguing" with them and getting them to spit our the most nonsensical crap, nothing more to see here though.

Damn. Scared another one away. We really need to stop ridiculing trolls quite so intensely. Soon we won't have any more to play with.:p

I put the mouse over the offline symbol and "The Love of Allah is offline" came up. There's probably something wrong with me, but for some reason I found that quite amusing. Allah doesn't love us any more :(

I put the mouse over the offline symbol and "The Love of Allah is offline" came up. There's probably something wrong with me, but for some reason I found that quite amusing. Allah doesn't love us any more :(

Or maybe we don't love him anymore?

Aw, he's logged off already. Thats the problem with trolls these days, they get off to a good start but then there's no follow through. Most of the fun comes from "arguing" with them and getting them to spit our the most nonsensical crap, nothing more to see here though.

I know, it's no fun when they run off. Then it's just spam(well that is fun) and people coming in late and trying to counter what the OP said.

Oh, since when were 'holy warriors' concerned about the presence of American troops in Australia or the UK? :p

who knows
but the number of American troops in Australia is fucking small
last time i heard of them it's was about ten of them here

awww what a sad little puppy....
Man I LOVE fanatics like that, makes me bite into a good juicy pork chop and put on my MP3 player, to play loudest music I can find. Go pick up my best female friend at her college where she is finishing med school and thank God we CAN do all that without being stoned to death for defying (missinterprited) will of Allah. That we can be just friends and talk without her father or brother killing her for bringing shame to family.
You know? Do things I want that harm no one. Have my friend get great education and her being my equal (or better at anything concerning natural sciences). Have my eventual daughters live in a world where sun is not obscured to them with face coverings. Where they won't get stoned for trying to learn.
I like being able to have Bible, Torah, Veda AND Quran on my bookshelf. I don't want to live in a country where all holly books but one are burned. I like being able to read every religious text there is and chose my religion based on my soul, and NOT get killed or declared insane if people around me think its wrong religion.
Freedom. I got it. Faith. I have that as well. Only its not same as yours, but I had right to chose it. And guess what, I'm neither American nor infidel, and I don't hate you or yours. I pity people like you.

Damn. Scared another one away. We really need to stop ridiculing trolls quite so intensely. Soon we won't have any more to play with.:p

Maybe we could set up a troll preserve? If we dont they may become extinct and we'll have no more trolls....forever!

;) Surely he's being satirical? or maybe he just blew up?

Maybe we could set up a troll preserve? If we dont they may become extinct and we'll have no more trolls....forever!
How would you stop them from killing each other?

Maybe we could set up a troll preserve? If we dont they may become extinct and we'll have no more trolls....forever!

No more trolls?:( Where would we get our laughs from then?

For the record: I fully support the idea af an NS troll preserve. We all must do our part to save this dying species.:D

How would you stop them from killing each other?

We could equip them with shock collars, every time they try to be violent they get shocked?

I'll make you a deal. When the more fundamentalist adherents of "The Religion of Peace" pull their terrorist buddies from these countries, we will leave too.

We could equip them with shock collars, every time they try to be violent they get shocked?
I approve. :)

How would you stop them from killing each other?

Seperate areas for different types of trolls. The Jesussaves reserves will be home to the christian ones who want to save our souls(complete with complimentary bibles and communion wafers), conservative trolls will live in a recreated 1950's wonderland where everyone thinks of the children, liberal trolls will be given materials and informed they have the right to any kind of reserve they want, and so on in that fashion.

We could equip them with shock collars, every time they try to be violent they get shocked?

Nah, that'll just frighten all the life out of them. We gots ta separate them and let them just growl at each other or something.

Seperate areas for different types of trolls. The Jesussaves reserves will be home to the christian ones who want to save our souls(complete with complimentary bibles and communion wafers), conservative trolls will live in a recreated 1950's wonderland where everyone thinks of the children, liberal trolls will be given materials and informed they have the right to any kind of reserve they want, and so on in that fashion.
Mmm, I still prefer giving them electric shocks. Where do you put the non-political trolls that go "z0mg lolol hi peeps :sniper: :upyours: :gundge: " ?

Nah, that'll just frighten all the life out of them. We gots ta separate them and let them just growl at each other or something.

Meh. Just give them a computer, and they won't do much of anything but sit and try to annoy everyone else on the forum anyway.

Mmm, I still prefer giving them electric shocks. Where do you put the non-political trolls that go "z0mg lolol hi peeps :sniper: :upyours: :gundge: " ?

Those aren't trolls, those are n00bs, an entirely different species.

Those aren't trolls, those are n00bs, an entirely different species.
They're trolls if they're not actually of the gun-smiley intelligence level and only do so to annoy people, iirc?

Mmm, I still prefer giving them electric shocks. Where do you put the non-political trolls that go "z0mg lolol hi peeps :sniper: :upyours: :gundge: " ?

In a blender to feed to the proper trolls.

Those aren't trolls, those are n00bs, an entirely different species.

We could start "Adopt a noob" program.
You assign a good board user who tries to houstrain them.
If they are untrainable they have to go the path of Old Yeller.

They're trolls if they're not actually of the gun-smiley intelligence level and only do so to annoy people, iirc?

No, those can be trolls, too. They're just not particularly good at their craft. ;)

We could start "Adopt a noob" program.
You assign a good board user who tries to houstrain them.
If they are untrainable they have to go the path of Old Yeller.

Did that last year sometime. I didn't want one then, and I don't want one now.

-snip-
Awesome! Another troll!

well, I dunno. My country is one of the listed nations where as you mentioned has US troops stationed. I personally don't give a rat's ass where american soldiers are stationed. They don't give me grief and I do the same, why should I be bothered about that? Talk about sensitivity.

Did that last year sometime. I didn't want one then, and I don't want one now.

i would send my one hunting with DC

Woot! Two pages! Well, I'm off to sleep. Remember: pwning trolls is like clubbing seals: It may be satisfying, but it's still wrong.:D

Did that last year sometime. I didn't want one then, and I don't want one now.

I know, all they do is use ":upyours: " smilies, rub their ass on the floor and piss all over the carpet. Its more trouble than its worth.

well, I dunno. My country is one of the listed nations where as you mentioned has US troops stationed. I personally don't give a rat's ass where american soldiers are stationed. They don't give me grief and I do the same, why should I be bothered about that? Talk about sensitivity.

The list includes every country where the US has an embassy, and those embassies are guarded by US Marines. It's a bullshit list, but then, what do you expect from a troll?

-snip-

I think Sovietstan has finally flipped. :p

I think Sovietstan has finally flipped. :p

Nah, that happened long ago. ;)

Nah, that happened long ago. ;)

I don't think he's refered to anyone as an 'infidel' yet. It's probably only a matter of time though. :D

There is still time for you to reconsider your nation's aggression against our peoples and to withdraw your occupying forces.

Or?

We note with interest the absence of intelligent responses.

Accusations of trollism and :upyours: smileys will only get you so far. Care to respond to my points anybody, or are we too busy being supercilious?

Allahu Akhbar

ps. The love of Allah is always online, and with infinite bandwidth too.

Or?
... you will face the terror of the Islamic equivalent to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders Brigade. Tremble in fear, western infidel.

We note with interest the absence of intelligent responses.

Accusations of trollism and :upyours: smileys will only get you so far. Care to respond to my points anybody, or are we too busy being supercilious?

Allahu Akhbar

ps. The love of Allah is always online, and with infinite bandwidth too.

You got responses to your "points." You chose to ignore them, like any good li'l troll. Run along now.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/birgittroll01.gif

We note with interest the absence of intelligent responses.

Accusations of trollism and :upyours: smileys will only get you so far. Care to respond to my points anybody, or are we too busy being supercilious?

Allahu Akhbar

ps. The love of Allah is always online, and with infinite bandwidth too.

Lollercaust, it's back!


And who's we? Got a mouse in your pocket?

dude, wheres the love? wheres the peace? so much anger I find in you, the dark side consumes you...flee it you must..before too late it is!

:p

PS: still dont know why you freak out so much bout Us troops in other countries though

Maybe they won't give him any of those delicious twinkies.

We note with interest the absence of intelligent responses.

Accusations of trollism and :upyours: smileys will only get you so far. Care to respond to my points anybody, or are we too busy being supercilious?


Yes, err I mean, how about the fact the a lot of those countries on your list only have a US military presence because there's a small number of marines guarding the embassy?

ps. The love of Allah is always online, and with infinite bandwidth too.

Hey, can you show me where to get some of that?

Those aren't trolls, those are n00bs, an entirely different species.

Unless saved a large number of n00bs will slowly become a troll. Sort of like how hollows are created (anime reference).

dude, wheres the love? wheres the peace? so much anger I find in you, the dark side consumes you...flee it you must..before too late it is!

:p

PS: still dont know why you freak out so much bout Us troops in other countries though

They're corrupting our youth by teaching them to spell ise with a z and such nonsense. :p

Maybe they won't give him any of those delicious twinkies.

http://www.hempfiles.com/pictures/fun/images/yoda_jpg.jpg

You got responses to your "points." You chose to ignore them, like any good li'l troll. Run along now.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/birgittroll01.gif

You are particularly pompous. And no, there were no responses. The thrust of my OP was that al Qaeda's "war" on the west is politically motivated, and not the fanatical "freedom-hating" mission that it is misrepresented as. If the governments of the west understood this then much could be done to alleviate the tension. If I presented this argument behind a veil of uber-religiosity, it was only to get your attention.

And my point stands.

ps. The love of Allah is always online, and with infinite bandwidth too.

what don't need food or sleep

http://www.hempfiles.com/pictures/fun/images/yoda_jpg.jpg

Twinkies lead to diabetes, diabetes leads to getting shot by a mexican scientist riding a velociraptor outside Dr. Mc Ninjas surgery.

Holy crap, we've finally got someone who's a medievalist who isn't a Christian on these forums. It's amazingly delicious.

... you will face the terror of the Islamic equivalent to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders Brigade. Tremble in fear, western infidel.

Ha!

No match for the dreaded 3rd Armored, Hell on Harddrives!

what don't need food or sleep
It gets nutrients and energy from latching onto people's brains and sucking out their life force. :)

According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:

Sweden

What you fail to mention is that most, if not all, of these "troops" are probably stationed at the US embassy. For some reason the US has troops at embassies; it's kooky, but that's what they do.

Such a poor troll you are.

8/10 for content/length
-1 for lack of smilies
+1 for username

An overall score of 8/10

who knows
but the number of American troops in Australia is fucking small
last time i heard of them it's was about ten of them here

To be fair, that number does go up when US ships dock here. Just recently we had an American frigate dock here and the town was full of sailors for a night.

It was pretty cool. I'd like to say hello to the lovely Seaman Chavez, who showed me a great time (though we're probably both in for some holy smiting from Allah now.)

It gets nutrients and energy from latching onto people's brains and sucking out their life force. :)

*put's on helmet,load's F88*

it can try

Oh no you're not after all it's the love of allah we have here not the smiting of allah or the constipation of allah.

What you fail to mention is that most, if not all, of these "troops" are probably stationed at the US embassy. For some reason the US has troops at embassies; it's kooky, but that's what they do.

Such a poor troll you are.

But Fass, those troops are obviously preparing to occupy your beloved Sweden. What else could those sons of imperialist dogs be doing inside their immoral Embassy but plotting the occupation of Sweden?

It gets nutrients and energy from latching onto people's brains and sucking out their life force. :)

That gives me a good idea. Maybe we can use a few of these to keep the trolls from escaping.

http://aliens.wikia.com/images/thumb/a/af/Metroid_Render.jpg/200px-Metroid_Render.jpg

You might want to get some reverse-cycle air conditioning installed though, they don't like the cold.

What you fail to mention is that most, if not all, of these "troops" are probably stationed at the US embassy. For some reason the US has troops at embassies; it's kooky, but that's what they do.

Such a poor troll you are.

Erm. Still foreign troops on soverign soil. Nobody else stations troops around their embassies. Because they don't engender the hatred that the US of A does. Ever wonder why?

8/10 for content/length
-1 for lack of smilies
+1 for username

An overall score of 8/10
That's pretty generous, since he wasn't that offensive. Stupid, and an apologetic for Bin Laden, but nothing that might really offend, apart from the Osama-ness. Come on, people! We want to see trolls with oomph! Be loud and obnoxious, and call all of us westerner infidel scum who will burn in holy fires, or something. Put some heart into it!

And here was me confused that under international law embassies were the territory of the country holding the embassy not the country it was in. Or was I just drunk at the time?

Erm. Still foreign troops on soverign soil. Nobody else stations troops around their embassies. Because they don't engender the hatred that the US of A does. Ever wonder why?

...

No, I know for a fact the UK does, and I'm fairly sure other countries do as well, especially in hotspots.

Or do twenty or so lightly-armed Marines suddenly constitute an invasion? You realise that they stay on their Embassy grounds, which is sovereign soil of the United States...right?

To be fair, that number does go up when US ships dock here. Just recently we had an American frigate dock here and the town was full of sailors for a night.

It was pretty cool. I'd like to say hello to the lovely Seaman Chavez, who showed me a great time (though we're probably both in for some holy smiting from Allah now.)

i can't think of when the last one dock in WA, but there are some station full time here

Erm. Still foreign troops on soverign soil. Nobody else stations troops around their embassies. Because they don't engender the hatred that the US of A does. Ever wonder why?

A US embassy is sovereign US soil. That's how embassies work, honey.

Edit: OMG, everyone is faster than me.

What you fail to mention is that most, if not all, of these "troops" are probably stationed at the US embassy. For some reason the US has troops at embassies; it's kooky, but that's what they do.

Such a poor troll you are.

I've already pointed that out. And it's not just the US that uses military guards at embassies. Lots of countries do. They may just stand there, looking all official as "guards" and whatnot, but they're there. Plus, if you want to throw in the military attaches posted at embassies and count them, too, like the OP did, then, well... you get the idea. ;)

EDIT: But yeah, poor troll indeed.

A US embassy is sovereign US soil. That's how embassies work, honey.

Well, yeah, there's that, too. :)

Well, yeah, there's that, too. :)

It's obviously a plot by the US Marine Corp to occupy every country in the world...

It's obviously a plot by the US Marine Corp to occupy every country in the world...

:eek: they're going after the world record! Someone stop them quickly!

It's obviously a plot by the US Marine Corp to occupy every country in the world...

Obviously. How could anyone miss that? :rolleyes:

And more than that, most of the time the US has troops in another country, they're far too small of a force to be occupying troops, instead they're nearly universally there at the behest of the host country. The US is deeply involved in many defense alignments, because of the strength of its military, and everyone wants to have the biggest kid on the block on their side, espescially if he's generally kind of oafish-friendly and well intentioned.

If anything, bin Laden is angry at the presence of US troops being on "holy soil" or something like that, but his ultimate goal is to not just drive out US troops, but to toss the local autocratic regimes, and install his own theocratic regime over the entirety of the Umma. He wants a restoration of a Sunni-Arab Empire, under the lead of a Caliph.

Of course, because terrorism works rather poorly against closed societies and police states, bin Laden goes after the people against whom terrorism does work: Open societies. He goes after the country he perceives to be the biggest enabler of the Arab states that he views are dividing the Umma, the US.

It's obviously a plot by the US Marine Corp to occupy every country in the world...

LOL
every country in history that has risen... has fallen
just simple laws of science

That's pretty generous, since he wasn't that offensive. Stupid, and an apologetic for Bin Laden, but nothing that might really offend, apart from the Osama-ness. Come on, people! We want to see trolls with oomph! Be loud and obnoxious, and call all of us westerner infidel scum who will burn in holy fires, or something. Put some heart into it!

Agreed, the tone was a little too apologetic and defensive to be a decent troll. I'd be inclined to give him a 4.

Nobody else stations troops around their embassies.

Sure about that?

The problem is he's the love of Allah so he can't go truly medieval on our asses with brimstone and hellfire. Maybe we can get the wrath in to do it?

Not only embassy guards:

"The extent of the U.S. global empire is almost incalculable. The latest "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense states that the Department’s physical assets consist of "more than 600,000 individual buildings and structures, at more than 6,000 locations, on more than 30 million acres." The exact number of locations is then given as 6,702 – divided into large installations (115), medium installations (115), and small installations/locations (6,472). This classification can be deceiving, however, because installations are only classified as small if they have a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of less than $800 million.

Although most of these locations are in the continental United States, 96 of them are in U.S. territories around the globe, and 702 of them are in foreign countries. But as Chalmers Johnson has documented, the figure of 702 foreign military installations is too low, for it does not include installations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan. Johnson estimates that an honest count would be closer to 1,000."

Same source as original OP

And more than that, most of the time the US has troops in another country, they're far too small of a force to be occupying troops, instead they're nearly universally there at the behest of the host country. The US is deeply involved in many defense alignments, because of the strength of its military, and everyone wants to have the biggest kid on the block on their side, espescially if he's generally kind of oafish-friendly and well intentioned.

The US military also does a lot of training of foreign militaries in things like search-and-rescue, anti-piracy, and other sorts of operations.

If anything, bin Laden is angry at the presence of US troops being on "holy soil" or something like that, but his ultimate goal is to not just drive out US troops, but to toss the local autocratic regimes, and install his own theocratic regime over the entirety of the Umma. He wants a restoration of a Sunni-Arab Empire, under the lead of a Caliph.

Of course, because terrorism works rather poorly against closed societies and police states, bin Laden goes after the people against whom terrorism does work: Open societies. He goes after the country he perceives to be the biggest enabler of the Arab states that he views are dividing the Umma, the US.

Hey! A coherent understanding of this matter! On NSG! Who'da thunk it? ;)

Same source as original OP

Yes, an anti-military knobjockey. Run along.

Not only embassy guards:

"The extent of the U.S. global empire is almost incalculable. The latest "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense states that the Department’s physical assets consist of "more than 600,000 individual buildings and structures, at more than 6,000 locations, on more than 30 million acres." The exact number of locations is then given as 6,702 – divided into large installations (115), medium installations (115), and small installations/locations (6,472). This classification can be deceiving, however, because installations are only classified as small if they have a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of less than $800 million.

Although most of these locations are in the continental United States, 96 of them are in U.S. territories around the globe, and 702 of them are in foreign countries. But as Chalmers Johnson has documented, the figure of 702 foreign military installations is too low, for it does not include installations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan. Johnson estimates that an honest count would be closer to 1,000."

Same source as original OP

So...you're just going to ignore comments and copy and paste all the time, huh?

*Sighs*

I had hoped you were an original troll...

Sure about that?

He may be sure about that himself, but he's completely wrong.

He may be sure about that himself, but he's completely wrong.

Well if he tries to find out himself he might learn something. Though it's also possible that he could dismiss whatever he finds out of hand.

Probable most trolls or wannabe trolls reject contradiction out of hand. By the way I rename the Sunni empire Bin Laden wants as Sunni Delight not original I know but I feel like doing it anyway.

So...you're just going to ignore comments and copy and paste all the time, huh?

*Sighs*

I had hoped you were an original troll...

Nah, this is a very weak troll.

Well if he tries to find out himself he might learn something. Though it's also possible that he could dismiss whatever he finds out of hand.

Of course. He'll dismiss anything that doesn't jive with his ignorant "point."

Probable most trolls or wannabe trolls reject contradiction out of hand. By the way I rename the Sunni empire Bin Laden wants as Sunni Delight not original I know but I feel like doing it anyway.

Ooh! Sunni D! LMFAO! :D

Checking through previous posts the OP has posted this today at
7:39 am
7:42 am
10:07 am
10:09 am
2:16 pm
and then this one at 3:10 (? forgot to note the time of the op on this thread)

I smell a troll-bot.

I kind of liked him. (refering to topic starter guy)

I am from the United States, and while I like my country, I have issues with it. I have always contended that people who commit suicide attacks have a point. I do not believe that so many people would kill themselves for the spiteful kind of hatred, the kind of hatred that drives people people from powerful, unoccupied countries, to invade weak countries and kill innocent people. I dont believe that people would kill themselves from envy of what another posseses. Suicide bombers (though they they often kill innocents) do so because they are attempting to defend something worth more to them then life. Because most of the suicide bombers I read about act regarding issues to which they have much more firsthand knowledge of than I do, I am actually willing to take their word for some things, such as they are suffering greivous injustice.

Some countries do not have the luxury of breaking international law without being punished, some countries do not have the luxury of unilaterally and violently changing governments of other countries over the protests of the international community, some countries do not have the luxury of the largest and most technologically advanced military in the world, so they resort to what they see as their only alternative. Do you understand how terrible it must be to be a suicide bomber? To know that you WILL die. Going into battle even against a far superior force your life is, to some degree, in your own hands. Look at the incredibly heroic Seargent York, I would assume that one man going against that many opponents would be suicide, but he did more than simply survive. When you are fighting an opponent, there is always the chance that you could win or be taken prisoner, not so with suicide bombing. If the US was invaded by Islamic fundementalists and innocent people were being killed, if they came over and tried to force us into a democracy (whereas now we have a republic) and wanted to oust the regime we have now in Washington (who I despise) I would likely be willing to die to fight them.

I would not choose suicide bombing as my means of opposition, but I would be willing to risk my life again and again, for the independance and freedom of my nation from foriegners. So while I in no way condone what suicide bombers do, and would stop them if I could, I ask you to empathize with them. How would you feel if another country, a country who seemed impervious to attack, who was unliked by allmost everyone in the world, and yet went unpunished for countless flagrant violations of international law, invaded your country, kept water and other necessities from reaching the dying people in your country, and commited numerous atrocities against people of your country? How would you feel?

Empathize!
Once you understand the concerns of the other side, you can address them, and if there is hope of getting your way through other means, dont you think people would be willing to look for alternatives to suicide bombings?

Oh, and to all of you idiots out there who commented on the Western thing. First, he was obviously mostly aiming at the United States seeing as how we are the purpotrators of most of the causes of his greivences. Second, Western does NOT mean Western Hemisphere. C'mon it does not take much of an IQ to come up with Western Culture as what he is refering to. Anyone had or heard of any permutation of a "Western" Civilization History class? I would say Europe and the United States are the main "Western groups" probably Australia qualifies too. Most of South America on the other hand, which does lie in the Western Hemisphere, I wouldn't call terribly western. Cuba, again in the Western Hemisphere, isnt terribly western culturally speaking. He ranted, in a rant (including this one) there is plenty to give legit criticism to, stooping to picking little shit like that to make a big deal out of only reveals you as shallow minded and/or mentally deficient.

Hope to get some resposes to this.

Italy 1914d

Checking through previous posts the OP has posted this today at
7:39 am
7:42 am
10:07 am
10:09 am
2:16 pm
and then this one at 3:10 (? forgot to note the time of the op on this thread)

I smell a troll-bot.

I saw that, too. I considered reporting in Moderation, but I couldn't get my head around the post count (2 at the time) versus the number of times the same post had been vomited onto this forum (5).

[SIZE="4"]According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:



There are no US troops in many countries in that list. Atleast get your BS right.

edit: Dammit...I am so late..

I hope the delay is people formulating well thought out responses and not ignoring me.

Okay, I am going to eat dinner, but will be back before all that long (say 45 min. ish) Hopefully someone is interested in doing more than troll bashing by then. (which is what you yourself have declared to be doing)

Okay, I am going to eat dinner, but will be back before all that long (say 45 min. ish) Hopefully someone is interested in doing more than troll bashing by then. (which is what you yourself have declared to be doing)

Maybe we can start bashing you instead. :p

Okay, I'm back. Let the bashing begin.

Well well, this is new. Congratulations, you've managed to be a somewhat original troll. This is new, isn't it? I've never seem an Islamic troll before, although I haven't been around long.


Gotta love a new troll...

I kind of liked him. (refering to topic starter guy)

I am from the United States, and while I like my country, I have issues with it. I have always contended that people who commit suicide attacks have a point. I do not believe that so many people would kill themselves for the spiteful kind of hatred, the kind of hatred that drives people people from powerful, unoccupied countries, to invade weak countries and kill innocent people. I dont believe that people would kill themselves from envy of what another posseses. Suicide bombers (though they they often kill innocents) do so because they are attempting to defend something worth more to them then life. Because most of the suicide bombers I read about act regarding issues to which they have much more firsthand knowledge of than I do, I am actually willing to take their word for some things, such as they are suffering greivous injustice.

Some countries do not have the luxury of breaking international law without being punished, some countries do not have the luxury of unilaterally and violently changing governments of other countries over the protests of the international community, some countries do not have the luxury of the largest and most technologically advanced military in the world, so they resort to what they see as their only alternative. Do you understand how terrible it must be to be a suicide bomber? To know that you WILL die. Going into battle even against a far superior force your life is, to some degree, in your own hands. Look at the incredibly heroic Seargent York, I would assume that one man going against that many opponents would be suicide, but he did more than simply survive. When you are fighting an opponent, there is always the chance that you could win or be taken prisoner, not so with suicide bombing. If the US was invaded by Islamic fundementalists and innocent people were being killed, if they came over and tried to force us into a democracy (whereas now we have a republic) and wanted to oust the regime we have now in Washington (who I despise) I would likely be willing to die to fight them.

I would not choose suicide bombing as my means of opposition, but I would be willing to risk my life again and again, for the independance and freedom of my nation from foriegners. So while I in no way condone what suicide bombers do, and would stop them if I could, I ask you to empathize with them. How would you feel if another country, a country who seemed impervious to attack, who was unliked by allmost everyone in the world, and yet went unpunished for countless flagrant violations of international law, invaded your country, kept water and other necessities from reaching the dying people in your country, and commited numerous atrocities against people of your country? How would you feel?

Empathize!
Once you understand the concerns of the other side, you can address them, and if there is hope of getting your way through other means, dont you think people would be willing to look for alternatives to suicide bombings?

Oh, and to all of you idiots out there who commented on the Western thing. First, he was obviously mostly aiming at the United States seeing as how we are the purpotrators of most of the causes of his greivences. Second, Western does NOT mean Western Hemisphere. C'mon it does not take much of an IQ to come up with Western Culture as what he is refering to. Anyone had or heard of any permutation of a "Western" Civilization History class? I would say Europe and the United States are the main "Western groups" probably Australia qualifies too. Most of South America on the other hand, which does lie in the Western Hemisphere, I wouldn't call terribly western. Cuba, again in the Western Hemisphere, isnt terribly western culturally speaking. He ranted, in a rant (including this one) there is plenty to give legit criticism to, stooping to picking little shit like that to make a big deal out of only reveals you as shallow minded and/or mentally deficient.

Hope to get some resposes to this.

Italy 1914d

Okay, take two. If I put a smiley in will you call me a troll and answer my posts too?

Okay, I'm back. Let the bashing begin.

Speaking of trolls... :rolleyes:

Speaking of trolls... :rolleyes:

What troll like have I done? the ignoring posts, picking stupid myopic things to argue about, and smileys, seem to just be coming from you.

"I didn't get a rise out of my last post, so lemme post it again."

Give it a break.

What troll like have I done? the ignoring posts, picking stupid myopic things to argue about, and smileys, seem to just be coming from you.

Well, to answer part of your post, while I can empathize with a nation that intentionally spends billions to develop precision weapons in an attempt to radically reduce civilian casualties, and empathize with a nation that investigates and jails its own soldiers for abusing prisoners and raping and killing innocent civilians, I cannot empathize with anyone, no matter how oppressed they may be or perceive themselves to be, if they deliberately and with malice aforethought target civilians exclusively.

There's a reason the US doesn't do the city-wide carpetbombing firebomb raids that they did in WWII. It's unconscionable to deliberately make civilians the intended target of a military action - with the intent to scare the living shit out of the survivors.

It's why anyone who sends suicide bombers or crashes hijacked civilian airliners into civilian buildings deserves to be killed outright.

I am not looking for "a rise" I am looking for a response. You post more than a hundred posts in response to this LoA fellow who doesnt really have his arguments straight, and dissapear as soon as I post. Someone talked about scaring the troll away early on, now look who is dissapearing.

Well, to answer part of your post, while I can empathize with a nation that intentionally spends billions to develop precision weapons in an attempt to radically reduce civilian casualties, and empathize with a nation that investigates and jails its own soldiers for abusing prisoners and raping and killing innocent civilians, I cannot empathize with anyone, no matter how oppressed they may be or perceive themselves to be, if they deliberately and with malice aforethought target civilians exclusively.

There's a reason the US doesn't do the city-wide carpetbombing firebomb raids that they did in WWII. It's unconscionable to deliberately make civilians the intended target of a military action - with the intent to scare the living shit out of the survivors.

It's why anyone who sends suicide bombers or crashes hijacked civilian airliners into civilian buildings deserves to be killed outright.


thank you
I am responding

I am not looking for "a rise" I am looking for a response. You post more than a hundred posts in response to this LoA fellow who doesnt really have his arguments straight, and dissapear as soon as I post. Someone talked about scaring the troll away early on, now look who is dissapearing.

I've disappeared? That's odd...

*checks*

Still here.

[f we turn our attention to your favourite bogeyman, Sheikh Usama bin Laden, you will see that he has never passed comment on any aspect of your society. He has no problem with your religion, your pornography, your violence, your disposable pop culture or your society in general. He has never targetted your cultural or religious icons but rather the icons of your military and economic power - including your world trade center.

Bullshit.

thank you
I am responding

Great response. :rolleyes:

Eve gutted you already.

That's original, at least. Well, not really, but at least the OP made something resembling an actual attempt.

Bullshit.

The entire OP is bullshit, hon. Pay it no heed.

Well, to answer part of your post, while I can empathize with a nation that intentionally spends billions to develop precision weapons in an attempt to radically reduce civilian casualties, and empathize with a nation that investigates and jails its own soldiers for abusing prisoners and raping and killing innocent civilians, I cannot empathize with anyone, no matter how oppressed they may be or perceive themselves to be, if they deliberately and with malice aforethought target civilians exclusively.

There's a reason the US doesn't do the city-wide carpetbombing firebomb raids that they did in WWII. It's unconscionable to deliberately make civilians the intended target of a military action - with the intent to scare the living shit out of the survivors.

It's why anyone who sends suicide bombers or crashes hijacked civilian airliners into civilian buildings deserves to be killed outright.

The United States may spend lots of money on precision weapons and whatnot, but in the last fifty years it has spent a good deal of money training terrorists to do all sorts of killing civilians right here in the Western Hemisphere. Examples. Cuba, where US trained terrorists have done such things as *gasp* blow up jetliners, and are then *gasp* not killed outright, but protected from extradition to victim countries for trial. Also in Cuba, straffing a dockside hotel where military types were known to hang out, without regard to the fact that there were many more civilians than military personel.
Examples Nicuragua, where US sponsored terrorist groups killed an incredible number of civilians, check say Operation Just Cause, in which in persuit of one man a large number of civilians were killed. Not "intentionally" directed at civilians perhaps, but in my mind, about as reprehensible.
This said, I am NOT saying what the terrorists do is right. If I believed in the death penalty I would say they should have it. What I am saying is that the best way to stop them is not more troops in the middle east, the best way is understanding their concerns and working to reach a solution, continued use of force will only make more terrorists.

Great response. :rolleyes:

Eve gutted you already.

I was looking up some stuff in a book I have been reading, its not as fast as if it was an electronic source, it took a second.

I've disappeared? That's odd...

*checks*

Still here.

I was refering to the fact that you have not addressed any of my points, and at the time, I had not seen anyone adress any of my points.

The United States may spend lots of money on precision weapons and whatnot, but in the last fifty years it has spent a good deal of money training terrorists to do all sorts of killing civilians right here in the Western Hemisphere. Examples. Cuba, where US trained terrorists have done such things as *gasp* blow up jetliners, and are then *gasp* not killed outright, but protected from extradition to victim countries for trial. Also in Cuba, straffing a dockside hotel where military types were known to hang out, without regard to the fact that there were many more civilians than military personel.
Examples Nicuragua, where US sponsored terrorist groups killed an incredible number of civilians, check say Operation Just Cause, in which in persuit of one man a large number of civilians were killed. Not "intentionally" directed at civilians perhaps, but in my mind, about as reprehensible.
This said, I am NOT saying what the terrorists do is right. If I believed in the death penalty I would say they should have it, what I am saying is that the best way to stop them is not more troops in the middle east, the best way is understanding their concerns and working to reach a solution, continued use of force will only make more terrorists.


Ah, so you're saying that because we've made the mistake of doing it (and I told you we used to firebomb cities), that it's ok for them to do it?

You're saying that we're not a nation where people like Nazz vote and say, "stop being shitheads and play nice" - where people like Nazz can oppose Guantanamo and elect people who say they'll close it?

We don't *make* them terrorists anymore than we *make* them anything at all.

Becoming a terrorist is a moral choice. Rebellion itself, whether against a nation or an idea is a moral choice.

Gandhi is a perfect example. He rebelled. But he did not embrace violence.

And it worked.

By your logic and examples, we shouldn't have Islamic terrorists. There should be hordes of Latin and Central American terrorists blowing up US shopping malls left and right.

As it stands, there are hordes of Latin and Central American workers (legal and illegal immigrants) in the US - trying to make a living.

If you get any denser, you're going to become a gravitic anomaly.

Again, Eve has gutted you.

You The thrust of my OP was that al Qaeda's "war" on the west is politically motivated, and not the fanatical "freedom-hating" mission that it is misrepresented as. If the governments of the west understood this then much could be done to alleviate the tension. If I presented this argument behind a veil of uber-religiosity, it was only to get your attention.

And my point stands.

Many people will continue to believe that Bin Laden and everyone who supports him are religious fanatics whose motives can therefore be dismissed. Why do people believe this? Well, he flew a plane into a building and killed thousands of people. Only a madman would do that, right? They forget that he did not do that. He got someone else to do it.

So he is not as crazy as he is usually represented. This is corroborated by the idea that he took responsibilty for such an attack, yet has avoided capture.

I think AQ's war on the west is at least partially politically motivated, but we do not know to what extent as information from them and about them is probably filtered.

All we can judge by are their actions that make it into the news; i.e. terrorist attacks against civilians. Because of these actions I deem them to be as bad as any invading army has been in our long and inglorious history.

Perhaps you should give a list of countries where the USA has a military base of some sort. To me, that seems more of a militaristic/imperial tactic than merely a presence. Mind you, this does not excuse AQ's actions in the slightest.

Ah, so you're saying that because we've made the mistake of doing it (and I told you we used to firebomb cities), that it's ok for them to do it?

No I am asking you to understand.

You're saying that we're not a nation where people like Nazz vote and say, "stop being shitheads and play nice" - where people like Nazz can oppose Guantanamo and elect people who say they'll close it?

No I am saying that we are, and I love that about our country, and that all nations should have a right to take care of their own issues, and that if a regime is really bad enough to require outside intervention, then other nations should be able to agree on that, and a few nations should not have to violate international law in order to do so.

We don't *make* them terrorists anymore than we *make* them anything at all.

Becoming a terrorist is a moral choice. Rebellion itself, whether against a nation or an idea is a moral choice.

Gandhi is a perfect example. He rebelled. But he did not embrace violence.

And it worked.


I agree completely that is what they should be doing, and have said so in various other threads, but they aren't, and we are dealing with the consequences (9/11) and that is pretty fucking tragic, so we should be doing everything we can to reduce the chance of further attacks.

By your logic and examples, we shouldn't have Islamic terrorists. There should be hordes of Latin and Central American terrorists blowing up US shopping malls left and right.
No, by my logic perhaps there would be more Latin American terrorists, but instead they have been electing pro-Chavez leaders left and right. Last time this happend the US instated bastards like Pinochet, I hope it doesnt happen again. I would like to see the Middle East elect a bunch of Chavez supporters, I think that it would be healthy for the region.

As it stands, there are hordes of Latin and Central American workers (legal and illegal immigrants) in the US - trying to make a living.
Because we fucked their economies really bad, except the drug trade, we appointed lots of proven dealers into positions of power.

If you get any denser, you're going to become a gravitic anomaly.
That sounds cool.

Again, Eve has gutted you.

but for some reason I keep posting, but it gives you something to do right? so grab a beer and be patient.

here *handing Cluichstan a beer* sit back and enjoy the show, feel free to contribute if you have any ideas.

*suicide bombs this thread*

aww fuck it, am just gonna read this thread,its fun watching ppl bitch and whine all day.


wanted to reply but I cnba [could not be arsed]

I agree completely that is what they should be doing, and have said so in various other threads, but they aren't, and we are dealing with the consequences (9/11) and that is pretty fucking tragic, so we should be doing everything we can to reduce the chance of further attacks.

There are only a few ways to reduce the attacks:

1. Surrender - we all convert to their specific brand of Islam, and put Osama in the White House.

2. Withdraw from all overseas activity of any kind - including withdrawing our media and culture from world markets.

Any other options on our account involve much more bloodshed and violence than we've ever done in US history. And with no guarantee of success.

Well, to answer part of your post, while I can empathize with a nation that intentionally spends billions to develop precision weapons in an attempt to radically reduce civilian casualties, and empathize with a nation that investigates and jails its own soldiers for abusing prisoners and raping and killing innocent civilians, I cannot empathize with anyone, no matter how oppressed they may be or perceive themselves to be, if they deliberately and with malice aforethought target civilians exclusively.

There's a reason the US doesn't do the city-wide carpetbombing firebomb raids that they did in WWII. It's unconscionable to deliberately make civilians the intended target of a military action - with the intent to scare the living shit out of the survivors.

It's why anyone who sends suicide bombers or crashes hijacked civilian airliners into civilian buildings deserves to be killed outright.

So, could you empathise with someone if they deliberately and with malice aforethought target civilians while targetting military or strategic targets?

What is unconscionable? To deliberately make civilians the intended target of a military action? Or to do it with the intent to scare the living shit out of the survivors?

If a military commander sent a soldier to blow up an enemy installation, knowing full well that the soldier would probably die, does the commander deserve to be killed outright?

Be careful of making sweeping statements about morality and conflict.

There are only a few ways to reduce the attacks:

1. Surrender - we all convert to their specific brand of Islam, and put Osama in the White House.

2. Withdraw from all overseas activity of any kind - including withdrawing our media and culture from world markets.

Any other options on our account involve much more bloodshed and violence than we've ever done in US history. And with no guarantee of success.

Now I call Bullshit.
Back that up somehow. While I agree that pulling out of the Middle east today would be ugly, its not exactly pretty right now. And I think that most of the suicide bombers are worried about more than that their TVs are showing "Freinds" Your statement is ludicrous, I would content myself with the United States obeying international law.

There are only a few ways to reduce the attacks:

1. Surrender - we all convert to their specific brand of Islam, and put Osama in the White House.

2. Withdraw from all overseas activity of any kind - including withdrawing our media and culture from world markets.

Any other options on our account involve much more bloodshed and violence than we've ever done in US history. And with no guarantee of success.

I think we should build, maintain, and run schools for women in the Middle east, teaching them about civil rights, technical skills, and self-defense. I would also support local organisations in these areas that are attempting to create infrastructure such as potable water systems and hospitals.

How do these ideas fit into your narrow range of options?

I think we should build, maintain, and run schools for women in the Middle east, teaching them about civil rights, technical skills, and self-defense. I would also support local organisations in these areas that are attempting to create infrastructure such as potable water systems and hospitals.

YES!

Now I call Bullshit.
Back that up somehow. While I agree that pulling out of the Middle east today would be ugly, its not exactly pretty right now. And I think that most of the suicide bombers are worried about more than that their TVs are showing "Freinds" Your statement is ludicrous, I would content myself with the United States obeying international law.

Maybe you should read more of what Sunnis and Shias have to say about US culture, and how it is corrupting their world. Even Osama has had plenty to say about it (as a Sunni), and the Iranians (as Shias) and al-Sadr (as a Shia) have had plenty to say about it.

Maybe you should find out that aside from their perception that everything is the fault of the evil j00z, that what remains is the product of evil US culture and evil US intent.

A nice rosy solution except that those who disagree with the teachings provided will attack the schools and those who volunteer to teach at them. Which leads to more problems to be solved.

All solutions and ideologies tend to fall apart once you introduce humanity, we are children of chaos.

Maybe you should read more of what Sunnis and Shias have to say about US culture, and how it is corrupting their world. Even Osama has had plenty to say about it (as a Sunni), and the Iranians (as Shias) and al-Sadr (as a Shia) have had plenty to say about it.

Maybe you should find out that aside from their perception that everything is the fault of the evil j00z, that what remains is the product of evil US culture and evil US intent.

There are extremists on every side, however, rednecks I hear talking about killing niggers (and I went to high school with them) rarely do so, the extremists you reference would have a MUCH more difficult time convincing people to give thier lives for them. You read Love of Allah's original post, he sees terrorists as fighting a defensive war, that is much more difficult to sell when we do not have occupying armies in the middle east.

There are extremists on every side, however, rednecks I hear talking about killing niggers (and I went to high school with them) rarely do so, the extremists you reference would have a MUCH more difficult time convincing people to give thier lives for them. You read Love of Allah's original post, he sees terrorists as fighting a defensive war, that is much more difficult to spend when we do not have occupying armies in the middle east.

Like I said, they have Gandhi's methods, which they have never employed.

Obviously, a moral choice.

Seriously.What?

I think we should build, maintain, and run schools for women in the Middle east, teaching them about civil rights, technical skills, and self-defense. I would also support local organisations in these areas that are attempting to create infrastructure such as potable water systems and hospitals.

How do these ideas fit into your narrow range of options?

Yeah, the Saudis (just to name one nation) will REALLY let us mess up their social structure like that. You do realize that women have restricted rights in most Islamic communities, right? And that actions like helping them out will only anger the radicals even more.

The other systems fall under the jurisdiction of WHO.

A nice rosy solution except that those who disagree with the teachings provided will attack the schools and those who volunteer to teach at them. Which leads to more problems to be solved.

All solutions and ideologies tend to fall apart once you introduce humanity, we are children of chaos.

I would find a way to make it worthwhile for the authorities to defend such a place. We could file it under Foreign Aid. But between you and me, we really know it's a bribe.

Even children of chaos like an air conditioned Mercedes.

A nice rosy solution except that those who disagree with the teachings provided will attack the schools and those who volunteer to teach at them. Which leads to more problems to be solved.

All solutions and ideologies tend to fall apart once you introduce humanity, we are children of chaos.

The chaos in which terrorists thrive is fed by an occupying army. Saddam's rations distributing program was rated as one of the best in the world by the Red Cross; who said that if it was run in the US style, with the Iraqi resources, it would have been useless. That was not subject to so many terrorist attacks. If the Iraqi public opinion were to support these activities they would be much more difficult for the terrorists to attack, they survive on the hatred of the United States.

Yeah, the Saudis (just to name one nation) will REALLY let us mess up their social structure like that. You do realize that women have restricted rights in most Islamic communities, right? And that actions like helping them out will only anger the radicals even more.

The other systems fall under the jurisdiction of WHO.

I was thinking of implementing such a solution in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where the social structure has been made more fluid by Shock and Awe tactics.

The Saudis are liberalising through trade. I am not as worried about them.

I do realize that women have restricted rights in most Islamic communities, which is why I proposed this as a solution. You claim that actions like helping them out will only anger the radicals even more, but I am not convinced, and even if they were, the rights of these women are more important than that.

Like I said, they have Gandhi's methods, which they have never employed.

Obviously, a moral choice.

It is not that simple. If it were, Gandhi's methods could be used by US forces to stabilise the Middle East.

Like I said, they have Gandhi's methods, which they have never employed.

Obviously, a moral choice.

Correct, they have made an incredibly incorrect moral decision.

So has the United States, as you admitted, should the people who decided to Firebomb Tokyo also be killed immediatly?

What can we do to stop them? So far invading has proved a poor solution. We cannot kill everyone, and if we do than we are the worst people in history, what can we do to convince that culture that killing innocent americans is not the best solution?

I do realize that women have restricted rights in most Islamic communities, which is why I proposed this as a solution. You claim that actions like helping them out will only anger the radicals even more, but I am not convinced, and even if they were, the rights of these women are more important than that.

I agree entirely, if we started popular programs the terrorists have less to feed on. Right now, a lot of people love them. That is what we need to change

What can we do to stop them? So far invading has proved a poor solution. We cannot kill everyone, and if we do than we are the worst people in history, what can we do to convince that culture that killing innocent americans is not the best solution?

By making it more lucrative for them to stop doing so.

Correct, they have made an incredibly incorrect moral decision.

So has the United States, as you admitted, should the people who decided to Firebomb Tokyo also be killed immediatly?

What can we do to stop them? So far invading has proved a poor solution. We cannot kill everyone, and if we do than we are the worst people in history, what can we do to convince that culture that killing innocent americans is not the best solution?

It's kind of late to do anything about Tokyo or Hiroshima. But, in our modern military, we hold up such acts as scandalous, and people who abuse prisoners actually get in trouble! Who would have thought!

We can't convince them of shit - get that fact through your head. They have an idea in their head - a belief - a postulate adhered to by faith - that they are right and we are wrong.

The best we can do is defend ourselves within the constraints of our own rules, and hope that they eventually come to another belief.

By making it more lucrative for them to stop doing so.

I think that it sounds like its worth a try, I think just about anything sounds better than current policy, but I guess that is why Rumsfeld resigned. Because everybody agreed with me on that point at least.

It's kind of late to do anything about Tokyo or Hiroshima. But, in our modern military, we hold up such acts as scandalous, and people who abuse prisoners actually get in trouble! Who would have thought!

We can't convince them of shit - get that fact through your head. They have an idea in their head - a belief - a postulate adhered to by faith - that they are right and we are wrong.

The best we can do is defend ourselves within the constraints of our own rules, and hope that they eventually come to another belief.

I dont think that fighting terrorists with conventional warfare is a good idea. Invading Iraq was in what way a defense of the United States? There are no ties between Saddam and Osama, they hate each other. What we did in Iraq does not count as defense according to international law, it was not a preemptive strike, it is a preventive war, and that is very very illegal, if anyone else tried it, we would be all over them breaking our rules in a heartbeat.

I dont think that fighting terrorists with conventional warfare is a good idea. Invading Iraq was in what way a defense of the United States? There are no ties between Saddam and Osama, they hate each other. What we did in Iraq does not count as defense according to international law, it was not a preemptive strike, it is a preventive war, and that is very very illegal, if anyone else tried it, we would be all over them breaking our rules in a heartbeat.

I'm not saying conventional warfare. My suggestion might mean police work. It might mean covert operations. It might mean psychological warfare.

I'm saying that your idea of somehow "educating" them is not possible.

You would have to close the madrassas all over the Middle East for starters. That's where they learn to hate us. How do you propose to close them?

We can't convince them of shit - get that fact through your head. They have an idea in their head - a belief - a postulate adhered to by faith - that they are right and we are wrong.

I am unconvinced, maybe it is just my thick head, but I think that we have tried a lot harder at beating them into submission than convincing them peacefully, even before the latest Iraq war the United States policies regarding Iraq were barbarian, preventing international aid from getting to starving people because we did not like Saddam, those policies only drove the people closer to Saddam, he was the only one trying to help them. (I am NOT saying Saddam was good!!!) but people in Iraq saw him as better than the US. That is where we went wrong.

I'm saying that your idea of somehow "educating" them is not possible.

You would have to close the madrassas all over the Middle East for starters. That's where they learn to hate us. How do you propose to close them?

Why is educating them impossible?

Why would we have to close the madrassas? Could that not be where we learn that it is not just a question of 'them' and 'us'?

I'm not saying conventional warfare. My suggestion might mean police work. It might mean covert operations. It might mean psychological warfare.

I'm saying that your idea of somehow "educating" them is not possible.

You would have to close the madrassas all over the Middle East for starters. That's where they learn to hate us. How do you propose to close them?

As long as we are trying to force things on them we are going the wrong direction. I would NOT suggest closing the madrassas, that would only make them stronger, this is like the dark side of the force thing, dont give in to the hate, it can only be conquered by love. I dont suggest we open our borders to all middle easterners as a gesture of freindship, that would be suicidal. But I do suggest cutting down on the psychological warfare against the public, turning police action over to Iraqis, and demonstrating with a concrete timeline when and how we are going to leave them in peace.

Why is educating them impossible?

Why would we have to close the madrassas?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501617.html

You're saying that under international law, the US can go into Pakistan, close down these schools which are directly connected to indoctrinating terrorists and terrorist supporters, and re-educated the populace as the US sees fit?

Really? Wake me up when you're not high.

Why is educating them impossible?

Why would we have to close the madrassas? Could that not be where we learn that it is not just a question of 'them' and 'us'?

I think that we have somewhat similar thought processes on this.

You're saying that under international law, the US can go into Pakistan, close down these schools which are directly connected to indoctrinating terrorists and terrorist supporters, and re-educated the populace as the US sees fit?

I missed something, who said that?

Uh, the Americans have troops in Finland? NORTH KOREA? ... CHINA? RUSSIA?! Oh my God! HAHAHFHASFHASJKFHsafashkfjash

Jesus Christ, looking at that list makes me laugh. Since when has the US had troops in a good amount of those nations in the list, considering that they are neutral towards the US, and some of them are even hateful of the Americans? :-D Unless, of course, tourists count as "active duty" troops! Or some random guy who has a miiltary background who's going through the place!

Something tells me someone's been smoking something really bad lately.

I missed something, who said that?

Gift of God asked for a reason why we need to shut down the madrassas, and asked why we can't educate them?

Go back in the thread.

Uh, the Americans have troops in Finland? NORTH KOREA? ... CHINA? RUSSIA?! Oh my God! HAHAHFHASFHASJKFHsafashkfjash

Jesus Christ, looking at that list makes me laugh. Since when has the US had troops in a good amount of those nations in the list, considering that they are neutral towards the US, and some of them are even hateful of the Americans? :-D Unless, of course, tourists count as troops!

Something tells me someone's been smoking something really bad lately.

I think they're counting the handful of Marines that makes up nearly every US Embassy staff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501617.html

You're saying that under international law, the US can go into Pakistan, close down these schools which are directly connected to indoctrinating terrorists and terrorist supporters, and re-educated the populace as the US sees fit?

Really? Wake me up when you're not high.

I did not say that. I asked you a question. That question had nothing to do with international law, Pakistan, and US actions therein.

Your article claims that Musharraf is not doing enough to bring Pakistani madrassas into the mainstream. Obviously the author of the article agrees with me. Muslims can be educated, and the manner of their education is part of the solution. The solution is not to blow up all the madrassas. It is to ensure that madrassas teach the children to be compassionate beings. Musharraf is not doing enough of that.

Please do not put words in my mouth. You appear more intelligent than that.

Gift of God asked for a reason why we need to shut down the madrassas, and asked why we can't educate them?

And I agreed with him. Where did either of us say that the US could legally go in and shut down these schools? If the schools really need to be shut down I dont see why the issue could not be brought before the security council, and action towards prodding Musharraf into carrying through with his earlier proposals could be made. Musharraf is in need on international goodwill, and I bet he doesnt find this issue worth sinking over. He is just content to leave it alone so long as people stay off his back.

I did not say that. I asked you a question. That question had nothing to do with international law, Pakistan, and US actions therein.

Your article claims that Musharraf is not doing enough to bring Pakistani madrassas into the mainstream. Obviously the author of the article agrees with me. Muslims can be educated, and the manner of their education is part of the solution. The solution is not to blow up all the madrassas. It is to ensure that madrassas teach the children to be compassionate beings. Musharraf is not doing enough of that.

Please do not put words in my mouth. You appear more intelligent than that.

Madrassas aren't being changed - that's the point of the article.

They are the source of the hate. Think of it as the spawning ground.

Madrassas are even in the UK - secretive and underground.

How do you propose to stop them from spreading their message?

Can't be done.

Put it this way: Communism wasn't even a religion, yet it proved impossible to stamp out the idea, or the spread of the idea. You really think it's possible to stamp out the spread of extreme Islam?

I think they're counting the handful of Marines that makes up nearly every US Embassy staff.

...

OK, ahhahahahahaha. VERY CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ACTIVE DUTY TROOPERS INDEED.

Your article claims that Musharraf is not doing enough to bring Pakistani madrassas into the mainstream. Obviously the author of the article agrees with me. Muslims can be educated, and the manner of their education is part of the solution. The solution is not to blow up all the madrassas. It is to ensure that madrassas teach the children to be compassionate beings. Musharraf is not doing enough of that.

Bingo, I was already partway through a post that said just that.

And I agreed with him. Where did either of us say that the US could legally go in and shut down these schools? If the schools really need to be shut down I dont see why the issue could not be brought before the security council, and action towards prodding Musharraf into carrying through with his earlier proposals could be made. Musharraf is in need on international goodwill, and I bet he doesnt find this issue worth sinking over. He is just content to leave it alone so long as people stay off his back.

But since Eve Online was good enough to bring it to our attention, we can now get the ball rolling to put such pressure on Musharraf.

Thanks, Eve!

...

OK, ahhahahahahaha. VERY CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ACTIVE DUTY TROOPERS INDEED.

Nobody here is supporting those claims. Your point has been made ad nauseum.

But since Eve Online was good enough to bring it to our attention, we can now get the ball rolling to put such pressure on Musharraf.

Thanks, Eve!

If Musharraf could do it, he would have done it already.

He already no longer has effective control over parts of his own country.

Madrassas aren't being changed - that's the point of the article.

They are the source of the hate. Think of it as the spawning ground.

Madrassas are even in the UK - secretive and underground.

How do you propose to stop them from spreading their message?

Can't be done.

Put it this way: Communism wasn't even a religion, yet it proved impossible to stamp out the idea, or the spread of the idea. You really think it's possible to stamp out the spread of extreme Islam?

No I do not believe it is possible to stamp out an idea. I also believe that attempting to do so merely drives it underground, making adherents to the idea more extreme in their beliefs.

You and I can agree that this would not be good, right?

So we don't do that. We bring the teachings into the open. Then if the message is hate, we shall know that.

If Musharraf could do it, he would have done it already.

He already no longer has effective control over parts of his own country.

If this is true then he needs help. HELP, assistance. We do not need to go in there with the military from one country and do it for him. We need to seek his permission, possibly pressure his permission, through the United Nations, and then offer what assistance is necessary, just because he cannot do it alone does not mean he should be cut out of the process entirely. By taking measures such as this we can reduce the United States image as western imperialist devil; and hence, reduce terrorism.

No I do not believe it is possible to stamp out an idea. I also believe that attempting to do so merely drives it underground, making adherents to the idea more extreme in their beliefs.

You and I can agree that this would not be good, right?

So we don't do that. We bring the teachings into the open. Then if the message is hate, we shall know that.

In Pakistan, it's already out in the open, and people there like the message.

If this is true then he needs help. HELP, assistance. We do not need to go in there with the military from one country and do it for him. We need to seek his permission, possibly pressure his permission, through the United Nations, and then offer what assistance is necessary, just because he cannot do it alone does not mean he should be cut out of the process entirely. By taking measures such as this we can reduce the United States image as western imperialist devil; and hence, reduce terrorism.

What measures do you propose, aside from waving your hands and chanting "United Nations"?

In Pakistan, it's already out in the open, and people there like the message.

You have shown some simple powers of observation. Now ask why this is so. Try not to answer with the theories in your head, but with the actions of the people you are observing.

Where did stamping out communism get us? We commited a load of atrocities and lost a bunch of respect over our actions in Cuba and our other fellow Western Hemispherites. Stamping it out is not the way to go.

and if the UN or anyone else were to aid him the terrorists would add it to their list of propaganda.

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados - British not US
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo French not US
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus British not US
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti French not US
Dominican Republic
East Timor Australian not US
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea French not US
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya British not US
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia African union not US
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal British not US
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal French not US
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone British not US
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe



No US troops in these countries to the best of my knowledge

This list is so stupid its laughable. US troops in China, Russia, N Korea, Vietnam and Burma? WTF!?

You have shown some simple powers of observation. Now ask why this is so. Try not to answer with the theories in your head, but with the actions of the people you are observing.

They like it because:

they are a simple, technologically backwards people who have no idea how the rest of the world works.

they find themselves humiliated by this - impoverished by this

they are told by their religious and political leaders that their God is fucking them in this world because they aren't pious enough

those same leaders tell them that if they are pious enough, they will overthrow the world of hedonists and idolators that plague their people

easy to believe. simple story, simple line of thought.

How are you going to go in there, and open YOUR school?

What measures do you propose, aside from waving your hands and chanting "United Nations"?

First, I council against waving and chanting, that sounds far too religious for my taste. Second, I suggest going through accepted steps of creating a proposal and having it submitted for a vote, and then, the action would be taken by not one or two countries but by many.

Now you question, while I know little of how these institutions work, I will humor you with a suggestion or two. Check up on them, have a freindly neighborhood UN representitive present on a regular basis, it seems like that would be cheaper than miltary action. If school consistantly violate regulations about blatantly encouraging hatred and violence as it seems some of them do. Then shut them down, but dont outlaw a Madras in the area, just have a nice islamic volunteer open one, pay for the supplies and make it the envy of all the other madrasses. That way you encourage positive, peaceful thinking instead of just trying to beat the other thinking out of them.

No US troops in these countries to the best of my knowledge

This list is so stupid its laughable. US troops in China, Russia, N Korea, Vietnam and Burma? WTF!?

This is better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_U.S._Military

It gives numbers of troops per nation with a small description of the mission.

Their numbers cam from here, I believe:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/basestructure1999.pdf

What measures do you propose, aside from waving your hands and chanting "United Nations"?

First, I council against waving and chanting, that sounds far too religious for my taste. Second, I suggest going through accepted steps of creating a proposal and having it submitted for a vote, and then, the action would be taken by not one or two countries but by many.

Now you question, while I know little of how these institutions work, I will humor you with a suggestion or two. Check up on them (the schools), have a freindly neighborhood UN representitive present on a regular basis, it seems like that would be cheaper than miltary action. If school consistantly violate regulations about blatantly encouraging hatred and violence as it seems some of them do. Then shut them down, but dont outlaw a Madras in the area, just have a nice islamic volunteer open one, pay for the supplies and make it the envy of all the other madrasses. That way you encourage positive, peaceful thinking instead of just trying to beat the other thinking out of them.

Hey I got back on!
Sorry internet difficulty, I will read back and get up to speed

edit

Sorry about the double post, it was product of an internet error and my frustration

They like it because:

they are a simple, technologically backwards people who have no idea how the rest of the world works.

they find themselves humiliated by this - impoverished by this

they are told by their religious and political leaders that their God is fucking them in this world because they aren't pious enough

those same leaders tell them that if they are pious enough, they will overthrow the world of hedonists and idolators that plague their people

easy to believe. simple story, simple line of thought.

How are you going to go in there, and open YOUR school?

I'm not going to open them. I suggest using US Muslims to open madrassas instead.

I also suggest you read up on Pakistan, or talk to Avyavartha. I rarely agree with his/her opinion but (s)he is well educated on the region, and can show you how your ideas about Pakistani culture and motivations border on the ignorant.

Hey I got back on!
Sorry internet difficulty, I will read back and get up to speed

edit

apologies for the double post, my internet is still having trouble, it was the result of freezing and frustration.

[QUOTE]When your warlord president tells you that we hate freedom he is giving you a version of events that is diametrically opposed to the truth - in fact we love our freedom and have no problem with yours. We simply cannot abide the presence of foreign soldiers in our holy places. Could you?
there are no troops in Saudi Arabia anymore genius

If we turn our attention to your favourite bogeyman, Sheikh Usama bin Laden,

He is not a Sheikh, or a scholar.He is a moron

You accuse him of terrorism - but what is this? But I say again - it is a defensive war he fights, holy and justified.
no, it is neither holy nor justified. Jihad is acceptable in only two cases, flying planes into innocences is not one of them

Peace be upon you

Allahu Akhbar
You should be ashamed for using the gracious name of Allah in this trash.

First, I council against waving and chanting, that sounds far too religious for my taste. Second, I suggest going through accepted steps of creating a proposal and having it submitted for a vote, and then, the action would be taken by not one or two countries but by many.

Now you question, while I know little of how these institutions work, I will humor you with a suggestion or two. Check up on them, have a freindly neighborhood UN representitive present on a regular basis, it seems like that would be cheaper than miltary action. If school consistantly violate regulations about blatantly encouraging hatred and violence as it seems some of them do. Then shut them down, but dont outlaw a Madras in the area, just have a nice islamic volunteer open one, pay for the supplies and make it the envy of all the other madrasses. That way you encourage positive, peaceful thinking instead of just trying to beat the other thinking out of them.

Riiight.

Tell you what, why don't you investigate the historical record of UN effectiveness, and get back to me?

To Eve, your chauvenism is impressive.

To Sovietstan, yep he went a bit far (okay that is a vast understatement), and extremists do indeed give you muslims (I believe I read earlier you were islamic) a bad name. But I think that he is an example of the terrorist mentality, and therefore a worthy study. It is not just garbage, it is instructive garbage. Swaying someone to your view is easier if you understand why they hold theirs.

edit

Just saw the mecca 5x a day, so I assume you are islamic

Riiight.

Tell you what, why don't you investigate the historical record of UN effectiveness, and get back to me?

Okay, so this mentality "grinds my gears" a bit. The UN is like any governing body, it has what power the governed vest in it. If the entire military disobyed US law what would the people without guns do about it? As long as the United States uses the UN only as an instrument of its will and ignores/Vetos/Abstains (all with similar result) UN resolutions it doesnt like, it lacks effectiveness. If the UN were fully endorsed by the US and we submitted and followed resolutions, it would have FAR more power. And far more credibility around the world, in this case, the middle east.

[QUOTE=The Love of Allah;12106800]




\
there are no troops in Saudi Arabia anymore genius


He is not a Sheikh, or a scholar.He is a moron

no, it is neither holy nor justified. Jihad is acceptable in only two cases, flying planes into innocences is not one of them

You should be ashamed for using the gracious name of Allah in this trash.

Well done.For once I have to agree with you.

Argentina


WRONG


The US government wanted immunity for any crimes commited by their troops while on Argentine soil. The penguin administration said no. Or maybe HELL NO!

But that's just a point of view.

I'll make you a deal. When the more fundamentalist adherents of "The Religion of Peace" pull their terrorist buddies from these countries, we will leave too.
America should lead by example. I also doubt that Islamists have a significant presence in most of the listed countries.

Hey, can you show me where to get some of that?
No doubt he's one of these guys who has direct access to Allah's phone line...

It was pretty cool. I'd like to say hello to the lovely Seaman Chavez, who showed me a great time
;)

If Musharraf could do it, he would have done it already.

He already no longer has effective control over parts of his own country.
I don't think any Pakistani leader has ever really controlled NWFP.

WRONG


The US government wanted immunity for any crimes commited by their troops while on Argentine soil. The penguin administration said no. Or maybe HELL NO!

But that's just a point of view.

I think that he was refering to the WMDs claims (despite evidence), or maybe the Saddam--Terrorists business(again), though I haven't heard those claims lately.

edit

He was probably also refering to a lot of Bullshit, but I suppose I am what passes for his side around here, so I left that out. But my concience nagged me.

Okay, so this mentality "grinds my gears" a bit. The UN is like any governing body, it has what power the governed vest in it. If the entire military disobyed US law what would the people without guns do about it? As long as the United States uses the UN only as an instrument of its will and ignores/Vetos/Abstains (all with similar result) UN resolutions it doesnt like, it lacks effectiveness. If the UN were fully endorsed by the US and we submitted and followed resolutions, it would have FAR more power. And far more credibility around the world, in this case, the middle east.

You need to read a history book. The US isn't the only one who uses the UN this way - every permanent member of the Security Council does.

And the UN is hamstrung by design.

Are you saying that somehow, the US is the only country with a veto, or has ever used a veto, or threatened to veto?

Are you saying we never submit resolutions?

Why don't you look up the Kosovo situation, and find out that the US and NATO went into Kosovo WITHOUT UN authorization to stop genocide because they couldn't get UN authorization.

Are you going to say that was because the US was going to veto itself?

We didn't get UN authorization until after the fact.

Sheesh.

To Sovietstan, yep he went a bit far (okay that is a vast understatement), and extremists do indeed give you muslims (I believe I read earlier you were islamic) a bad name. But I think that he is an example of the terrorist mentality, and therefore a worthy study. It is not just garbage, it is instructive garbage. Swaying someone to your view is easier if you understand why they hold theirs.

edit

Just saw the mecca 5x a day, so I assume you are islamic

Yes, I am Muslim. And I don't think this is as much of a terrorist mentality as it is a troll mentality. I doubt he believes what he writes, but if he does, so help us.

Yes, I am Muslim. And I don't think this is as much of a terrorist mentality as it is a troll mentality. I doubt he believes what he writes, but if he does, so help us.

Some do believe that sort of thing. It takes all kinds, you know.

You need to read a history book. The US isn't the only one who uses the UN this way - every permanent member of the Security Council does.

And the UN is hamstrung by design.

Are you saying that somehow, the US is the only country with a veto, or has ever used a veto, or threatened to veto?

Are you saying we never submit resolutions?

Why don't you look up the Kosovo situation, and find out that the US and NATO went into Kosovo WITHOUT UN authorization to stop genocide because they couldn't get UN authorization.

Are you going to say that was because the US was going to veto itself?

We didn't get UN authorization until after the fact.

Sheesh.

Read about Kosovo more! Both sides in that conflict are fucked up. No we are not the only nation with a Veto, but we use it more than the other four combined. I am not suggesting a deficency in our resolution submitting skills, just our choice of resolutions. And I am saying that the US follows Israel in unpunished resolution violations.
I will look up some Kosovo info and post it. It came as a bit of a shock to me to hear the non-american side of things, I am a pretty big Clinton fan.

Read about Kosovo more! Both sides in that conflict are fucked up. No we are not the only nation with a Veto, but we use it more than the other four combined. I am not suggesting a deficency in our resolution submitting skills, just our choice of resolutions. And I am saying that the US follows Israel in unpunished resolution violations.
I will look up some Kosovo info and post it. It came as a bit of a shock to me to hear the non-american side of things, I am a pretty big Clinton fan.

The UN is weak and useless by design - by the will of the permanent members of the Security Council - and that's more than just the US.

We couldn't get UN action on Kosovo because of Russia. Whoa - that throws your whole "the US is the reason the UN fails" theory...

Yes, I am Muslim. And I don't think this is as much of a terrorist mentality as it is a troll mentality. I doubt he believes what he writes, but if he does, so help us.

Either way, his is the mentality I would expect from most terrorists. Maybe you have better insight, I am sorry to say that whatever he believes, it is people like him who give your religion a bad name.

The UN is weak and useless by design - by the will of the permanent members of the Security Council - and that's more than just the US.

We couldn't get UN action on Kosovo because of Russia. Whoa - that throws your whole "the US is the reason the UN fails" theory...

I am still not convinced Kosovo was a good idea, and maybe we should look to retool the UN, I personally do not support the one nation veto, but that is not this debate. The concept of an international governing body, however, I feel very strongly is a good idea, and the best route to peace available.

I am still not convinced Kosovo was a good idea, and maybe we should look to retool the UN, I personally do not support the one nation veto, but that is not this debate. The concept of an international governing body, however, I feel very strongly is a good idea, and the best route to peace available.

Riiight.

Okay, found the bit on Kosovo in this book, formulating reply now

Your leaders are lying to you.No shit. So are yours.

This man recently said "We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom," (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html) and he has consistently attempted to portray the faithful warriors of the holy army as people who hate your freedoms and your way of life. This is a smokescreen to keep you from seeing the truth - that the holy warriors seek only to defend the land of the two holy places from the armies of the infidel. They are fighting a defensive war - and America is the aggressor.

"It is a jihad for the sake of God and will last until [our] religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq. We will attack everywhere."Sounds agressive to me.

"The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State’s list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:
://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html[/url])As others have said, most of those are embassy guards or trainers asked for by the host country. We only have about 1.3 million active duty troops and 140,000 are in Iraq and about 200,000 are here at home so that doesn't leave many for the rest of the countries on yiour list.

When your warlord president tells you that we hate freedom he is giving you a version of events that is diametrically opposed to the truth - in fact we love our freedom and have no problem with yours. We simply cannot abide the presence of foreign soldiers in our holy places. Could you?Were it up to me we'd split and let you all blow each other to pieces - which you will do. In Iraq you actually have an invading force that most countries would unite against. Instead, you all spend your time blowing each other's children up when they line up to go to school.

If we turn our attention to your favourite bogeyman, Sheikh Usama bin Laden, you will see that he has never passed comment on any aspect of your society. He has no problem with your religion, your pornography, your violence, your disposable pop culture or your society in general. He has never targetted your cultural or religious icons but rather the icons of your military and economic power - including your world trade center.Well, we do have a problem with your gay pedophilia, your brutatlity towards women and your stone age justice system. But if you like to sex adolescent boys and your women don't mind being treated like cattle, then have at it. In anycase, above you said:

and he has consistently attempted to portray the faithful warriors of the holy army as people who hate your freedoms and your way of life. This is a smokescreen

Which you followed with this:

He has no problem with your religion, your pornography, your violence, your disposable pop culture or your society in general.
Sounds like you do hate our way of life. As for violence, are you kidding me? The types of violence you Islamists engage in is the most visceral kind of violence ever seen. You not only do not draw the line at civilians, you purposely kill children - in suicide attacks.

You accuse him of terrorism - but what is this? He is valiantly fighting a defensive war against your occupying infidel forces with the only means available to him. It is rather like the school bully crying foul when his diminutive victims choose to fight back by lobbing missiles from a distance rather than meeting him in an open fight that they would be certain to lose. But I say again - it is a defensive war he fights, holy and justified.Aside from the Pentagon, which you could justify militarily, the WTC was full of working people from all over the world - including Muslims.

There is still time for you to reconsider your nation's aggression against our peoples and to withdraw your occupying forces.

Peace be upon you

Allahu Akhbar

And hopefully we will and then we can eat popcorn and watch. You will not unify in some glorious Islamic Jihad through Europe. As soon as you lose an external enemy you'll butcher each other.

George Robertson (later NATO secratary-general) "the Kosovo Liberation Army was responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the Serbian authorities had been " this was before US intervention on behalf of the very same KLA. The KLA had stated that its goal was to "elicit a harsh reaction that would lead to public support in the west for Nato intervention" I am getting this from Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival.
Estimates of before NATO involvement state the deathtoll at approximately 500 Albanians (Kosovars) and 1500 killed by the KLA.
The usual western justification simply refers to massacres carried out by serbian forces AFTER the bombing began, which would be good reason for NATO involvment.

I swear that the OP is plagerism, i am sure I have seen it before somewhere.

George Robertson (later NATO secratary-general) "the Kosovo Liberation Army was responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the Serbian authorities had been " this was before US intervention on behalf of the very same KLA. The KLA had stated that its goal was to "elicit a harsh reaction that would lead to public support in the west for Nato intervention" I am getting this from Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival.
Estimates of before NATO involvement state the deathtoll at approximately 500 Albanians (Kosovars) and 1500 killed by the KLA.
The usual western justification simply inverts massacres carried out by serbian forces AFTER the bombing began, which would be good reason for NATO involvment.

I think you don't know what I'm trying to say.

Doing Kosovo was a GOOD idea. The UN couldn't do jack shit because the Russians didn't want anything done.

Which obliterates your theory that "the UN would be more effective if the US..."

The US and NATO took the lead while the UN sat there.

The UN has a long history of just "sitting there" while people massacre each other. Sometimes it's because the Security Council can't be arsed, and sometimes it's because one or more just threaten to veto. Sometimes the US will veto - sometimes others.

It's designed to make this happen.

It's not the fucking world government, nor was it intended to be. It is a hamstrung joke - and a very sad, poor joke.

To a lot of people in this world, "United Nations" is a synonym for "ethnic cleansing" or "mass genocide" or "civil war".

I swear that the OP is plagerism, i am sure I have seen it before somewhere.

O Rly?

to Dan, I think that everybody agrees that he was full of shit, and he seems to have abandoned defending himself. I am the latest permutation of his "side". And even I condemn pretty much everything he supports or apologizes for.

O Rly?

Ya Rly

I think you don't know what I'm trying to say.

Doing Kosovo was a GOOD idea. The UN couldn't do jack shit because the Russians didn't want anything done.

why? did you read what I wrote?


Which obliterates your theory that "the UN would be more effective if the US..."

The US and NATO took the lead while the UN sat there.

The UN has a long history of just "sitting there" while people massacre each other. Sometimes it's because the Security Council can't be arsed, and sometimes it's because one or more just threaten to veto. Sometimes the US will veto - sometimes others.

Dont cast aside the UN, make it so that it is more effective, remove the one nation veto. (but again the united states is WAY out front with vetos, and that is given that many resolutions never materialize because everybody knows that the US is gonna VETO or abstain on it, and that it is going to die


It's not the fucking world government, nor was it intended to be. It is a hamstrung joke - and a very sad, poor joke.


It is A world governing body.


To a lot of people in this world, "United Nations" is a synonym for "ethnic cleansing" or "mass genocide" or "civil war".
[/QUOTE]

Why? has the United Nations been carrying out genocide while I had my back turned? and if it hasnt but its name is still associated with these events then is it perhaps, the only one even trying to stop them? in which case shouldnt we just make it stronger so instead of offering a pitance of aid it can actually do something?

this is MTAE again, I just know it.


a version of events that is diametrically opposed to the truth

an infrequent word choice, to say the least.

I've only heard it from three people on this forum:

MTAE, RuleCaucasia, and now this idiot

I swear that the OP is plagerism, i am sure I have seen it before somewhere.

what is an OP?

what is an OP?

Original post

Gotcha.
That seems pretty feasible, the guy was a bit of a nincompoop.

this is MTAE again, I just know it.
an infrequent word choice, to say the least.
I've only heard it from three people on this forum:
MTAE, RuleCaucasia, and now this idiot

Im not so sure about the incredibly infrequent word choice, it (diametrically opposed) is a phrase I use on occasion (in fact if I use diametrically it is almost always in conjuction with opposed), but I agree that the opinion he holds is probably not dime-a-dozen. And if you say so could well see him being some sort of reincarnation of a deleted account.

I just googled a couple phrases out of the "OP" and it doesnt appear to be copy paste off a website. A forum perhaps, but the google test works for a large majority of plagarism (my old AP english teacher tought me that and it works REALLY well, just put four words in quotes and google it, works almost every time.

Okay, I think that I am about done with this round. If anyone is interested in continuing this debate (I felt that for a while at least there was a coherent exchange of ideas) feel free to telegram me, I will get back to you.

Toodles,
Its been fun.

Your leaders are lying to you.

http://www.rageboy.com/images/george-w-bush.jpg

This man recently said "We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom," (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html) and he has consistently attempted to portray the faithful warriors of the holy army as people who hate your freedoms and your way of life. This is a smokescreen to keep you from seeing the truth - that the holy warriors seek only to defend the land of the two holy places from the armies of the infidel. They are fighting a defensive war - and America is the aggressor.

"The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State’s list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

This means that the United States has troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html)

When your warlord president tells you that we hate freedom he is giving you a version of events that is diametrically opposed to the truth - in fact we love our freedom and have no problem with yours. We simply cannot abide the presence of foreign soldiers in our holy places. Could you?

If we turn our attention to your favourite bogeyman, Sheikh Usama bin Laden, you will see that he has never passed comment on any aspect of your society. He has no problem with your religion, your pornography, your violence, your disposable pop culture or your society in general. He has never targetted your cultural or religious icons but rather the icons of your military and economic power - including your world trade center.

You accuse him of terrorism - but what is this? He is valiantly fighting a defensive war against your occupying infidel forces with the only means available to him. It is rather like the school bully crying foul when his diminutive victims choose to fight back by lobbing missiles from a distance rather than meeting him in an open fight that they would be certain to lose. But I say again - it is a defensive war he fights, holy and justified.

There is still time for you to reconsider your nation's aggression against our peoples and to withdraw your occupying forces.

Peace be upon you

Allahu Akhbar

Welcome. As long as you don't force your beliefs on everyone else, I shall respect you. On behalf of the antiwar people in America, I apologize for George Bush and the war.

Heh infedels of the west? Hold on have we got any Chinese Christians here?:p
Ermm, Chinese wiccan/buddhist/hippie. Does that count?
Chinese atheist, but I live in Australia. That doesn't count, does it?
You're Chinese? :eek:

Ermm, Chinese wiccan/buddhist/hippie. Does that count?

You're Chinese? :eek:
[insert Chinese word for 'yes' here, because I don't know it :( ]

[insert Chinese word for 'yes' here, because I don't know it :( ]
You fail at finding your roots.

For your information: "shi" means yes, but here, "dui" would work better; it means correct.

Long list of nations

did you think that our embassies are unprotected? guess who prtects them? active duty troops.check if we have an ebassy in each of those nations.

Anyone who takes a look at the status of international affairs and doesn't realize that the US is using its economic and military might to show its ass in every corner of the globe with no plans of stopping has their blinders on.

And considering that we, the American people, shoot the US Government's guns and fund the US Government's coffers, we bear the responsibility for it.

You fail at finding your roots.

For your information: "shi" means yes, but here, "dui" would work better; it means correct.
:(

I feel somewhat depressed now.

:(

I feel somewhat depressed now.
Awww, I'm sorry. :(

You can try to learn Mandarin. It's only one of the hardest languages to learn. :p

Awww, I'm sorry. :(

You can try to learn Mandarin. It's only one of the hardest languages to learn. :p
I used to, but stopped. :confused: I was always told it was relatively easy to learn?

did you think that our embassies are unprotected? guess who prtects them? active duty troops.check if we have an ebassy in each of those nations.

Troop presence:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/hst1202.pdf

Base Structure:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf

Check how many troops and military installations we have in those countries.

Troop presence:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/hst1202.pdf

Base Structure:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf

Check how many troops and military installations we have in those countries.

Hehe...we've got 11 guys in Vietnam, and 1 dude in Congo (Brazzaville).

Hehe...we've got 11 guys in Vietnam, and 1 dude in Congo (Brazzaville).

That Brazzaville gig is a hot ticket.

That Brazzaville gig is a hot ticket.

Straight to the top.

If Musharraf could do it, he would have done it already.

He already no longer has effective control over parts of his own country.

The problem is lack of will. Not lack of means. He needs the jihadis for his policies towards India and Afghanistan. Also to keep him indispensable.

He has enough will and means to hunt down Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti in Baluchistan because the Baloch rebels are a threat to him, but he can't capture even ONE senior taliban leader ?

The withdrawal from NWFP is a convenient thing to say..."we don't control that area...we don't know what goes on there...don't blame us...seal the border from your side".

All this "we don't control them...boooohoooo...you have to help us...gimme F-16s...gimme money...gimme Kashmir.." is an old act that the military leaders of Pakistan are very good at.

To reiterate (http://meaindia.nic.in/bestoftheweb/2002/01/27bow01.htm),
On May 29, 1999, shortly after the Pakistani army launched its offensive across the cease-fire line at Kargil, Indian intelligence intercepted a revealing international telephone conversation between then-Gen. Musharraf, who was in Beijing, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz. CIA sources have validated the authenticity of the intercept. Nawaz Sharif, then prime-minister, had expressed concern, Aziz said, that Kashmiri insurgent groups fighting with the army might get out of hand and force an escalation, but that "there need be no such fear, since we have them by the scruff of the neck and whenever desired, we can regulate the situation."

They still hold the leash on their dogs. Or atleast the stick to beat them and cage them. But they don't want to, because they need the dogs to scare their neighbors.

You fail at finding your roots.

For your information: "shi" means yes, but here, "dui" would work better; it means correct.

but in english the correct chinese answer would be "am". shi is the affirmative answer to "is or isnt". "is" (shi) is "yes".

for some odd reason i have taken to making "chinese" answers to questions instead of saying yes or no

"are you going to the store?" "am"

"did you do the dishes?" "did"

First of all, I would like to thank those who took the time to respond intelligently to my original post. It took a while to see through the flames, but there were some intelligent comments made. That said, please allow me to respond in part to some of the criticisms that have been lodged.

The list of countries in which the US has a military presence was a source of much mirth and disparagement and the truth is that many of those countries do indeed host a very small number of troops. Many others host a significant number – and not only as embassy guards but in significantly-sized bases. These are stationed in both friendly and hostile nations and are clearly done so with the intended result of allowing the US military strike potential anywhere in the world. In short they are an essential step in the US government’s policy of world military domination. This is not to employ hyperbole – the military budget of the US famously outstrips that of any other nation by a significant factor. It has been noted that many of these troops are there by invitation of the host nation and this is true – but has also been noted, the governments of said nations are often deeply authoritarian and unrepresentative. Somewhere above it was suggested that the government of Saudi Arabia is slowly reforming itself. This is a joke – SA is one of the most unpleasant tyrannical regimes in the world. The fact that US troops are in SA by invitation of this regime in order to maintain its stranglehold on the population in no way counters my argument that the US is an aggressive occupier.

The point has also, rightly, been made that terrorism is un-Islamic. Of course it is. And George Bush is deeply un-Christian in his actions. My argument was that al Qaeda’s fight with the “West” (do you prefer it with quotes?) is politically-motivated and not based on faith in actuality – this is a shroud that allows the leaders of this struggle, who are predominantly drawn from the Egyptian and Saudi middle classes, to take advantage of their impoverished brethren. The fact is, however, that by its foreign policy, the US legitimises the religious basis of al Qaeda’s jihad, and thus reinforces it. A withdrawal of troops from the Arabian peninsula would go a long way to removing the chief nerve point. In fact, the prophet Mohammad (may he rest in a peace that his followers do not enjoy) did issue an edict that no unbelievers should stay permanently in the Arabian peninsula and it is no difficult task to justify Al Qaeda’s war as a holy one, regardless of their tactics.

Some of you have suggested that Islamic nations are poorly-run places and need to be “educated.” Can you not see quite how arrogant this is? Some people think and feel differently to you – so they are clearly a few degrees beneath you and the solution is to educate them. We see in Iraq the terrible consequences of such arrogance – you don’t like the way a (n oil-rich) nation is run so you invade and install ‘freedom and democracy’? Good effort. I wonder how many Iraqis would choose to have Saddam Hussein back. Can you not see that your solutions do not necessarily function for the rest of the world? Perhaps if you kept your armies to yourselves and stopped plundering the mineral wealth of the rest of the world quite so mercilessly, considered the possibility that the state of Israel does contribute to the woes of the region (whilst not being anywhere near wholly to blame) and just generally accepted the possibility that you may not in fact be God’s chosen nation with all the answers.

Peace genuinely be upon you and all of us

Allahu Akhbar

but in english the correct chinese answer would be "am". shi is the affirmative answer to "is or isnt". "is" (shi) is "yes".

for some odd reason i have taken to making "chinese" answers to questions instead of saying yes or no

"are you going to the store?" "am"

"did you do the dishes?" "did"
Ha, oh that should be amusing. Listening to my parents and their friends speak English is sometimes a riot, because they apply the rules of grammar in Chinese to those in English. And since there are no tenses in Chinese, everything in English becomes present. The sentence "I had lunch at 12 already." becomes "I already eat lunch 12 o'clock."

Ha, oh that should be amusing. Listening to my parents and their friends speak English is sometimes a riot, because they apply the rules of grammar in Chinese to those in English. And since there are no tenses in Chinese, everything in English becomes present. The sentence "I had lunch at 12 already." becomes "I already eat lunch 12 o'clock."

Really? I didn't know that and I have a few Chinese friends (although the issue of language usually doesn't come up). How does one communicate about things in the past or future in Chinese?

When your warlord president tells you that we hate freedom he is giving you a version of events that is diametrically opposed to the truth - in fact we love our freedom and have no problem with yours. We simply cannot abide the presence of foreign soldiers in our holy places. Could you?Are you aware that places like Kaiserslautern or Garmisch-Partenkirchen aren't holy sites?

Are you aware that places like Kaiserslautern or Garmisch-Partenkirchen aren't holy sites?

It's my holy place.

Really? I didn't know that and I have a few Chinese friends (although the issue of language usually doesn't come up). How does one communicate about things in the past or future in Chinese?

Like he said, I suppose. Just throw in when you did or are going to do something.

Your leaders are lying to you.

http://www.rageboy.com/images/george-w-bush.jpg

This man recently said "We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom," (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html) and he has consistently attempted to portray the faithful warriors of the holy army as people who hate your freedoms and your way of life. This is a smokescreen to keep you from seeing the truth - that the holy warriors seek only to defend the land of the two holy places from the armies of the infidel. They are fighting a defensive war - and America is the aggressor.

"The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State’s list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

This means that the United States has troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html)

When your warlord president tells you that we hate freedom he is giving you a version of events that is diametrically opposed to the truth - in fact we love our freedom and have no problem with yours. We simply cannot abide the presence of foreign soldiers in our holy places. Could you?

If we turn our attention to your favourite bogeyman, Sheikh Usama bin Laden, you will see that he has never passed comment on any aspect of your society. He has no problem with your religion, your pornography, your violence, your disposable pop culture or your society in general. He has never targetted your cultural or religious icons but rather the icons of your military and economic power - including your world trade center.

You accuse him of terrorism - but what is this? He is valiantly fighting a defensive war against your occupying infidel forces with the only means available to him. It is rather like the school bully crying foul when his diminutive victims choose to fight back by lobbing missiles from a distance rather than meeting him in an open fight that they would be certain to lose. But I say again - it is a defensive war he fights, holy and justified.

There is still time for you to reconsider your nation's aggression against our peoples and to withdraw your occupying forces.

Peace be upon you

Allahu Akhbar

Troll posts always make me smile. Can anyone else relate?

It's my holy place.If you had German citizenship, your opinion might actually matter in this instance.

If you had German citizenship, your opinion might actually matter in this instance.

If I wanted it, I could get it easier than oxygen. Everyone else does.

If I wanted it, I could get it easier than oxygen. Everyone else does.Meh. I'd disagree. Then again, I've been around places where people try whereas you live in Australia. I'm sure that means you have better insight into the matter somehow.

Ah, so you're saying that because we've made the mistake of doing it (and I told you we used to firebomb cities), that it's ok for them to do it?

You're saying that we're not a nation where people like Nazz vote and say, "stop being shitheads and play nice" - where people like Nazz can oppose Guantanamo and elect people who say they'll close it?

We don't *make* them terrorists anymore than we *make* them anything at all.

Becoming a terrorist is a moral choice. Rebellion itself, whether against a nation or an idea is a moral choice.

Gandhi is a perfect example. He rebelled. But he did not embrace violence.

And it worked.

By your logic and examples, we shouldn't have Islamic terrorists. There should be hordes of Latin and Central American terrorists blowing up US shopping malls left and right.

As it stands, there are hordes of Latin and Central American workers (legal and illegal immigrants) in the US - trying to make a living.

If you get any denser, you're going to become a gravitic anomaly.

Only the fact that you are in conflict with society, gives reasons to change. This can only happend to the one, with a better idear of society. But then, if you dont do anything about it, despite your cleaver idears, you dont seem to really care, you are another hypocrite, soon to lose trust in your own integrity. As long as you don't act on the idears, you are the only one encouraging terror actions to become the changing factor. However, if you are not in confligt with society, you can not truly care about terror and terrorist at all. It can not touch you at all, because it is not your reality. And your agitations fore or against terror, will be based solely on speculations.

The Indian Pakistan war, was a very bloody and violent outcome of the so called independence from the British. A direct result of Gandhi's "non violent" agression, turned out to be responsible for one of the crulest chapters in modern times. Gandhi choise, did not work!

You know, I have a plan to end all these pointless Religious arguments. We trigger a nuclear war between America and some other country (Poll), which then of course leads to a world-wide Defcon 5. And when we rush to our nuclear bunkers, the religious fundies will stay outside believing that their God will save them. Voila. Just a few hundred years for planet-wide nuclear levels to drop, give or take, and we now have a world without fundies. Or cities. Or countries. Or anything, really.

The Indian Pakistan war, was a very bloody and violent outcome of the so called independence from the British. A direct result of Gandhi's "non violent" agression, turned out to be responsible for one of the crulest chapters in modern times. Gandhi choise, did not work!

Gandhi's struggle was mainly against British imperialism. It worked.

It did not work against muslim exclusivism/seperatism. If the congress party did not agree for partition, it would have resulted in a civil war which would have taken even more lives than what the partition riots took. Google about "Direct action day" and we would have seen worse stuff than that if the partition did not happen.

Indeed, any non-Muslim from the eastern hemisphere?

Being italian - and thus living east of Greenwich - I think I qualify as a Central European Infidel.

Wow. Globalisation of trolling, yup!

You know, I have a plan to end all these pointless Religious arguments. We trigger a nuclear war between America and some other country (Poll), which then of course leads to a world-wide Defcon 5. And when we rush to our nuclear bunkers, the religious fundies will stay outside believing that their God will save them. Voila. Just a few hundred years for planet-wide nuclear levels to drop, give or take, and we now have a world without fundies. Or cities. Or countries. Or anything, really.

yeah but then the ones that survived, will think they are the chosen people and it will start all over again.

Gandhi is a perfect example. He rebelled. But he did not embrace violence.

And it worked.



Sorry I'm late,

I don't know how anyone could call Gandhi's methods "peaceful"! As a Brit, I know we are still suffering from post traumatic stress over it. Think about it. Being kicked out of India by a wrinkley old man - dressed only in his underpants :eek:

p.s. I do think it was a sad ending for a pacifist.

p.p.s. Can I get to live in the troll reserve when it is set up? I did use the gun smiley on my very first post.

First of all, I would like to thank those who took the time to respond intelligently to my original post. It took a while to see through the flames, but there were some intelligent comments made. That said, please allow me to respond in part to some of the criticisms that have been lodged.

The list of countries in which the US has a military presence was a source of much mirth and disparagement and the truth is that many of those countries do indeed host a very small number of troops. Many others host a significant number – and not only as embassy guards but in significantly-sized bases. These are stationed in both friendly and hostile nations and are clearly done so with the intended result of allowing the US military strike potential anywhere in the world. In short they are an essential step in the US government’s policy of world military domination. This is not to employ hyperbole – the military budget of the US famously outstrips that of any other nation by a significant factor. It has been noted that many of these troops are there by invitation of the host nation and this is true – but has also been noted, the governments of said nations are often deeply authoritarian and unrepresentative. Somewhere above it was suggested that the government of Saudi Arabia is slowly reforming itself. This is a joke – SA is one of the most unpleasant tyrannical regimes in the world. The fact that US troops are in SA by invitation of this regime in order to maintain its stranglehold on the population in no way counters my argument that the US is an aggressive occupier.The US pulled its troops from SA three years ago.

The point has also, rightly, been made that terrorism is un-Islamic. Of course it is. And George Bush is deeply un-Christian in his actions. My argument was that al Qaeda’s fight with the “West” (do you prefer it with quotes?) is politically-motivated and not based on faith in actuality – this is a shroud that allows the leaders of this struggle, who are predominantly drawn from the Egyptian and Saudi middle classes, to take advantage of their impoverished brethren. The fact is, however, that by its foreign policy, the US legitimises the religious basis of al Qaeda’s jihad, and thus reinforces it. A withdrawal of troops from the Arabian peninsula would go a long way to removing the chief nerve point. In fact, the prophet Mohammad (may he rest in a peace that his followers do not enjoy) did issue an edict that no unbelievers should stay permanently in the Arabian peninsula and it is no difficult task to justify Al Qaeda’s war as a holy one, regardless of their tactics.

Some of you have suggested that Islamic nations are poorly-run places and need to be “educated.” Can you not see quite how arrogant this is? Some people think and feel differently to you – so they are clearly a few degrees beneath you and the solution is to educate them. We see in Iraq the terrible consequences of such arrogance – you don’t like the way a (n oil-rich) nation is run so you invade and install ‘freedom and democracy’? Good effort. I wonder how many Iraqis would choose to have Saddam Hussein back. Can you not see that your solutions do not necessarily function for the rest of the world? Perhaps if you kept your armies to yourselves and stopped plundering the mineral wealth of the rest of the world quite so mercilessly, considered the possibility that the state of Israel does contribute to the woes of the region (whilst not being anywhere near wholly to blame) and just generally accepted the possibility that you may not in fact be God’s chosen nation with all the answers.The US gets almost no oil from the Middle East. Our main sources are ourselves, Mexico, Canada and Venezuela. You'll have to talk to China and Europe about "stealing" your oil.

You know, I have a plan to end all these pointless Religious arguments. We trigger a nuclear war between America and some other country (Poll), which then of course leads to a world-wide Defcon 5. And when we rush to our nuclear bunkers, the religious fundies will stay outside believing that their God will save them. Voila. Just a few hundred years for planet-wide nuclear levels to drop, give or take, and we now have a world without fundies. Or cities. Or countries. Or anything, really.

DEFCON 5 is the lowest alert status. 1 is the highest.

Why, I don't know. Quoth Wikipedia:

* DEFCON 5 is the condition used to designate normal peacetime military readiness. An upgrade in military preparedness is typically made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and announced by the United States Secretary of Defense.

* DEFCON 4 refers to normal, increased intelligence and the heightening of national security measures. Readiness remained at this level throughout most of the Cold War. Ground combat authorized. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, one of the specific conditions of escalating to level 4 prompted the military to replace training (or "dummy") tips, with live nuclear warheads on all target selected ICBM's.
* DEFCON 3 refers to an increase to force readiness above normal. Radio callsigns used by American forces change to currently-classified callsigns. United States military commands (except for the Strategic Air Command, which was already at heightened alert on DEFCON 2) went to this level in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All United States forces went on DEFCON 3 during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The third time the United States reached DEFCON 3 was during the September 11, 2001 attacks. Naval and Air combat authorized.

* DEFCON 2 refers to a further increase in force readiness just below maximum readiness. It has only been declared once, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

* DEFCON 1 refers to maximum readiness. This has never (verifiably) been used but is reserved for imminent or ongoing attack on US military forces or US territory or soil by a foreign military power. Launch of nuclear missiles has been authorized.

Oh. And many thanks for Mr 1914 for entering into an actual debate on the subject.

But... he went to so much TROUBLE to type all that crap out. And he had a picture in it as well. I would feel terrible if I didn't vbelieve him after all that work...Can I believe him just a little bit and THEN laugh my ass off at it?

That was really good man! I haven't seen an anti troll that good i a while. It was anti trolling right? You were being facetous right? erm...right?

DEFCON 1 has been used. They lost the football once and had to go to DEFCON1 until they found it.