The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching this on the news (from about 10:30-14:00) and i have to say i found it rather exciting, obviously it was a terrible ordeal for everyone involved. Especially the poor kids that were practically naked, apparently when they asked for a drink they were told to strip, their clothes were doused with water and they were told to suck the moisture out. Pretty grim stuff.
Near the end of the special show an ITN cameraman actually got into the gym where everyone had been held, the roof had collapsed (chechen rebels had rigged it with 14 explosive charges) while people were still inside and apparently some 100 bodies lay inside.
The chechens then fled to some buildings nearby and were holding a sustained firefight with the russian military.
Near the end of the special show an ITN cameraman actually got into the gym where everyone had been held, the roof had collapsed (chechen rebels had rigged it with 14 explosive charges) while people were still inside and apparently some 100 bodies lay inside.
The chechens then fled to some buildings nearby and were holding a sustained firefight with the russian military.
Page:
Light wrote:
> Suddenly I find you redefining "US soil" as barely counting
> if it's an area of conflict, oh and if it's a more
> "dastardly" attack, then it's worse? Ok; if that's the
> case, and as 9/11 happened on Dubya's watch, doesn't that mean he's
> totally screwed it up? And doesn't that make the statement about
> safety cos of the war on terror even more of a lie?
Right, start again. Before the WOT, there were a lot more un-proveked attacks on the US and its interests over seas. The fact that the building is in a combat zone means its bound to get attacked, but perhaps not because its a symbol on that nation when not in a combat zone, but just a military command post when in a combat zone.
> Take a deep breath skarra, look at the statement, look at the facts,
> and then try and deal with one simple fact; the initial statement you
> made, whomever the source originally was is incorrect. False. Untrue.
> A lie.
I would HATE to live like you. If somebody said something that may be incorrect, inaccurate or wrong through hindsight, you leap to your feet screaming, ITS A LIE, HES A LOW LIFE BLAIRITE SCUM OF A LIAR!!! Thats just a sad way to live, assuming that everybody is out to mislead you.
> No, but what you can do is try to claim that you've made a statement
> on behalf of all Americans, then bend over backwards trying to
> redefine that statement when it's manifest falsehood is shown.
> Anyway, all I was doing is rebutting your statement about how America
> loves the War on Terror. Some Americans do, some don't. Seems obvious
> enough to me, so I'm at a loss as to why you're performing linguistic
> surgery on the 'facts' you've thus far produced.
I made no such claim! I acnowledged a few posts back that some in the US may not agree with the WOT, but said that many do. I don't recall ever saying 100% of the US populas is behind it, i said that there must be a lot of support for it, otherwise Bush would be having a tougher time of it, in election and other areas.
> Right, well...as you say, you don't read up on the news, so it's not
> like I should be surprised you got this wrong.
Please do, i didn't see, and have yet to see, wide spread mass demonstrations specifically against the WOT. I believe i have only seen a few protesters with signs ever relating to the WOT. If i'm wrong, and capital hill has been flooded with people specifically opposed to the WOT, do tell.
> Okay, where was it? Was it an organised thing (I'm assuming so seeing
> as how it was 1500 or so people)? And if so, who organised it?
It was a sporting event in the US, organised by private individuals.
> Yes, completely true. But whilst with a newspaper we generally know
> what kind of bias we're going to get, you've given as little as
> possible away about this increasingly clandestine-seeming meeting,
> and so you're not allowing anyone to ascertain what kinds of bias may
> have affected it.
Not much bias at all. As i said, pretty much the only thing these people had in common, was their nationality. Different jobs, political stand points etc... and all agreed that the WOT is the way to go.
> No, I'm saying that the WOT is getting it's support on the basis of
> lies such as the one you've repeated here. Could I accept armed
> forces just 'stopping'? No, but then my saying that forces have to
> stop committing atrocities is rather different to saying
> "everyone should just stop everything", isn't it? Come to
> think of it, it's somewhat deceitful of you to try and imply that I'm
> saying their should be such an extreme response.
What are these lies? Are they making it up that there have been no more US airliners falling out of the sky onto US soil? Have they lied that no more buildings have been brought down by terrorists? Have they lied and there have been more attacks within the US shore-line?
What atrocities were commited by who? Who are you talking about? US troops in Iraq, Russians, British in Kosovo, who?
Well how do you expect them to do it then? If not stopping everything, how, exactly? Go on, tell me, specifically how you would go about ending the WOT, because i don't see how it could be stopped without stopping everything.
> What I AM saying is that the forces currently engaged in this
> laughable war on terror should perhaps be concentrating on where the
> terrorists are. There were barely any in Iraq before this resource
> grab; they (Al-Quaida) were based mainly in Afghanistan, Indonesia,
> and the Phillipines. I don't really see a massive commitment of
> troops there. Do you?
Well as i said, i don't think the Americans care very much as at least they arn't attacking US cities, so it must be working on some level.
> What I'm also saying is that whilst the US ride roughshod over other
> nations, the War on Terror will have the opposite effect. So more
> lies like the one you tried to propogate will need to be told in
> order to maintain it's support.
Again, was i wrong, have more US cities been attacked without my knowing since the WOT began?
> Right, right; which definition of US soil is this you're using? The
> one you made up at the top of this post or the one used by every
> other human being on the planet? Anyway, no there have not been
> attacks on US soil (oh, apart from that enormous atrocity that you
> just tried to sweep under the carpet there. But who really counts
> 9/11 eh? It was a long time ago; I should just let it go...). Perhaps
> the fact that there are so many US troops and citizens abroad to
> attack (over 1000 dead in Iraq since the end of the war there, plus
> the poor sods killed in Saudi, and the fact that pretty much every
> Moslem nation in the world has become a no-go area for American
> citizens over the last 4 years) means that they don't need to go for
> a big attack on US soil.
I refer to the 9/11 as pre WOT, as indeed, it pretty much was. But since 9/11, when the full military might of the US has been brought to bear, there havn't been any attacks. So what if every Moslem nation is a no go for US citizens? Thats their prerogative.
And the attacks elsewhere are not nearly as damaging as an attack on US soil. After all, the US military is big. 1000 troops arn't going to be all that damaging to them.
> Seems safer? Hmm....well, I've been to America in the last year (only
> once I admit) and in the week I was there, there were 2 non-specific
> terror alerts, plus daily testing of the emergency broadcast systems.
> You know what? People seemed tense, afraid, and generally unhappy
> about the War on Terror then. The fact that these non-specific (in
> fact, based on intel over 4 years old...) alert have continued leads
> me to believe people will generally be more tense and generally
> unhappy. Can I ask, these 1500 Americans you met; when was the last
> time they'd been home?
They were at home. It was a meeting place in the South-Eastern US. They were from all over, and all believed that they were safer.
> I appreciate you're not trying to express your own view. You are
> however making a fairly embarrassing attempt to avoid biting the
> bullet and admitting that the original quote you used was a pure
> fabrication on the part of the person who made it. Then you've used
> increasingly tenuous evidence to try and support it. And you've been
> remarkably evasive about the original meeting too. For my part, I'm
> trying to get it through to you that the reason many Americans feel
> the WOT is working is because they believe this on the basis of being
> lied to. You've so far not said a single thing to even remotely
> disprove that. No, no more planes have fell onto US soil; thus far
> it's just those few under Dubya's regime. However, at least 1000 more
> Americans have died overseas, and Americans have been pretty much
> guaranteed a hateful reception wherever in the world they go. Safer?
> Yeah, course they're safer. Doesn't surprise me that they need to be
> lied to to be reassured of that.
And Americans were loved before this were they? In places like Beiruit? Somalia? No, at least this way, they are hitting back. And so what if they get bad receptions in places? Like Kipling said, thats old, and expected. 'The hate of those ye guard' and all that.
> By the way, did you hear this statement before or after Dubya
> admitted on live television that he didn't think the War on Terror
> could be won?
I wasn't aware he said that.
> Suddenly I find you redefining "US soil" as barely counting
> if it's an area of conflict, oh and if it's a more
> "dastardly" attack, then it's worse? Ok; if that's the
> case, and as 9/11 happened on Dubya's watch, doesn't that mean he's
> totally screwed it up? And doesn't that make the statement about
> safety cos of the war on terror even more of a lie?
Right, start again. Before the WOT, there were a lot more un-proveked attacks on the US and its interests over seas. The fact that the building is in a combat zone means its bound to get attacked, but perhaps not because its a symbol on that nation when not in a combat zone, but just a military command post when in a combat zone.
> Take a deep breath skarra, look at the statement, look at the facts,
> and then try and deal with one simple fact; the initial statement you
> made, whomever the source originally was is incorrect. False. Untrue.
> A lie.
I would HATE to live like you. If somebody said something that may be incorrect, inaccurate or wrong through hindsight, you leap to your feet screaming, ITS A LIE, HES A LOW LIFE BLAIRITE SCUM OF A LIAR!!! Thats just a sad way to live, assuming that everybody is out to mislead you.
> No, but what you can do is try to claim that you've made a statement
> on behalf of all Americans, then bend over backwards trying to
> redefine that statement when it's manifest falsehood is shown.
> Anyway, all I was doing is rebutting your statement about how America
> loves the War on Terror. Some Americans do, some don't. Seems obvious
> enough to me, so I'm at a loss as to why you're performing linguistic
> surgery on the 'facts' you've thus far produced.
I made no such claim! I acnowledged a few posts back that some in the US may not agree with the WOT, but said that many do. I don't recall ever saying 100% of the US populas is behind it, i said that there must be a lot of support for it, otherwise Bush would be having a tougher time of it, in election and other areas.
> Right, well...as you say, you don't read up on the news, so it's not
> like I should be surprised you got this wrong.
Please do, i didn't see, and have yet to see, wide spread mass demonstrations specifically against the WOT. I believe i have only seen a few protesters with signs ever relating to the WOT. If i'm wrong, and capital hill has been flooded with people specifically opposed to the WOT, do tell.
> Okay, where was it? Was it an organised thing (I'm assuming so seeing
> as how it was 1500 or so people)? And if so, who organised it?
It was a sporting event in the US, organised by private individuals.
> Yes, completely true. But whilst with a newspaper we generally know
> what kind of bias we're going to get, you've given as little as
> possible away about this increasingly clandestine-seeming meeting,
> and so you're not allowing anyone to ascertain what kinds of bias may
> have affected it.
Not much bias at all. As i said, pretty much the only thing these people had in common, was their nationality. Different jobs, political stand points etc... and all agreed that the WOT is the way to go.
> No, I'm saying that the WOT is getting it's support on the basis of
> lies such as the one you've repeated here. Could I accept armed
> forces just 'stopping'? No, but then my saying that forces have to
> stop committing atrocities is rather different to saying
> "everyone should just stop everything", isn't it? Come to
> think of it, it's somewhat deceitful of you to try and imply that I'm
> saying their should be such an extreme response.
What are these lies? Are they making it up that there have been no more US airliners falling out of the sky onto US soil? Have they lied that no more buildings have been brought down by terrorists? Have they lied and there have been more attacks within the US shore-line?
What atrocities were commited by who? Who are you talking about? US troops in Iraq, Russians, British in Kosovo, who?
Well how do you expect them to do it then? If not stopping everything, how, exactly? Go on, tell me, specifically how you would go about ending the WOT, because i don't see how it could be stopped without stopping everything.
> What I AM saying is that the forces currently engaged in this
> laughable war on terror should perhaps be concentrating on where the
> terrorists are. There were barely any in Iraq before this resource
> grab; they (Al-Quaida) were based mainly in Afghanistan, Indonesia,
> and the Phillipines. I don't really see a massive commitment of
> troops there. Do you?
Well as i said, i don't think the Americans care very much as at least they arn't attacking US cities, so it must be working on some level.
> What I'm also saying is that whilst the US ride roughshod over other
> nations, the War on Terror will have the opposite effect. So more
> lies like the one you tried to propogate will need to be told in
> order to maintain it's support.
Again, was i wrong, have more US cities been attacked without my knowing since the WOT began?
> Right, right; which definition of US soil is this you're using? The
> one you made up at the top of this post or the one used by every
> other human being on the planet? Anyway, no there have not been
> attacks on US soil (oh, apart from that enormous atrocity that you
> just tried to sweep under the carpet there. But who really counts
> 9/11 eh? It was a long time ago; I should just let it go...). Perhaps
> the fact that there are so many US troops and citizens abroad to
> attack (over 1000 dead in Iraq since the end of the war there, plus
> the poor sods killed in Saudi, and the fact that pretty much every
> Moslem nation in the world has become a no-go area for American
> citizens over the last 4 years) means that they don't need to go for
> a big attack on US soil.
I refer to the 9/11 as pre WOT, as indeed, it pretty much was. But since 9/11, when the full military might of the US has been brought to bear, there havn't been any attacks. So what if every Moslem nation is a no go for US citizens? Thats their prerogative.
And the attacks elsewhere are not nearly as damaging as an attack on US soil. After all, the US military is big. 1000 troops arn't going to be all that damaging to them.
> Seems safer? Hmm....well, I've been to America in the last year (only
> once I admit) and in the week I was there, there were 2 non-specific
> terror alerts, plus daily testing of the emergency broadcast systems.
> You know what? People seemed tense, afraid, and generally unhappy
> about the War on Terror then. The fact that these non-specific (in
> fact, based on intel over 4 years old...) alert have continued leads
> me to believe people will generally be more tense and generally
> unhappy. Can I ask, these 1500 Americans you met; when was the last
> time they'd been home?
They were at home. It was a meeting place in the South-Eastern US. They were from all over, and all believed that they were safer.
> I appreciate you're not trying to express your own view. You are
> however making a fairly embarrassing attempt to avoid biting the
> bullet and admitting that the original quote you used was a pure
> fabrication on the part of the person who made it. Then you've used
> increasingly tenuous evidence to try and support it. And you've been
> remarkably evasive about the original meeting too. For my part, I'm
> trying to get it through to you that the reason many Americans feel
> the WOT is working is because they believe this on the basis of being
> lied to. You've so far not said a single thing to even remotely
> disprove that. No, no more planes have fell onto US soil; thus far
> it's just those few under Dubya's regime. However, at least 1000 more
> Americans have died overseas, and Americans have been pretty much
> guaranteed a hateful reception wherever in the world they go. Safer?
> Yeah, course they're safer. Doesn't surprise me that they need to be
> lied to to be reassured of that.
And Americans were loved before this were they? In places like Beiruit? Somalia? No, at least this way, they are hitting back. And so what if they get bad receptions in places? Like Kipling said, thats old, and expected. 'The hate of those ye guard' and all that.
> By the way, did you hear this statement before or after Dubya
> admitted on live television that he didn't think the War on Terror
> could be won?
I wasn't aware he said that.
Skarra wrote:
> It may not be a lie in the way your making out. He may have been
> thinking that the attacks before were un-provoked and more dastardly
> that those attacks carried out on a military strong hold within a
> 'conflict zone'. In other words, its different when an embassy in
> attacked out of no where, to when an embassy is attacked in an area
> of dispute. Say a US barracks was bombed, in, say, Saudia Arabia,
> this would cause far more outrage than if it was in, say Afganistan,
> where there is open dispute.
Well, I'm saying it's a lie in that it's entirely untrue. I sense a certain amount of backpeddling from you here, so lets look at your original statement;
"before the war on terror...there were 5 attacks on US soil,
under Bush there has only been 1"
Suddenly I find you redefining "US soil" as barely counting if it's an area of conflict, oh and if it's a more "dastardly" attack, then it's worse? Ok; if that's the case, and as 9/11 happened on Dubya's watch, doesn't that mean he's totally screwed it up? And doesn't that make the statement about safety cos of the war on terror even more of a lie?
Take a deep breath skarra, look at the statement, look at the facts, and then try and deal with one simple fact; the initial statement you made, whomever the source originally was is incorrect. False. Untrue. A lie.
> I was just going on what i heard and read in our media. I'm not like
> you, i can't divert hours of my life reading up on the latest
> election news.
Heh. You're getting more like Bell every day with the attempted insults...
No, but what you can do is try to claim that you've made a statement on behalf of all Americans, then bend over backwards trying to redefine that statement when it's manifest falsehood is shown. Anyway, all I was doing is rebutting your statement about how America loves the War on Terror. Some Americans do, some don't. Seems obvious enough to me, so I'm at a loss as to why you're performing linguistic surgery on the 'facts' you've thus far produced.
> As i see it, the only reason people have started to question the WOT
> is since Kerry started his whole, i was in 'Nam, i'd do better stuff.
Right, well...as you say, you don't read up on the news, so it's not like I should be surprised you got this wrong.
>
>
> I'm intrigued; where was this meeting of 1500 people? Who organised
> it? What was the event? Because that would tell one something about
> the sort of person who'd attend it. Why would they be any more or
> less representative than those in a right or left wing news paper?
> Don't you think that a few murmers of agreement in a crowd will
> cause
> people who are undecided to agree in order to 'fit in with the
> crowd'? It's NEVER just as simple as you're implying.
>
> It was a generel exchange of views on a wide range of issues,
> including sport, the media, politics etc...
Okay, where was it? Was it an organised thing (I'm assuming so seeing as how it was 1500 or so people)? And if so, who organised it?
> I didn't say they'd be more representative, i said that the views of
> 1500 people of varied background and political affiliation holds as
> much weight as a news paper poll, whos readers probably hold a
> similar political stand point as it does.
Yes, completely true. But whilst with a newspaper we generally know what kind of bias we're going to get, you've given as little as possible away about this increasingly clandestine-seeming meeting, and so you're not allowing anyone to ascertain what kinds of bias may have affected it.
> I never said that because 1500 people think it, the rest will follow
> suit! But these 1500 people were from all over the US, not just one
> area, with different jobs, different spare time stuff. Pretty much
> the biggest thing they had in common was being American, and they all
> agreed with the fellow that said the WOT was the way to go.
And I'm (I hope) showing that the agreement you're talking about in this mysterious meeting is an agreement with a lie. You haven't actually said anything to state otherwise.
> Think about it for just a second. If you were an American, could you
> accept your armed forces just 'stopping' the WOT. This is all back to
> my origional point, which you seem to have all but ignored, instead
> focusing on how represantitive of the US a quote was.
No, I'm saying that the WOT is getting it's support on the basis of lies such as the one you've repeated here. Could I accept armed forces just 'stopping'? No, but then my saying that forces have to stop committing atrocities is rather different to saying "everyone should just stop everything", isn't it? Come to think of it, it's somewhat deceitful of you to try and imply that I'm saying their should be such an extreme response.
What I AM saying is that the forces currently engaged in this laughable war on terror should perhaps be concentrating on where the terrorists are. There were barely any in Iraq before this resource grab; they (Al-Quaida) were based mainly in Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the Phillipines. I don't really see a massive commitment of troops there. Do you?
What I'm also saying is that whilst the US ride roughshod over other nations, the War on Terror will have the opposite effect. So more lies like the one you tried to propogate will need to be told in order to maintain it's support.
> Since this WOT, there have been no attacks on US soil. To the best of
> my knowledge, that is a FACT! Post 9/11, post WOT, no bombings in the
> US, no more buildings falling down, no more planes falling out of the
> sky. What ever the situation elsewhere, to an American, the post WOT
> age seems safer than the pre. That was my point.
> I wasn't expressing my views on the WOT, all along i was just trying
> to get it through that to many US citizens, the WOT seems to be
> working. I get that from the Americans i speak to, perhaps the ones
> you speak to don't feel safe, just tell me why? Perhaps i was wrong,
> have more planes fell from the sky onto American soil since the WOT?
> Have more buildings been destroyed in American citys? Please, tell me
> if i'm wrong, but, as i said, to the Americans i speak to, as these
> things arn't happening, they feel safer.
Right, right; which definition of US soil is this you're using? The one you made up at the top of this post or the one used by every other human being on the planet? Anyway, no there have not been attacks on US soil (oh, apart from that enormous atrocity that you just tried to sweep under the carpet there. But who really counts 9/11 eh? It was a long time ago; I should just let it go...). Perhaps the fact that there are so many US troops and citizens abroad to attack (over 1000 dead in Iraq since the end of the war there, plus the poor sods killed in Saudi, and the fact that pretty much every Moslem nation in the world has become a no-go area for American citizens over the last 4 years) means that they don't need to go for a big attack on US soil.
Seems safer? Hmm....well, I've been to America in the last year (only once I admit) and in the week I was there, there were 2 non-specific terror alerts, plus daily testing of the emergency broadcast systems. You know what? People seemed tense, afraid, and generally unhappy about the War on Terror then. The fact that these non-specific (in fact, based on intel over 4 years old...) alert have continued leads me to believe people will generally be more tense and generally unhappy. Can I ask, these 1500 Americans you met; when was the last time they'd been home?
I appreciate you're not trying to express your own view. You are however making a fairly embarrassing attempt to avoid biting the bullet and admitting that the original quote you used was a pure fabrication on the part of the person who made it. Then you've used increasingly tenuous evidence to try and support it. And you've been remarkably evasive about the original meeting too. For my part, I'm trying to get it through to you that the reason many Americans feel the WOT is working is because they believe this on the basis of being lied to. You've so far not said a single thing to even remotely disprove that. No, no more planes have fell onto US soil; thus far it's just those few under Dubya's regime. However, at least 1000 more Americans have died overseas, and Americans have been pretty much guaranteed a hateful reception wherever in the world they go. Safer? Yeah, course they're safer. Doesn't surprise me that they need to be lied to to be reassured of that.
By the way, did you hear this statement before or after Dubya admitted on live television that he didn't think the War on Terror could be won?
> It may not be a lie in the way your making out. He may have been
> thinking that the attacks before were un-provoked and more dastardly
> that those attacks carried out on a military strong hold within a
> 'conflict zone'. In other words, its different when an embassy in
> attacked out of no where, to when an embassy is attacked in an area
> of dispute. Say a US barracks was bombed, in, say, Saudia Arabia,
> this would cause far more outrage than if it was in, say Afganistan,
> where there is open dispute.
Well, I'm saying it's a lie in that it's entirely untrue. I sense a certain amount of backpeddling from you here, so lets look at your original statement;
"before the war on terror...there were 5 attacks on US soil,
under Bush there has only been 1"
Suddenly I find you redefining "US soil" as barely counting if it's an area of conflict, oh and if it's a more "dastardly" attack, then it's worse? Ok; if that's the case, and as 9/11 happened on Dubya's watch, doesn't that mean he's totally screwed it up? And doesn't that make the statement about safety cos of the war on terror even more of a lie?
Take a deep breath skarra, look at the statement, look at the facts, and then try and deal with one simple fact; the initial statement you made, whomever the source originally was is incorrect. False. Untrue. A lie.
> I was just going on what i heard and read in our media. I'm not like
> you, i can't divert hours of my life reading up on the latest
> election news.
Heh. You're getting more like Bell every day with the attempted insults...
No, but what you can do is try to claim that you've made a statement on behalf of all Americans, then bend over backwards trying to redefine that statement when it's manifest falsehood is shown. Anyway, all I was doing is rebutting your statement about how America loves the War on Terror. Some Americans do, some don't. Seems obvious enough to me, so I'm at a loss as to why you're performing linguistic surgery on the 'facts' you've thus far produced.
> As i see it, the only reason people have started to question the WOT
> is since Kerry started his whole, i was in 'Nam, i'd do better stuff.
Right, well...as you say, you don't read up on the news, so it's not like I should be surprised you got this wrong.
>
>
> I'm intrigued; where was this meeting of 1500 people? Who organised
> it? What was the event? Because that would tell one something about
> the sort of person who'd attend it. Why would they be any more or
> less representative than those in a right or left wing news paper?
> Don't you think that a few murmers of agreement in a crowd will
> cause
> people who are undecided to agree in order to 'fit in with the
> crowd'? It's NEVER just as simple as you're implying.
>
> It was a generel exchange of views on a wide range of issues,
> including sport, the media, politics etc...
Okay, where was it? Was it an organised thing (I'm assuming so seeing as how it was 1500 or so people)? And if so, who organised it?
> I didn't say they'd be more representative, i said that the views of
> 1500 people of varied background and political affiliation holds as
> much weight as a news paper poll, whos readers probably hold a
> similar political stand point as it does.
Yes, completely true. But whilst with a newspaper we generally know what kind of bias we're going to get, you've given as little as possible away about this increasingly clandestine-seeming meeting, and so you're not allowing anyone to ascertain what kinds of bias may have affected it.
> I never said that because 1500 people think it, the rest will follow
> suit! But these 1500 people were from all over the US, not just one
> area, with different jobs, different spare time stuff. Pretty much
> the biggest thing they had in common was being American, and they all
> agreed with the fellow that said the WOT was the way to go.
And I'm (I hope) showing that the agreement you're talking about in this mysterious meeting is an agreement with a lie. You haven't actually said anything to state otherwise.
> Think about it for just a second. If you were an American, could you
> accept your armed forces just 'stopping' the WOT. This is all back to
> my origional point, which you seem to have all but ignored, instead
> focusing on how represantitive of the US a quote was.
No, I'm saying that the WOT is getting it's support on the basis of lies such as the one you've repeated here. Could I accept armed forces just 'stopping'? No, but then my saying that forces have to stop committing atrocities is rather different to saying "everyone should just stop everything", isn't it? Come to think of it, it's somewhat deceitful of you to try and imply that I'm saying their should be such an extreme response.
What I AM saying is that the forces currently engaged in this laughable war on terror should perhaps be concentrating on where the terrorists are. There were barely any in Iraq before this resource grab; they (Al-Quaida) were based mainly in Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the Phillipines. I don't really see a massive commitment of troops there. Do you?
What I'm also saying is that whilst the US ride roughshod over other nations, the War on Terror will have the opposite effect. So more lies like the one you tried to propogate will need to be told in order to maintain it's support.
> Since this WOT, there have been no attacks on US soil. To the best of
> my knowledge, that is a FACT! Post 9/11, post WOT, no bombings in the
> US, no more buildings falling down, no more planes falling out of the
> sky. What ever the situation elsewhere, to an American, the post WOT
> age seems safer than the pre. That was my point.
> I wasn't expressing my views on the WOT, all along i was just trying
> to get it through that to many US citizens, the WOT seems to be
> working. I get that from the Americans i speak to, perhaps the ones
> you speak to don't feel safe, just tell me why? Perhaps i was wrong,
> have more planes fell from the sky onto American soil since the WOT?
> Have more buildings been destroyed in American citys? Please, tell me
> if i'm wrong, but, as i said, to the Americans i speak to, as these
> things arn't happening, they feel safer.
Right, right; which definition of US soil is this you're using? The one you made up at the top of this post or the one used by every other human being on the planet? Anyway, no there have not been attacks on US soil (oh, apart from that enormous atrocity that you just tried to sweep under the carpet there. But who really counts 9/11 eh? It was a long time ago; I should just let it go...). Perhaps the fact that there are so many US troops and citizens abroad to attack (over 1000 dead in Iraq since the end of the war there, plus the poor sods killed in Saudi, and the fact that pretty much every Moslem nation in the world has become a no-go area for American citizens over the last 4 years) means that they don't need to go for a big attack on US soil.
Seems safer? Hmm....well, I've been to America in the last year (only once I admit) and in the week I was there, there were 2 non-specific terror alerts, plus daily testing of the emergency broadcast systems. You know what? People seemed tense, afraid, and generally unhappy about the War on Terror then. The fact that these non-specific (in fact, based on intel over 4 years old...) alert have continued leads me to believe people will generally be more tense and generally unhappy. Can I ask, these 1500 Americans you met; when was the last time they'd been home?
I appreciate you're not trying to express your own view. You are however making a fairly embarrassing attempt to avoid biting the bullet and admitting that the original quote you used was a pure fabrication on the part of the person who made it. Then you've used increasingly tenuous evidence to try and support it. And you've been remarkably evasive about the original meeting too. For my part, I'm trying to get it through to you that the reason many Americans feel the WOT is working is because they believe this on the basis of being lied to. You've so far not said a single thing to even remotely disprove that. No, no more planes have fell onto US soil; thus far it's just those few under Dubya's regime. However, at least 1000 more Americans have died overseas, and Americans have been pretty much guaranteed a hateful reception wherever in the world they go. Safer? Yeah, course they're safer. Doesn't surprise me that they need to be lied to to be reassured of that.
By the way, did you hear this statement before or after Dubya admitted on live television that he didn't think the War on Terror could be won?
Light wrote:
> And the fact that the source you quoted was, in fact, a lie gives me
> a fair bit of confidence too.
It may not be a lie in the way your making out. He may have been thinking that the attacks before were un-provoked and more dastardly that those attacks carried out on a military strong hold within a 'conflict zone'. In other words, its different when an embassy in attacked out of no where, to when an embassy is attacked in an area of dispute. Say a US barracks was bombed, in, say, Saudia Arabia, this would cause far more outrage than if it was in, say Afganistan, where there is open dispute.
> Really? Tell me skarra; Do you realise that the "bush
> bounce" reported in Time Magazine that you're presumably
> referring to has already been reported as been slashed in numerous
> other polls? And that, according to a poll of the swing states, the
> only 10 point lead Bush has is in Ohio, whereas the other swing
> states show a lead for Kerry?
I was just going on what i heard and read in our media. I'm not like you, i can't divert hours of my life reading up on the latest election news.
> Look, when it looks like you don't know the mechanics behind how the
> US election is going to be decided, with the different electoral
> colleges etc (and maybe I'm wrong and you do, but with your flat
> assertion that "Bush has a big lead over anyone challenging him
> about terror" which is both misleading and, quite simply, you
> seeing what you want to see and no more, I don't think I am) then
> you'll excuse me for taking what you say with a pinch of salt.
As i see it, the only reason people have started to question the WOT is since Kerry started his whole, i was in 'Nam, i'd do better stuff.
> I'm intrigued; where was this meeting of 1500 people? Who organised
> it? What was the event? Because that would tell one something about
> the sort of person who'd attend it. Why would they be any more or
> less representative than those in a right or left wing news paper?
> Don't you think that a few murmers of agreement in a crowd will cause
> people who are undecided to agree in order to 'fit in with the
> crowd'? It's NEVER just as simple as you're implying.
It was a generel exchange of views on a wide range of issues, including sport, the media, politics etc...
I didn't say they'd be more representative, i said that the views of 1500 people of varied background and political affiliation holds as much weight as a news paper poll, whos readers probably hold a similar political stand point as it does.
I never said that because 1500 people think it, the rest will follow suit! But these 1500 people were from all over the US, not just one area, with different jobs, different spare time stuff. Pretty much the biggest thing they had in common was being American, and they all agreed with the fellow that said the WOT was the way to go.
> That the war is being supported on the basis of lies?
Think about it for just a second. If you were an American, could you accept your armed forces just 'stopping' the WOT. This is all back to my origional point, which you seem to have all but ignored, instead focusing on how represantitive of the US a quote was.
Since this WOT, there have been no attacks on US soil. To the best of my knowledge, that is a FACT! Post 9/11, post WOT, no bombings in the US, no more buildings falling down, no more planes falling out of the sky. What ever the situation elsewhere, to an American, the post WOT age seems safer than the pre. That was my point.
I wasn't expressing my views on the WOT, all along i was just trying to get it through that to many US citizens, the WOT seems to be working. I get that from the Americans i speak to, perhaps the ones you speak to don't feel safe, just tell me why? Perhaps i was wrong, have more planes fell from the sky onto American soil since the WOT? Have more buildings been destroyed in American citys? Please, tell me if i'm wrong, but, as i said, to the Americans i speak to, as these things arn't happening, they feel safer.
> And the fact that the source you quoted was, in fact, a lie gives me
> a fair bit of confidence too.
It may not be a lie in the way your making out. He may have been thinking that the attacks before were un-provoked and more dastardly that those attacks carried out on a military strong hold within a 'conflict zone'. In other words, its different when an embassy in attacked out of no where, to when an embassy is attacked in an area of dispute. Say a US barracks was bombed, in, say, Saudia Arabia, this would cause far more outrage than if it was in, say Afganistan, where there is open dispute.
> Really? Tell me skarra; Do you realise that the "bush
> bounce" reported in Time Magazine that you're presumably
> referring to has already been reported as been slashed in numerous
> other polls? And that, according to a poll of the swing states, the
> only 10 point lead Bush has is in Ohio, whereas the other swing
> states show a lead for Kerry?
I was just going on what i heard and read in our media. I'm not like you, i can't divert hours of my life reading up on the latest election news.
> Look, when it looks like you don't know the mechanics behind how the
> US election is going to be decided, with the different electoral
> colleges etc (and maybe I'm wrong and you do, but with your flat
> assertion that "Bush has a big lead over anyone challenging him
> about terror" which is both misleading and, quite simply, you
> seeing what you want to see and no more, I don't think I am) then
> you'll excuse me for taking what you say with a pinch of salt.
As i see it, the only reason people have started to question the WOT is since Kerry started his whole, i was in 'Nam, i'd do better stuff.
> I'm intrigued; where was this meeting of 1500 people? Who organised
> it? What was the event? Because that would tell one something about
> the sort of person who'd attend it. Why would they be any more or
> less representative than those in a right or left wing news paper?
> Don't you think that a few murmers of agreement in a crowd will cause
> people who are undecided to agree in order to 'fit in with the
> crowd'? It's NEVER just as simple as you're implying.
It was a generel exchange of views on a wide range of issues, including sport, the media, politics etc...
I didn't say they'd be more representative, i said that the views of 1500 people of varied background and political affiliation holds as much weight as a news paper poll, whos readers probably hold a similar political stand point as it does.
I never said that because 1500 people think it, the rest will follow suit! But these 1500 people were from all over the US, not just one area, with different jobs, different spare time stuff. Pretty much the biggest thing they had in common was being American, and they all agreed with the fellow that said the WOT was the way to go.
> That the war is being supported on the basis of lies?
Think about it for just a second. If you were an American, could you accept your armed forces just 'stopping' the WOT. This is all back to my origional point, which you seem to have all but ignored, instead focusing on how represantitive of the US a quote was.
Since this WOT, there have been no attacks on US soil. To the best of my knowledge, that is a FACT! Post 9/11, post WOT, no bombings in the US, no more buildings falling down, no more planes falling out of the sky. What ever the situation elsewhere, to an American, the post WOT age seems safer than the pre. That was my point.
I wasn't expressing my views on the WOT, all along i was just trying to get it through that to many US citizens, the WOT seems to be working. I get that from the Americans i speak to, perhaps the ones you speak to don't feel safe, just tell me why? Perhaps i was wrong, have more planes fell from the sky onto American soil since the WOT? Have more buildings been destroyed in American citys? Please, tell me if i'm wrong, but, as i said, to the Americans i speak to, as these things arn't happening, they feel safer.
Skarra wrote:
>
> What makes you so sure that your sources are more representative of
> the US population that my sources??? And have you, or anybody else
> asked all 250 million US citizens their views on this war on terror?
> I doubt it. So we can't be that sure.
Good point to be honest. I can't be sure, but I can say that I've looked at several sources in the media, and among friends who live over there. Not the "One bloke said this" anonymous source that you've quoted.
And the fact that the source you quoted was, in fact, a lie gives me a fair bit of confidence too.
> But as the War on Terror is
> perhaps the biggest issue with the voters, and Bush currently has
> about a 10 point league over those who are challenging the war on
> terror, i'm assuming that the majority are in support of this war on
> terror, it may well be a small majority, but if more than half were
> against it, i doubt that he'd be as far ahead as he is.
Really? Tell me skarra; Do you realise that the "bush bounce" reported in Time Magazine that you're presumably referring to has already been reported as been slashed in numerous other polls? And that, according to a poll of the swing states, the only 10 point lead Bush has is in Ohio, whereas the other swing states show a lead for Kerry?
Look, when it looks like you don't know the mechanics behind how the US election is going to be decided, with the different electoral colleges etc (and maybe I'm wrong and you do, but with your flat assertion that "Bush has a big lead over anyone challenging him about terror" which is both misleading and, quite simply, you seeing what you want to see and no more, I don't think I am) then you'll excuse me for taking what you say with a pinch of salt.
> No, as more than one US citizen i've had contact with agrees with the
> War on Terror. In all, when this view was expressed, of the roughly
> 1500 people who witnesed it, i myself was the only one who questioned
> the effectivness of this War on Terror, not another 1 of that 1500
> doubted that the war on terror was the right way to go. And as the
> personal views of 1500 US citizens is just as good as any poll in
> some left or right wing paper, whose audience is no doubt biased
> towards that papers political standpoint, i see no problem in
> assuming that the views held by these 1500 or so is representative of
> a fair proportion of US feelings. At very least, equal in validity to
> any poll done.
I'm intrigued; where was this meeting of 1500 people? Who organised it? What was the event? Because that would tell one something about the sort of person who'd attend it. Why would they be any more or less representative than those in a right or left wing news paper? Don't you think that a few murmers of agreement in a crowd will cause people who are undecided to agree in order to 'fit in with the crowd'? It's NEVER just as simple as you're implying.
And, lest we forget, the fact that was stated to start all this off was a lie. Are we clear on that? That the war is being supported on the basis of lies?
>
> What makes you so sure that your sources are more representative of
> the US population that my sources??? And have you, or anybody else
> asked all 250 million US citizens their views on this war on terror?
> I doubt it. So we can't be that sure.
Good point to be honest. I can't be sure, but I can say that I've looked at several sources in the media, and among friends who live over there. Not the "One bloke said this" anonymous source that you've quoted.
And the fact that the source you quoted was, in fact, a lie gives me a fair bit of confidence too.
> But as the War on Terror is
> perhaps the biggest issue with the voters, and Bush currently has
> about a 10 point league over those who are challenging the war on
> terror, i'm assuming that the majority are in support of this war on
> terror, it may well be a small majority, but if more than half were
> against it, i doubt that he'd be as far ahead as he is.
Really? Tell me skarra; Do you realise that the "bush bounce" reported in Time Magazine that you're presumably referring to has already been reported as been slashed in numerous other polls? And that, according to a poll of the swing states, the only 10 point lead Bush has is in Ohio, whereas the other swing states show a lead for Kerry?
Look, when it looks like you don't know the mechanics behind how the US election is going to be decided, with the different electoral colleges etc (and maybe I'm wrong and you do, but with your flat assertion that "Bush has a big lead over anyone challenging him about terror" which is both misleading and, quite simply, you seeing what you want to see and no more, I don't think I am) then you'll excuse me for taking what you say with a pinch of salt.
> No, as more than one US citizen i've had contact with agrees with the
> War on Terror. In all, when this view was expressed, of the roughly
> 1500 people who witnesed it, i myself was the only one who questioned
> the effectivness of this War on Terror, not another 1 of that 1500
> doubted that the war on terror was the right way to go. And as the
> personal views of 1500 US citizens is just as good as any poll in
> some left or right wing paper, whose audience is no doubt biased
> towards that papers political standpoint, i see no problem in
> assuming that the views held by these 1500 or so is representative of
> a fair proportion of US feelings. At very least, equal in validity to
> any poll done.
I'm intrigued; where was this meeting of 1500 people? Who organised it? What was the event? Because that would tell one something about the sort of person who'd attend it. Why would they be any more or less representative than those in a right or left wing news paper? Don't you think that a few murmers of agreement in a crowd will cause people who are undecided to agree in order to 'fit in with the crowd'? It's NEVER just as simple as you're implying.
And, lest we forget, the fact that was stated to start all this off was a lie. Are we clear on that? That the war is being supported on the basis of lies?
cookie monster wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> That was Ted Maul, wasn't it?
>
> No, Justin somebody.
Heh. You know, right?
> monkey_man wrote:
> That was Ted Maul, wasn't it?
>
> No, Justin somebody.
Heh. You know, right?
Revolver wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> Revolver, I think most people here have a brain enough to
> distinguish
> between individual and state actions.
>
> Sounds optimistic. So what are the state actions??? If someone would
> get to Wales and would call himself a King of Wales what your Queen
> shall do? Will she send troops there or will say "Take this
> brother, may it serve you well".
>
What? How is this relevant? I was saying most people here differentiate between sate actions and the individiual....
> I don't hate Russians, I don't hate Chechens. I condemn anyone who
> does anything vile, whether they be Russian or Chechen or bleeding
> Mexican, Christian, Jew or Muslim.
>
> You just can't understand that there's no conflict. A group of
> terrorists want Chechnya to be a terrorist's base. Chechnya had never
> been an independent country but as a part of Russia.
I wasn't saying anything about the conflict, I was addressing your opinion that we hated you.........
>
> Your point about not knowing anything about Russia is like saying
> we're not allowed to comment on Nazi Germany (NOT comparing modern
> Russia to Nazi Germany, it's an example) because we don't know
> Wagner
> inside-out and can't speak fluent German. I know somethings of your
> nation, of your artists and poets, and your history, but that's
> completely irrelevant, UNLESS the history itself has a direct impact
> on what you're discussing.
> Your second post, about double standards.........I think again, most
> people with brains aren't. They simply aren't stupid enough. You'll
> find Iraq is a hotly discussed topic, which is widely condemned,
> Northern Ireland is less of a topic, but only because there has been
> a massive decline in anything happeneing there, although I'm sure
> there's stuff still happening - and a lot of Northern Irish want to
> stay with Britain - perhaps there are Chechens who want to stay with
> Russia, just they don't get reported on. Spain and Barcelona isn't
> really a point at all!
>
> Why not point at all? Quebec wants to separate from Canada, Nothern
> Ireland from UK, Barcelona from Spain... God saved all of their
> children from being killed during their first lesson at the school.
>
I meant Spain and Barcelona as being a minor point.
> No, damn! No! You have not enough brains to differ terrorists from
> rebels! Rebels fight with regular forces not in school! Not in the
> hospitals! Women have to give a birth not to crash planes or metro
> stations. Men must build houses for them.
>
Where did I even talk about these things? What are you saying?!
> Cyclone wrote:
> Revolver, I think most people here have a brain enough to
> distinguish
> between individual and state actions.
>
> Sounds optimistic. So what are the state actions??? If someone would
> get to Wales and would call himself a King of Wales what your Queen
> shall do? Will she send troops there or will say "Take this
> brother, may it serve you well".
>
What? How is this relevant? I was saying most people here differentiate between sate actions and the individiual....
> I don't hate Russians, I don't hate Chechens. I condemn anyone who
> does anything vile, whether they be Russian or Chechen or bleeding
> Mexican, Christian, Jew or Muslim.
>
> You just can't understand that there's no conflict. A group of
> terrorists want Chechnya to be a terrorist's base. Chechnya had never
> been an independent country but as a part of Russia.
I wasn't saying anything about the conflict, I was addressing your opinion that we hated you.........
>
> Your point about not knowing anything about Russia is like saying
> we're not allowed to comment on Nazi Germany (NOT comparing modern
> Russia to Nazi Germany, it's an example) because we don't know
> Wagner
> inside-out and can't speak fluent German. I know somethings of your
> nation, of your artists and poets, and your history, but that's
> completely irrelevant, UNLESS the history itself has a direct impact
> on what you're discussing.
> Your second post, about double standards.........I think again, most
> people with brains aren't. They simply aren't stupid enough. You'll
> find Iraq is a hotly discussed topic, which is widely condemned,
> Northern Ireland is less of a topic, but only because there has been
> a massive decline in anything happeneing there, although I'm sure
> there's stuff still happening - and a lot of Northern Irish want to
> stay with Britain - perhaps there are Chechens who want to stay with
> Russia, just they don't get reported on. Spain and Barcelona isn't
> really a point at all!
>
> Why not point at all? Quebec wants to separate from Canada, Nothern
> Ireland from UK, Barcelona from Spain... God saved all of their
> children from being killed during their first lesson at the school.
>
I meant Spain and Barcelona as being a minor point.
> No, damn! No! You have not enough brains to differ terrorists from
> rebels! Rebels fight with regular forces not in school! Not in the
> hospitals! Women have to give a birth not to crash planes or metro
> stations. Men must build houses for them.
>
Where did I even talk about these things? What are you saying?!
monkey_man wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> I thought the ITN coverage was superior, at least they had a guy
> actually in the school reporting what exactly was going on.
>
> That was Ted Maul, wasn't it?
No, Justin somebody.
> cookie monster wrote:
> I thought the ITN coverage was superior, at least they had a guy
> actually in the school reporting what exactly was going on.
>
> That was Ted Maul, wasn't it?
No, Justin somebody.
Light wrote:
> ...in other words, they support the war on terror cos they are lied
> to about it and believe those lies.
>
> As to it "not being unpopular over there", I'd say you're
> being rather blinkered; you're ignoring the fact that well over half
> the voting population of the US DON'T support Dubya and his war on
> terror.
What makes you so sure that your sources are more representative of the US population that my sources??? And have you, or anybody else asked all 250 million US citizens their views on this war on terror? I doubt it. So we can't be that sure. But as the War on Terror is perhaps the biggest issue with the voters, and Bush currently has about a 10 point league over those who are challenging the war on terror, i'm assuming that the majority are in support of this war on terror, it may well be a small majority, but if more than half were against it, i doubt that he'd be as far ahead as he is.
> So I'll ask again; by saying that the words of one American
> represent the whole nation, aren't you being equally as ridiculous as
> those people who say that the whole nation is full of dimwits?
No, as more than one US citizen i've had contact with agrees with the War on Terror. In all, when this view was expressed, of the roughly 1500 people who witnesed it, i myself was the only one who questioned the effectivness of this War on Terror, not another 1 of that 1500 doubted that the war on terror was the right way to go. And as the personal views of 1500 US citizens is just as good as any poll in some left or right wing paper, whose audience is no doubt biased towards that papers political standpoint, i see no problem in assuming that the views held by these 1500 or so is representative of a fair proportion of US feelings. At very least, equal in validity to any poll done.
> ...in other words, they support the war on terror cos they are lied
> to about it and believe those lies.
>
> As to it "not being unpopular over there", I'd say you're
> being rather blinkered; you're ignoring the fact that well over half
> the voting population of the US DON'T support Dubya and his war on
> terror.
What makes you so sure that your sources are more representative of the US population that my sources??? And have you, or anybody else asked all 250 million US citizens their views on this war on terror? I doubt it. So we can't be that sure. But as the War on Terror is perhaps the biggest issue with the voters, and Bush currently has about a 10 point league over those who are challenging the war on terror, i'm assuming that the majority are in support of this war on terror, it may well be a small majority, but if more than half were against it, i doubt that he'd be as far ahead as he is.
> So I'll ask again; by saying that the words of one American
> represent the whole nation, aren't you being equally as ridiculous as
> those people who say that the whole nation is full of dimwits?
No, as more than one US citizen i've had contact with agrees with the War on Terror. In all, when this view was expressed, of the roughly 1500 people who witnesed it, i myself was the only one who questioned the effectivness of this War on Terror, not another 1 of that 1500 doubted that the war on terror was the right way to go. And as the personal views of 1500 US citizens is just as good as any poll in some left or right wing paper, whose audience is no doubt biased towards that papers political standpoint, i see no problem in assuming that the views held by these 1500 or so is representative of a fair proportion of US feelings. At very least, equal in validity to any poll done.
Revolver wrote:
> Sounds optimistic. So what are the state actions??? If someone would
> get to Wales and would call himself a King of Wales what your Queen
> shall do? Will she send troops there or will say "Take this
Ø brother, may it serve you well"
Pardon my interruption, but aren’t they actions that are authorised by a recognised state body, as opposed to actions authorised by a group that are not directly connected to that state in an official capacity?
I suspect that if someone declared themselves King of Wales we’d say “Good luck mate” and let him get on with it...
And in any case, we’ve already devolved both Wales and Scotland. They now have their own parliament, which is the first stage in independence. Scotland in particular has clamoured for independence for years now. And we singularly failed to invade them, level their capital, and imprison, torture, and murder their people.
>
> You just can't understand that there's no conflict. A group of
> terrorists want Chechnya to be a terrorist's base. Chechnya had never
Ø been an independent country but as a part of Russia.
No conflict. Right. So all that fighting, all the killing that is still going on, all the Chechen people who want a degree of autonomy from Russia; that’s not a conflict is it?
Meanwhile, I’d suggest you learn some history other than the stuff you’re spoon fed at home. The region that includes Chechnya was independant prior to 1818, after which Russia gradually conquered the Caucasus. The Chechens were renowned even then as being ferocious in their resistance. I’m intrigued though; how come you were told that Chechnya has never been independant? What is your media telling you?
>
>
> Why not point at all? Quebec wants to separate from Canada, Nothern
> Ireland from UK, Barcelona from Spain... God saved all of their
Ø children from being killed during their first lesson at the school.
And why not let them separate? I’m interested to know why you believe wanting independence is such a bad thing. I have my own opinions on it, but I’d like to know yours.
Don't get me wrong; obviously it's appalling and abhorent that so many innocents died at the hands of separatist terrorists who are so extreme that other Chechen rebel groups have disowned them. But independence itself; why is that so bad? Why are you so keen on the idea that a group of people should remain part of a state they no longer wish to be part of?
>
> No, damn! No! You have not enough brains to differ terrorists from
> rebels! Rebels fight with regular forces not in school! Not in the
> hospitals! Women have to give a birth not to crash planes or metro
> stations. Men must build houses for them.
No; YOU think Rebels should fight with forces. The maniacs responsible for the last tragedy clearly didn’t. You may not be familiar with the term “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, which I would say is fairly appropriate here. Someone doesn't stop being a rebel just because you don't like what they're rebelling against.
You seem to be doing exactly what I suspected you would from the start; repeating your opinion over and over again whilst refusing to take on board anything that differs from it.
> Sounds optimistic. So what are the state actions??? If someone would
> get to Wales and would call himself a King of Wales what your Queen
> shall do? Will she send troops there or will say "Take this
Ø brother, may it serve you well"
Pardon my interruption, but aren’t they actions that are authorised by a recognised state body, as opposed to actions authorised by a group that are not directly connected to that state in an official capacity?
I suspect that if someone declared themselves King of Wales we’d say “Good luck mate” and let him get on with it...
And in any case, we’ve already devolved both Wales and Scotland. They now have their own parliament, which is the first stage in independence. Scotland in particular has clamoured for independence for years now. And we singularly failed to invade them, level their capital, and imprison, torture, and murder their people.
>
> You just can't understand that there's no conflict. A group of
> terrorists want Chechnya to be a terrorist's base. Chechnya had never
Ø been an independent country but as a part of Russia.
No conflict. Right. So all that fighting, all the killing that is still going on, all the Chechen people who want a degree of autonomy from Russia; that’s not a conflict is it?
Meanwhile, I’d suggest you learn some history other than the stuff you’re spoon fed at home. The region that includes Chechnya was independant prior to 1818, after which Russia gradually conquered the Caucasus. The Chechens were renowned even then as being ferocious in their resistance. I’m intrigued though; how come you were told that Chechnya has never been independant? What is your media telling you?
>
>
> Why not point at all? Quebec wants to separate from Canada, Nothern
> Ireland from UK, Barcelona from Spain... God saved all of their
Ø children from being killed during their first lesson at the school.
And why not let them separate? I’m interested to know why you believe wanting independence is such a bad thing. I have my own opinions on it, but I’d like to know yours.
Don't get me wrong; obviously it's appalling and abhorent that so many innocents died at the hands of separatist terrorists who are so extreme that other Chechen rebel groups have disowned them. But independence itself; why is that so bad? Why are you so keen on the idea that a group of people should remain part of a state they no longer wish to be part of?
>
> No, damn! No! You have not enough brains to differ terrorists from
> rebels! Rebels fight with regular forces not in school! Not in the
> hospitals! Women have to give a birth not to crash planes or metro
> stations. Men must build houses for them.
No; YOU think Rebels should fight with forces. The maniacs responsible for the last tragedy clearly didn’t. You may not be familiar with the term “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, which I would say is fairly appropriate here. Someone doesn't stop being a rebel just because you don't like what they're rebelling against.
You seem to be doing exactly what I suspected you would from the start; repeating your opinion over and over again whilst refusing to take on board anything that differs from it.
Cyclone wrote:
> Revolver, I think most people here have a brain enough to distinguish
> between individual and state actions.
Sounds optimistic. So what are the state actions??? If someone would get to Wales and would call himself a King of Wales what your Queen shall do? Will she send troops there or will say "Take this brother, may it serve you well".
> I don't hate Russians, I don't hate Chechens. I condemn anyone who
> does anything vile, whether they be Russian or Chechen or bleeding
> Mexican, Christian, Jew or Muslim.
You just can't understand that there's no conflict. A group of terrorists want Chechnya to be a terrorist's base. Chechnya had never been an independent country but as a part of Russia.
> Your point about not knowing anything about Russia is like saying
> we're not allowed to comment on Nazi Germany (NOT comparing modern
> Russia to Nazi Germany, it's an example) because we don't know Wagner
> inside-out and can't speak fluent German. I know somethings of your
> nation, of your artists and poets, and your history, but that's
> completely irrelevant, UNLESS the history itself has a direct impact
> on what you're discussing.
> Your second post, about double standards.........I think again, most
> people with brains aren't. They simply aren't stupid enough. You'll
> find Iraq is a hotly discussed topic, which is widely condemned,
> Northern Ireland is less of a topic, but only because there has been
> a massive decline in anything happeneing there, although I'm sure
> there's stuff still happening - and a lot of Northern Irish want to
> stay with Britain - perhaps there are Chechens who want to stay with
> Russia, just they don't get reported on. Spain and Barcelona isn't
> really a point at all!
Why not point at all? Quebec wants to separate from Canada, Nothern Ireland from UK, Barcelona from Spain... God saved all of their children from being killed during their first lesson at the school.
No, damn! No! You have not enough brains to differ terrorists from rebels! Rebels fight with regular forces not in school! Not in the hospitals! Women have to give a birth not to crash planes or metro stations. Men must build houses for them.
My ICQ: 59704993. Be sure, I can proove all of this to you.
> Revolver, I think most people here have a brain enough to distinguish
> between individual and state actions.
Sounds optimistic. So what are the state actions??? If someone would get to Wales and would call himself a King of Wales what your Queen shall do? Will she send troops there or will say "Take this brother, may it serve you well".
> I don't hate Russians, I don't hate Chechens. I condemn anyone who
> does anything vile, whether they be Russian or Chechen or bleeding
> Mexican, Christian, Jew or Muslim.
You just can't understand that there's no conflict. A group of terrorists want Chechnya to be a terrorist's base. Chechnya had never been an independent country but as a part of Russia.
> Your point about not knowing anything about Russia is like saying
> we're not allowed to comment on Nazi Germany (NOT comparing modern
> Russia to Nazi Germany, it's an example) because we don't know Wagner
> inside-out and can't speak fluent German. I know somethings of your
> nation, of your artists and poets, and your history, but that's
> completely irrelevant, UNLESS the history itself has a direct impact
> on what you're discussing.
> Your second post, about double standards.........I think again, most
> people with brains aren't. They simply aren't stupid enough. You'll
> find Iraq is a hotly discussed topic, which is widely condemned,
> Northern Ireland is less of a topic, but only because there has been
> a massive decline in anything happeneing there, although I'm sure
> there's stuff still happening - and a lot of Northern Irish want to
> stay with Britain - perhaps there are Chechens who want to stay with
> Russia, just they don't get reported on. Spain and Barcelona isn't
> really a point at all!
Why not point at all? Quebec wants to separate from Canada, Nothern Ireland from UK, Barcelona from Spain... God saved all of their children from being killed during their first lesson at the school.
No, damn! No! You have not enough brains to differ terrorists from rebels! Rebels fight with regular forces not in school! Not in the hospitals! Women have to give a birth not to crash planes or metro stations. Men must build houses for them.
My ICQ: 59704993. Be sure, I can proove all of this to you.
Page: