The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 can't believe this.
I'm watching the news, and they are covering the Afghan situation.
Guess what they're doing?
Only bloody well saying where the troops are, what they are doing, who they're supposed to meet up with etc.
How stupid is that!?!?!
It won't take much of an intelligence to figure out that Afghani people could be watching the news over here, and let the Taliban people know what's going on.
How thick!
I'm watching the news, and they are covering the Afghan situation.
Guess what they're doing?
Only bloody well saying where the troops are, what they are doing, who they're supposed to meet up with etc.
How stupid is that!?!?!
It won't take much of an intelligence to figure out that Afghani people could be watching the news over here, and let the Taliban people know what's going on.
How thick!
Page:
> can't. Omagh, the numerous bombings in London and other actions have shown they
> cannot sustain a massive campaign. The SAS alone have killed/captured tens of
> IRA cells. Part of the peace process was to release hundreds of prisoners,
> people we caught. Yes they inflicted massive hurt on anyone who lost a relative
> or friend but they never came close to September 11th.
If they had the capabilty, and could get away with it they would. All terrorists are monsters. Anyone who kills inoccents is.
>Hold on, isnt the
> law in america
> 'innocent until proven guilty'? Just because another
> >scapegoat cant be found
> doesnt justify blaming someone who you 'think'
> has done >it.
>Looks to me that
> america is sacrificing the very
> personal beliefs it is >trying to protect with
> this war.
They have the
> evidence, and they've proved it enought to get a UN mandate to take action.
> You're suggesting the US birbed the entire UN council, including China and
> Russia ?
No, but why hasnt the public seen this proof? I think the the world is just doing what america says, so as not to get on its bad side. Until i see proof, i will fight against this war.
>A few
> tons of food is everything to a starving family.
> what >would you do if it had
> been your food supply which had been blown
> up?
Well that food was in a warehouse going nowhere. The UN reports that the
> Taliban is attacking its staff who are trying to give aid and have taken
> supplies from warehouses. We hit one warehouse and the Taliban have a sustained
> go at them. Ours was a mistake, the Taliban are doing it on purpose with no
> regard to civilians.
Yeah and so are the US. They will kill all the civilains they can to get to the terrorists.
>And its not exactly as if the
> terroists only
> have one food dump. Only the local people who would have shared
> that food
> got hurt.
> ?
Well unless you happen to be in US/Uk intelligence I dont
> think anyone is qualified to say the food situation over there ! Ifthe aid
> agencies are to be believed many local people are no longer local but have fled
> leaving only the taliban in many areas.
Yes but still, fedding people doesnt derserve a bomb. Only those who needed the food (the few remaining villagers) have been hurt.
Drugs come from somewhere, anyone supplying illegal drugs is a dealer.
> You're saying legalise ecstasy ? We have enough deaths when its hard to obtain
> let alone if it was off the shelf available. Yes, legalising would make it more
> pure and less a cocktail of who knows what, but as you increase purity you
> increase potency. If you legalise every drug the results would devestate the
> world, positive sides to heroin use anybody ? I know why not legalise
> prostitution as well, and murder. After all you can tell people to stop doing
> those things but they still do ! But hang on, what if your child comes home one
> day with a little white pill ? Hmm thats different isnt it. Alcohol is legalised
> so kids do get hold of it, look at the number of underage alcohol abusers. You
> want to see 10 year old cannabis addicts ? Because if you legalise then thats
> what you get. We have laws to protect ALL of society, not the small vocal
> portion that wants to do whatever it wants and expects the pieces to be picked
> up after them.
1) cannabis is not addictive. UK science labs have proved this.
2)Kids can get hold of anything. there are 8 year old heroin addicts.
3) there is a fine line between protection and opression. People should be able to sign a from that alows them to do what they like, but not have any legal health entitlment to any deseases caused by the drugs they take.
4) yes but people who buy drugs mostly just use them for themselves.
people who use drugs for their own use and are not part of
> a
> gang should not have to suffer for a personal choice.
In fact their is
> an EU
> law which states this.
Yes, but only if that personal choice does
> not breach the laws of the country and do not commit illegal actions in
> obtaining those drugs or encourage others to do so. Buying drugs is illegal,
> buying from others is encouraging them.
Actually EU law technically supercedes our law. Anyway what if u just pick your own mushrooms and use them urself? No drug dealer involved. same with growing weed.
If u do it, and take all the responsibility, you should not suffer.
>and i quote ' anyone can do
> whatever they like, as
> long as it doesnt hurt anyone else'
You buy drugs
> from someone, okay a bit of money changes hands no problem. Wheres that money
> go, to buy more drugs. And where do those drugs come from ? Africa, Afghanistan,
> South America ? And the guy who runs the place is a nice person isnt he, never
> done anything wrong ? I doubt it. Hes probably killed people, police whove stood
> in his way, or other officials. Those people have families, and they've lost
> someone because people sitting back here in the west think the drugs trade is
> some cosy little industry.
Well if the government made it their industry, they could cut off terrorist funds. Makes sense.
>that is true freedom. And that is
> what
> america should embrace.
Thats chaos and the results of no law.
> America is also justice, and responsibility, as is the UK.
It is a goverment that opresses its people that fears giving them freedom.
>Fact: the
> taliban see the UN as an american
> controlled organisation, which to an
> extent it is. They are not going to take
> the risk of letting them in their
> borders just to satisfy our morbis curiosity.
>
If they wont let others
> see them then why not show us ? Did we hide the body bags pouring from the WTC ?
> Where is the actual hard real evidence. If they believe the UN is an american
> controlled organisation then its their tought luck, it isnt as the UN's history
> shows - the Security council veto system does not allow the USA to puch through
> what it wants as any of the six nations such as China and Russia can block
> anything they want with the veto. Did the block enduring Freedom ? nope. A bit
> of a precedent there, and maybe a sign.
We? are you american then? no offense, but i can see why you so fervently defend your values.
I'm suprised people flaunted the bags. I would have not dared dihonour the memory of the dead by using them as media tools.
The Tailaban dont want to risk anything, they are in enough trouble as it is. They cannot take any chances.
And are russia and china gonna say no to the country that gives them the most aid?
>yes, but america's hesitation
> made the war last far too long, and
> cost thousands of british soldiers
> lives. they are the real ones who saved
> us.
The american public's
> hesitation and conviction they would be unaffected was the real cause of the
> americans not entering the war. Which is why we did damn good by not hesitating
> this time.
So you admit america (its people are part of it) did take to long! thank you. But this war is far different. I still think more caution should be used.
well, arabs
> stick STRONGLY to their religion. God is on
> their side, so it doesnt matter that
> they dont have a chance. they will
> fight us with ever weapon they have...and
> that includes nukes.
Well true
> Islam preaches tolerance and not killing innocent people, only screwed up
> versions of it allow that kind of perversion of a perfectly peaceful religion.
> You are assuming all arabs follow the sick faith of Al Queada and they don't.
> Many arab states have true islamic beleivers like the many in the UK, USA,
> Pakistan e.t.c It is a minority who wish to a twisted version of Islam to their
> own needs who are creating a bad press for Islam. The only Arab state with nukes
> is Israel, India isnt an arab state and pakistan isnt an arab state. Iraq is not
> past development stages yet. Bio weapons are thought to be in Iraq, Iran and
> others. However those in control of those countries are not so suicidal. Within
> 10 minutes of the second WTC attack EVERY aircraft of Strategic Air Command was
> airborne and BUsh on Air Force One. If that had been Iraq attacking then IRa had
> a life expectancy of about the flgiht time of SAC's B2 Bomber squadrons. Whether
> we attack now or never, those states will use weapons against us, well guess
> what ? This time we're not going to take it.
Actually the koran condones using violence to defend urself. And now the us have bomed an arab country, their god has given them full permission to kill us.
>You
> are far too proud.
> I would gladly lay down my beliefs and personal freedoms to
> protect my
> family's lives and the lives of others. America is rushing into this
> war
> too quickly, and so many will needlessly die on both sides.
Im not proud, Im
> just not succumbing to the very fear that those attacks were supposed to plant
> in everyones minds. You cannot attack innocent civlians and people and expect to
> get away with it. It is not acceptable in todays world and anyone who believes
> it is deserves everything they get. Throughout history the "doves"
> have been listened to, before WW2 when Britain thought it had negotiated itself
> out of the conflict, during Vietnam when America aavoided initial involvement
> for fear of public opinion, in the Gulf when the tanks stopped at just inside
> the Iraqi border, during the Balkans where only a light air campaign was
> demanded, during Yugoslavia and Bosnia where we all sat and watched genocide
> night after night and did nothing, during Somalia when warlords killed hundreds
> of innocents and we waited unti it was all over, In Korea where hestiation cost
> hundreds of lives, In Afghanistan in the 80's where we had to fight a proxy war
> because of our fear and in the Falklands where political hesitation and budget
> cutting meant we were not as ready as we could have been. This time the action
> is firm decisive and devestating, the leash is off and isnt going back on until
> every last terrorist is gone. About time too.
Hold on, isnt the us attacking innocent civilains and getting away with it?
It wasnt fear that held back other ways it was sense. Bush is an idiot with his russian commander style tactics. I admire your defense of your country, but you must admit that both sides are run by idiots who kill innocents needlessly
And the
> population
> dont even have a choice. If a tailban leader puts a base near your
> home,
> are you going to dare to tell him to go away?
So the Taliban leader has no
> conscience or concern for his people ? Sounds like a good reason for getting
> him. Tehy are siting the facilities to get civilain casualties which they hope
> will end the war. Well this time it wont work.
The tailban obviously have no concience. Duh. they did kill 7000 people.
>In the end this is a
> war
> over personal beliefs, and all the innocent bystanders >are dieing.
> The terroists
> attack civilians, the americans attack civilians. They
> >are both as bad as each
> other.
The coalition is attacking targets.
> some sited in civilian areas on purpose, the terrorists attacked a clearly
> civilian, and a military, target in each case. If someone believes that it is
> their god given duty to kill as many people as possible in the most horrific way
> possible then they are worse.
Killing civilians is wrong. NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You scare me.
>Anyway the tailban cant eject him. Its
> the ancient tradition of
> 'xenos' (thats the greek word for it) that is
> stated in most holy texts that
> says you have to treat a visitor kindly.
> The tailiban cant throw osma bin laden
> to the death peanlty without saying
> to the arab world 'we have no ethics, we
> will do what america says.'
They
> can, Bin Laden is not following the true text of that religion which the
> tradition is incorporated into. You cant pick and choose your bits of religion
> to suit circumstances. And where is the bit that says you cant covertly let the
> coalition know where he is, then step away and watch ? This isnt about one man,
> its about removing the Taliban, Al Queda and anyone who helps them. Bin Laden is
> the head but not the whole. Besides if they won't surrender him we'll just have
> to go get him, he has to be lucky all the time, the coalition has to be lucky
> once.
People have always bent religion for they use (hitler, army of god)
Coalition. Its all america. America has statred this and we will all pay.
>I am a big a man to admit when i am wrong. I
> have done so
> twice in this argument. Can you say the same?
I will only admit I am wrong if a
> fact I state is proven to be wrong. I'm not going to apolgise for how I think
> but I will never use untrue facts to jusitfy to anyone my way of thinking. I
> have, for instance, never said this war awas against the Afghans, or Arabs, I
> have clearly said it is against terrorists, whoever they are. Similarily I have
> been careful to point out that the Islam used by the terrorists is not the
> acknowledged true form of that religion.
I didnt mean afgans as in the people, but the terroists are afgans arent they?
The islam used by the terrorists is the most popular form in afganistan. Dont thow mud. That is the first sign of someone who is losing an argument. You are obviously far smarter than this.
> cannot sustain a massive campaign. The SAS alone have killed/captured tens of
> IRA cells. Part of the peace process was to release hundreds of prisoners,
> people we caught. Yes they inflicted massive hurt on anyone who lost a relative
> or friend but they never came close to September 11th.
If they had the capabilty, and could get away with it they would. All terrorists are monsters. Anyone who kills inoccents is.
>Hold on, isnt the
> law in america
> 'innocent until proven guilty'? Just because another
> >scapegoat cant be found
> doesnt justify blaming someone who you 'think'
> has done >it.
>Looks to me that
> america is sacrificing the very
> personal beliefs it is >trying to protect with
> this war.
They have the
> evidence, and they've proved it enought to get a UN mandate to take action.
> You're suggesting the US birbed the entire UN council, including China and
> Russia ?
No, but why hasnt the public seen this proof? I think the the world is just doing what america says, so as not to get on its bad side. Until i see proof, i will fight against this war.
>A few
> tons of food is everything to a starving family.
> what >would you do if it had
> been your food supply which had been blown
> up?
Well that food was in a warehouse going nowhere. The UN reports that the
> Taliban is attacking its staff who are trying to give aid and have taken
> supplies from warehouses. We hit one warehouse and the Taliban have a sustained
> go at them. Ours was a mistake, the Taliban are doing it on purpose with no
> regard to civilians.
Yeah and so are the US. They will kill all the civilains they can to get to the terrorists.
>And its not exactly as if the
> terroists only
> have one food dump. Only the local people who would have shared
> that food
> got hurt.
> ?
Well unless you happen to be in US/Uk intelligence I dont
> think anyone is qualified to say the food situation over there ! Ifthe aid
> agencies are to be believed many local people are no longer local but have fled
> leaving only the taliban in many areas.
Yes but still, fedding people doesnt derserve a bomb. Only those who needed the food (the few remaining villagers) have been hurt.
Drugs come from somewhere, anyone supplying illegal drugs is a dealer.
> You're saying legalise ecstasy ? We have enough deaths when its hard to obtain
> let alone if it was off the shelf available. Yes, legalising would make it more
> pure and less a cocktail of who knows what, but as you increase purity you
> increase potency. If you legalise every drug the results would devestate the
> world, positive sides to heroin use anybody ? I know why not legalise
> prostitution as well, and murder. After all you can tell people to stop doing
> those things but they still do ! But hang on, what if your child comes home one
> day with a little white pill ? Hmm thats different isnt it. Alcohol is legalised
> so kids do get hold of it, look at the number of underage alcohol abusers. You
> want to see 10 year old cannabis addicts ? Because if you legalise then thats
> what you get. We have laws to protect ALL of society, not the small vocal
> portion that wants to do whatever it wants and expects the pieces to be picked
> up after them.
1) cannabis is not addictive. UK science labs have proved this.
2)Kids can get hold of anything. there are 8 year old heroin addicts.
3) there is a fine line between protection and opression. People should be able to sign a from that alows them to do what they like, but not have any legal health entitlment to any deseases caused by the drugs they take.
4) yes but people who buy drugs mostly just use them for themselves.
people who use drugs for their own use and are not part of
> a
> gang should not have to suffer for a personal choice.
In fact their is
> an EU
> law which states this.
Yes, but only if that personal choice does
> not breach the laws of the country and do not commit illegal actions in
> obtaining those drugs or encourage others to do so. Buying drugs is illegal,
> buying from others is encouraging them.
Actually EU law technically supercedes our law. Anyway what if u just pick your own mushrooms and use them urself? No drug dealer involved. same with growing weed.
If u do it, and take all the responsibility, you should not suffer.
>and i quote ' anyone can do
> whatever they like, as
> long as it doesnt hurt anyone else'
You buy drugs
> from someone, okay a bit of money changes hands no problem. Wheres that money
> go, to buy more drugs. And where do those drugs come from ? Africa, Afghanistan,
> South America ? And the guy who runs the place is a nice person isnt he, never
> done anything wrong ? I doubt it. Hes probably killed people, police whove stood
> in his way, or other officials. Those people have families, and they've lost
> someone because people sitting back here in the west think the drugs trade is
> some cosy little industry.
Well if the government made it their industry, they could cut off terrorist funds. Makes sense.
>that is true freedom. And that is
> what
> america should embrace.
Thats chaos and the results of no law.
> America is also justice, and responsibility, as is the UK.
It is a goverment that opresses its people that fears giving them freedom.
>Fact: the
> taliban see the UN as an american
> controlled organisation, which to an
> extent it is. They are not going to take
> the risk of letting them in their
> borders just to satisfy our morbis curiosity.
>
If they wont let others
> see them then why not show us ? Did we hide the body bags pouring from the WTC ?
> Where is the actual hard real evidence. If they believe the UN is an american
> controlled organisation then its their tought luck, it isnt as the UN's history
> shows - the Security council veto system does not allow the USA to puch through
> what it wants as any of the six nations such as China and Russia can block
> anything they want with the veto. Did the block enduring Freedom ? nope. A bit
> of a precedent there, and maybe a sign.
We? are you american then? no offense, but i can see why you so fervently defend your values.
I'm suprised people flaunted the bags. I would have not dared dihonour the memory of the dead by using them as media tools.
The Tailaban dont want to risk anything, they are in enough trouble as it is. They cannot take any chances.
And are russia and china gonna say no to the country that gives them the most aid?
>yes, but america's hesitation
> made the war last far too long, and
> cost thousands of british soldiers
> lives. they are the real ones who saved
> us.
The american public's
> hesitation and conviction they would be unaffected was the real cause of the
> americans not entering the war. Which is why we did damn good by not hesitating
> this time.
So you admit america (its people are part of it) did take to long! thank you. But this war is far different. I still think more caution should be used.
well, arabs
> stick STRONGLY to their religion. God is on
> their side, so it doesnt matter that
> they dont have a chance. they will
> fight us with ever weapon they have...and
> that includes nukes.
Well true
> Islam preaches tolerance and not killing innocent people, only screwed up
> versions of it allow that kind of perversion of a perfectly peaceful religion.
> You are assuming all arabs follow the sick faith of Al Queada and they don't.
> Many arab states have true islamic beleivers like the many in the UK, USA,
> Pakistan e.t.c It is a minority who wish to a twisted version of Islam to their
> own needs who are creating a bad press for Islam. The only Arab state with nukes
> is Israel, India isnt an arab state and pakistan isnt an arab state. Iraq is not
> past development stages yet. Bio weapons are thought to be in Iraq, Iran and
> others. However those in control of those countries are not so suicidal. Within
> 10 minutes of the second WTC attack EVERY aircraft of Strategic Air Command was
> airborne and BUsh on Air Force One. If that had been Iraq attacking then IRa had
> a life expectancy of about the flgiht time of SAC's B2 Bomber squadrons. Whether
> we attack now or never, those states will use weapons against us, well guess
> what ? This time we're not going to take it.
Actually the koran condones using violence to defend urself. And now the us have bomed an arab country, their god has given them full permission to kill us.
>You
> are far too proud.
> I would gladly lay down my beliefs and personal freedoms to
> protect my
> family's lives and the lives of others. America is rushing into this
> war
> too quickly, and so many will needlessly die on both sides.
Im not proud, Im
> just not succumbing to the very fear that those attacks were supposed to plant
> in everyones minds. You cannot attack innocent civlians and people and expect to
> get away with it. It is not acceptable in todays world and anyone who believes
> it is deserves everything they get. Throughout history the "doves"
> have been listened to, before WW2 when Britain thought it had negotiated itself
> out of the conflict, during Vietnam when America aavoided initial involvement
> for fear of public opinion, in the Gulf when the tanks stopped at just inside
> the Iraqi border, during the Balkans where only a light air campaign was
> demanded, during Yugoslavia and Bosnia where we all sat and watched genocide
> night after night and did nothing, during Somalia when warlords killed hundreds
> of innocents and we waited unti it was all over, In Korea where hestiation cost
> hundreds of lives, In Afghanistan in the 80's where we had to fight a proxy war
> because of our fear and in the Falklands where political hesitation and budget
> cutting meant we were not as ready as we could have been. This time the action
> is firm decisive and devestating, the leash is off and isnt going back on until
> every last terrorist is gone. About time too.
Hold on, isnt the us attacking innocent civilains and getting away with it?
It wasnt fear that held back other ways it was sense. Bush is an idiot with his russian commander style tactics. I admire your defense of your country, but you must admit that both sides are run by idiots who kill innocents needlessly
And the
> population
> dont even have a choice. If a tailban leader puts a base near your
> home,
> are you going to dare to tell him to go away?
So the Taliban leader has no
> conscience or concern for his people ? Sounds like a good reason for getting
> him. Tehy are siting the facilities to get civilain casualties which they hope
> will end the war. Well this time it wont work.
The tailban obviously have no concience. Duh. they did kill 7000 people.
>In the end this is a
> war
> over personal beliefs, and all the innocent bystanders >are dieing.
> The terroists
> attack civilians, the americans attack civilians. They
> >are both as bad as each
> other.
The coalition is attacking targets.
> some sited in civilian areas on purpose, the terrorists attacked a clearly
> civilian, and a military, target in each case. If someone believes that it is
> their god given duty to kill as many people as possible in the most horrific way
> possible then they are worse.
Killing civilians is wrong. NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You scare me.
>Anyway the tailban cant eject him. Its
> the ancient tradition of
> 'xenos' (thats the greek word for it) that is
> stated in most holy texts that
> says you have to treat a visitor kindly.
> The tailiban cant throw osma bin laden
> to the death peanlty without saying
> to the arab world 'we have no ethics, we
> will do what america says.'
They
> can, Bin Laden is not following the true text of that religion which the
> tradition is incorporated into. You cant pick and choose your bits of religion
> to suit circumstances. And where is the bit that says you cant covertly let the
> coalition know where he is, then step away and watch ? This isnt about one man,
> its about removing the Taliban, Al Queda and anyone who helps them. Bin Laden is
> the head but not the whole. Besides if they won't surrender him we'll just have
> to go get him, he has to be lucky all the time, the coalition has to be lucky
> once.
People have always bent religion for they use (hitler, army of god)
Coalition. Its all america. America has statred this and we will all pay.
>I am a big a man to admit when i am wrong. I
> have done so
> twice in this argument. Can you say the same?
I will only admit I am wrong if a
> fact I state is proven to be wrong. I'm not going to apolgise for how I think
> but I will never use untrue facts to jusitfy to anyone my way of thinking. I
> have, for instance, never said this war awas against the Afghans, or Arabs, I
> have clearly said it is against terrorists, whoever they are. Similarily I have
> been careful to point out that the Islam used by the terrorists is not the
> acknowledged true form of that religion.
I didnt mean afgans as in the people, but the terroists are afgans arent they?
The islam used by the terrorists is the most popular form in afganistan. Dont thow mud. That is the first sign of someone who is losing an argument. You are obviously far smarter than this.
Edwin25 wrote:
>Yes but if the IRA could get
> away with it, they would do it. They are just as bad as >the afgan
> terrorists.
They can't. Omagh, the numerous bombings in London and other actions have shown they cannot sustain a massive campaign. The SAS alone have killed/captured tens of IRA cells. Part of the peace process was to release hundreds of prisoners, people we caught. Yes they inflicted massive hurt on anyone who lost a relative or friend but they never came close to September 11th.
>Hold on, isnt the law in america
> 'innocent until proven guilty'? Just because another >scapegoat cant be found
> doesnt justify blaming someone who you 'think' has done >it.
>Looks to me that
> america is sacrificing the very personal beliefs it is >trying to protect with
> this war.
They have the evidence, and they've proved it enought to get a UN mandate to take action. You're suggesting the US birbed the entire UN council, including China and Russia ?
>A few
> tons of food is everything to a starving family. what >would you do if it had
> been your food supply which had been blown up?
Well that food was in a warehouse going nowhere. The UN reports that the Taliban is attacking its staff who are trying to give aid and have taken supplies from warehouses. We hit one warehouse and the Taliban have a sustained go at them. Ours was a mistake, the Taliban are doing it on purpose with no regard to civilians.
>And its not exactly as if the
> terroists only have one food dump. Only the local people who would have shared
> that food got hurt.
> ?
Well unless you happen to be in US/Uk intelligence I dont think anyone is qualified to say the food situation over there ! Ifthe aid agencies are to be believed many local people are no longer local but have fled leaving only the taliban in many areas.
Well I said NOT drug dealers. The drug wars wouldnt exist if all
> drugs were legal. The criminals only make money because the drugs are banned,
> and people want them. Its like the prohibition of alchol. You can tell people to
> stop taking drugs, but they will just get them through illegal and dangerous
> sources. Might as well take that money away from the drug lords and into your
> federal reserve.
Drugs come from somewhere, anyone supplying illegal drugs is a dealer. You're saying legalise ecstasy ? We have enough deaths when its hard to obtain let alone if it was off the shelf available. Yes, legalising would make it more pure and less a cocktail of who knows what, but as you increase purity you increase potency. If you legalise every drug the results would devestate the world, positive sides to heroin use anybody ? I know why not legalise prostitution as well, and murder. After all you can tell people to stop doing those things but they still do ! But hang on, what if your child comes home one day with a little white pill ? Hmm thats different isnt it. Alcohol is legalised so kids do get hold of it, look at the number of underage alcohol abusers. You want to see 10 year old cannabis addicts ? Because if you legalise then thats what you get. We have laws to protect ALL of society, not the small vocal portion that wants to do whatever it wants and expects the pieces to be picked up after them.
people who use drugs for their own use and are not part of a
> gang should not have to suffer for a personal choice.
In fact their is an EU
> law which states this.
Yes, but only if that personal choice does not breach the laws of the country and do not commit illegal actions in obtaining those drugs or encourage others to do so. Buying drugs is illegal, buying from others is encouraging them.
>and i quote ' anyone can do whatever they like, as
> long as it doesnt hurt anyone else'
You buy drugs from someone, okay a bit of money changes hands no problem. Wheres that money go, to buy more drugs. And where do those drugs come from ? Africa, Afghanistan, South America ? And the guy who runs the place is a nice person isnt he, never done anything wrong ? I doubt it. Hes probably killed people, police whove stood in his way, or other officials. Those people have families, and they've lost someone because people sitting back here in the west think the drugs trade is some cosy little industry.
>that is true freedom. And that is what
> america should embrace.
Thats chaos and the results of no law. America is also justice, and responsibility, as is the UK.
>Fact: the taliban see the UN as an american
> controlled organisation, which to an extent it is. They are not going to take
> the risk of letting them in their borders just to satisfy our morbis curiosity.
>
If they wont let others see them then why not show us ? Did we hide the body bags pouring from the WTC ? Where is the actual hard real evidence. If they believe the UN is an american controlled organisation then its their tought luck, it isnt as the UN's history shows - the Security council veto system does not allow the USA to puch through what it wants as any of the six nations such as China and Russia can block anything they want with the veto. Did the block enduring Freedom ? nope. A bit of a precedent there, and maybe a sign.
>yes, but america's hesitation made the war last far too long, and
> cost thousands of british soldiers lives. they are the real ones who saved
> us.
The american public's hesitation and conviction they would be unaffected was the real cause of the americans not entering the war. Which is why we did damn good by not hesitating this time.
well, arabs
> stick STRONGLY to their religion. God is on their side, so it doesnt matter that
> they dont have a chance. they will fight us with ever weapon they have...and
> that includes nukes.
Well true Islam preaches tolerance and not killing innocent people, only screwed up versions of it allow that kind of perversion of a perfectly peaceful religion. You are assuming all arabs follow the sick faith of Al Queada and they don't. Many arab states have true islamic beleivers like the many in the UK, USA, Pakistan e.t.c It is a minority who wish to a twisted version of Islam to their own needs who are creating a bad press for Islam. The only Arab state with nukes is Israel, India isnt an arab state and pakistan isnt an arab state. Iraq is not past development stages yet. Bio weapons are thought to be in Iraq, Iran and others. However those in control of those countries are not so suicidal. Within 10 minutes of the second WTC attack EVERY aircraft of Strategic Air Command was airborne and BUsh on Air Force One. If that had been Iraq attacking then IRa had a life expectancy of about the flgiht time of SAC's B2 Bomber squadrons. Whether we attack now or never, those states will use weapons against us, well guess what ? This time we're not going to take it.
>You
> are far too proud. I would gladly lay down my beliefs and personal freedoms to
> protect my family's lives and the lives of others. America is rushing into this
> war too quickly, and so many will needlessly die on both sides.
Im not proud, Im just not succumbing to the very fear that those attacks were supposed to plant in everyones minds. You cannot attack innocent civlians and people and expect to get away with it. It is not acceptable in todays world and anyone who believes it is deserves everything they get. Throughout history the "doves" have been listened to, before WW2 when Britain thought it had negotiated itself out of the conflict, during Vietnam when America aavoided initial involvement for fear of public opinion, in the Gulf when the tanks stopped at just inside the Iraqi border, during the Balkans where only a light air campaign was demanded, during Yugoslavia and Bosnia where we all sat and watched genocide night after night and did nothing, during Somalia when warlords killed hundreds of innocents and we waited unti it was all over, In Korea where hestiation cost hundreds of lives, In Afghanistan in the 80's where we had to fight a proxy war because of our fear and in the Falklands where political hesitation and budget cutting meant we were not as ready as we could have been. This time the action is firm decisive and devestating, the leash is off and isnt going back on until every last terrorist is gone. About time too.
And the
> population dont even have a choice. If a tailban leader puts a base near your
> home, are you going to dare to tell him to go away?
So the Taliban leader has no conscience or concern for his people ? Sounds like a good reason for getting him. Tehy are siting the facilities to get civilain casualties which they hope will end the war. Well this time it wont work.
>In the end this is a war
> over personal beliefs, and all the innocent bystanders >are dieing. The terroists
> attack civilians, the americans attack civilians. They >are both as bad as each
> other.
The coalition is attacking targets. some sited in civilian areas on purpose, the terrorists attacked a clearly civilian, and a military, target in each case. If someone believes that it is their god given duty to kill as many people as possible in the most horrific way possible then they are worse.
>Anyway the tailban cant eject him. Its the ancient tradition of
> 'xenos' (thats the greek word for it) that is stated in most holy texts that
> says you have to treat a visitor kindly. The tailiban cant throw osma bin laden
> to the death peanlty without saying to the arab world 'we have no ethics, we
> will do what america says.'
They can, Bin Laden is not following the true text of that religion which the tradition is incorporated into. You cant pick and choose your bits of religion to suit circumstances. And where is the bit that says you cant covertly let the coalition know where he is, then step away and watch ? This isnt about one man, its about removing the Taliban, Al Queda and anyone who helps them. Bin Laden is the head but not the whole. Besides if they won't surrender him we'll just have to go get him, he has to be lucky all the time, the coalition has to be lucky once.
>I am a big a man to admit when i am wrong. I
> have done so twice in this argument. Can you say the same?
I will only admit I am wrong if a fact I state is proven to be wrong. I'm not going to apolgise for how I think but I will never use untrue facts to jusitfy to anyone my way of thinking. I have, for instance, never said this war awas against the Afghans, or Arabs, I have clearly said it is against terrorists, whoever they are. Similarily I have been careful to point out that the Islam used by the terrorists is not the acknowledged true form of that religion.
>Yes but if the IRA could get
> away with it, they would do it. They are just as bad as >the afgan
> terrorists.
They can't. Omagh, the numerous bombings in London and other actions have shown they cannot sustain a massive campaign. The SAS alone have killed/captured tens of IRA cells. Part of the peace process was to release hundreds of prisoners, people we caught. Yes they inflicted massive hurt on anyone who lost a relative or friend but they never came close to September 11th.
>Hold on, isnt the law in america
> 'innocent until proven guilty'? Just because another >scapegoat cant be found
> doesnt justify blaming someone who you 'think' has done >it.
>Looks to me that
> america is sacrificing the very personal beliefs it is >trying to protect with
> this war.
They have the evidence, and they've proved it enought to get a UN mandate to take action. You're suggesting the US birbed the entire UN council, including China and Russia ?
>A few
> tons of food is everything to a starving family. what >would you do if it had
> been your food supply which had been blown up?
Well that food was in a warehouse going nowhere. The UN reports that the Taliban is attacking its staff who are trying to give aid and have taken supplies from warehouses. We hit one warehouse and the Taliban have a sustained go at them. Ours was a mistake, the Taliban are doing it on purpose with no regard to civilians.
>And its not exactly as if the
> terroists only have one food dump. Only the local people who would have shared
> that food got hurt.
> ?
Well unless you happen to be in US/Uk intelligence I dont think anyone is qualified to say the food situation over there ! Ifthe aid agencies are to be believed many local people are no longer local but have fled leaving only the taliban in many areas.
Well I said NOT drug dealers. The drug wars wouldnt exist if all
> drugs were legal. The criminals only make money because the drugs are banned,
> and people want them. Its like the prohibition of alchol. You can tell people to
> stop taking drugs, but they will just get them through illegal and dangerous
> sources. Might as well take that money away from the drug lords and into your
> federal reserve.
Drugs come from somewhere, anyone supplying illegal drugs is a dealer. You're saying legalise ecstasy ? We have enough deaths when its hard to obtain let alone if it was off the shelf available. Yes, legalising would make it more pure and less a cocktail of who knows what, but as you increase purity you increase potency. If you legalise every drug the results would devestate the world, positive sides to heroin use anybody ? I know why not legalise prostitution as well, and murder. After all you can tell people to stop doing those things but they still do ! But hang on, what if your child comes home one day with a little white pill ? Hmm thats different isnt it. Alcohol is legalised so kids do get hold of it, look at the number of underage alcohol abusers. You want to see 10 year old cannabis addicts ? Because if you legalise then thats what you get. We have laws to protect ALL of society, not the small vocal portion that wants to do whatever it wants and expects the pieces to be picked up after them.
people who use drugs for their own use and are not part of a
> gang should not have to suffer for a personal choice.
In fact their is an EU
> law which states this.
Yes, but only if that personal choice does not breach the laws of the country and do not commit illegal actions in obtaining those drugs or encourage others to do so. Buying drugs is illegal, buying from others is encouraging them.
>and i quote ' anyone can do whatever they like, as
> long as it doesnt hurt anyone else'
You buy drugs from someone, okay a bit of money changes hands no problem. Wheres that money go, to buy more drugs. And where do those drugs come from ? Africa, Afghanistan, South America ? And the guy who runs the place is a nice person isnt he, never done anything wrong ? I doubt it. Hes probably killed people, police whove stood in his way, or other officials. Those people have families, and they've lost someone because people sitting back here in the west think the drugs trade is some cosy little industry.
>that is true freedom. And that is what
> america should embrace.
Thats chaos and the results of no law. America is also justice, and responsibility, as is the UK.
>Fact: the taliban see the UN as an american
> controlled organisation, which to an extent it is. They are not going to take
> the risk of letting them in their borders just to satisfy our morbis curiosity.
>
If they wont let others see them then why not show us ? Did we hide the body bags pouring from the WTC ? Where is the actual hard real evidence. If they believe the UN is an american controlled organisation then its their tought luck, it isnt as the UN's history shows - the Security council veto system does not allow the USA to puch through what it wants as any of the six nations such as China and Russia can block anything they want with the veto. Did the block enduring Freedom ? nope. A bit of a precedent there, and maybe a sign.
>yes, but america's hesitation made the war last far too long, and
> cost thousands of british soldiers lives. they are the real ones who saved
> us.
The american public's hesitation and conviction they would be unaffected was the real cause of the americans not entering the war. Which is why we did damn good by not hesitating this time.
well, arabs
> stick STRONGLY to their religion. God is on their side, so it doesnt matter that
> they dont have a chance. they will fight us with ever weapon they have...and
> that includes nukes.
Well true Islam preaches tolerance and not killing innocent people, only screwed up versions of it allow that kind of perversion of a perfectly peaceful religion. You are assuming all arabs follow the sick faith of Al Queada and they don't. Many arab states have true islamic beleivers like the many in the UK, USA, Pakistan e.t.c It is a minority who wish to a twisted version of Islam to their own needs who are creating a bad press for Islam. The only Arab state with nukes is Israel, India isnt an arab state and pakistan isnt an arab state. Iraq is not past development stages yet. Bio weapons are thought to be in Iraq, Iran and others. However those in control of those countries are not so suicidal. Within 10 minutes of the second WTC attack EVERY aircraft of Strategic Air Command was airborne and BUsh on Air Force One. If that had been Iraq attacking then IRa had a life expectancy of about the flgiht time of SAC's B2 Bomber squadrons. Whether we attack now or never, those states will use weapons against us, well guess what ? This time we're not going to take it.
>You
> are far too proud. I would gladly lay down my beliefs and personal freedoms to
> protect my family's lives and the lives of others. America is rushing into this
> war too quickly, and so many will needlessly die on both sides.
Im not proud, Im just not succumbing to the very fear that those attacks were supposed to plant in everyones minds. You cannot attack innocent civlians and people and expect to get away with it. It is not acceptable in todays world and anyone who believes it is deserves everything they get. Throughout history the "doves" have been listened to, before WW2 when Britain thought it had negotiated itself out of the conflict, during Vietnam when America aavoided initial involvement for fear of public opinion, in the Gulf when the tanks stopped at just inside the Iraqi border, during the Balkans where only a light air campaign was demanded, during Yugoslavia and Bosnia where we all sat and watched genocide night after night and did nothing, during Somalia when warlords killed hundreds of innocents and we waited unti it was all over, In Korea where hestiation cost hundreds of lives, In Afghanistan in the 80's where we had to fight a proxy war because of our fear and in the Falklands where political hesitation and budget cutting meant we were not as ready as we could have been. This time the action is firm decisive and devestating, the leash is off and isnt going back on until every last terrorist is gone. About time too.
And the
> population dont even have a choice. If a tailban leader puts a base near your
> home, are you going to dare to tell him to go away?
So the Taliban leader has no conscience or concern for his people ? Sounds like a good reason for getting him. Tehy are siting the facilities to get civilain casualties which they hope will end the war. Well this time it wont work.
>In the end this is a war
> over personal beliefs, and all the innocent bystanders >are dieing. The terroists
> attack civilians, the americans attack civilians. They >are both as bad as each
> other.
The coalition is attacking targets. some sited in civilian areas on purpose, the terrorists attacked a clearly civilian, and a military, target in each case. If someone believes that it is their god given duty to kill as many people as possible in the most horrific way possible then they are worse.
>Anyway the tailban cant eject him. Its the ancient tradition of
> 'xenos' (thats the greek word for it) that is stated in most holy texts that
> says you have to treat a visitor kindly. The tailiban cant throw osma bin laden
> to the death peanlty without saying to the arab world 'we have no ethics, we
> will do what america says.'
They can, Bin Laden is not following the true text of that religion which the tradition is incorporated into. You cant pick and choose your bits of religion to suit circumstances. And where is the bit that says you cant covertly let the coalition know where he is, then step away and watch ? This isnt about one man, its about removing the Taliban, Al Queda and anyone who helps them. Bin Laden is the head but not the whole. Besides if they won't surrender him we'll just have to go get him, he has to be lucky all the time, the coalition has to be lucky once.
>I am a big a man to admit when i am wrong. I
> have done so twice in this argument. Can you say the same?
I will only admit I am wrong if a fact I state is proven to be wrong. I'm not going to apolgise for how I think but I will never use untrue facts to jusitfy to anyone my way of thinking. I have, for instance, never said this war awas against the Afghans, or Arabs, I have clearly said it is against terrorists, whoever they are. Similarily I have been careful to point out that the Islam used by the terrorists is not the acknowledged true form of that religion.
I thik the IRA would
> realise that comitting a similar act would lead to SAS, Paras and other units
> dragging every single known terrorist right into jail. The difference is that
> the IRA is largely an organisation we, the west, know about. The fact we are
> negotiatiing with them proves that. Sure, other terrorist groups would love to
> do something like this, which is why Enduring Freedom had to
> initiate.
Yes but if the IRA could get away with it, they would do it. They are just as bad as the afgan terrorists.
No I havent,
> but if not him then who ? The Iraqui's ? Doubtful, Bin Ladens warning to Muslims
> to avoid living in high buildings and not to travel on airliners is almost an
> admission of guilt. Secondly, the US orived he initiated other action like the
> Kenyan Embassy bombing and the ambush of the rangers in Somalia 1993 amongst
> other things. Thirdly if the evidence is given to the public it will risk
> valuable intel sources. The evidence is almost certainly the kind only very few
> people know of, if it becomes known what it is then the source of that
> information will be killed, or worse.
Hold on, isnt the law in america 'innocent until proven guilty'? Just because another scapegoat cant be found doesnt justify blaming someone who you 'think' has done it.
Looks to me that america is sacrificing the very personal beliefs it is trying to protect with this war.
A few tons in the overall picture is nothing, though
> of course it could have helped people. The taliban could have used it as food
> for themselves, and thats not what the coalition wants happening is it
A few tons of food is everything to a starving family. what would you do if it had been your food supply which had been blown up?
And its not exactly as if the terroists only have one food dump. Only the local people who would have shared that food got hurt.
> ?
>Alright the security point is valid - to a
> point.
Well still,
> why are the citizens of a 'free' country imprisoned for
> drug possesion
> (NOT dealing, or violence)?
Surely in a free country it should
> be their
> choice?
They are imprisoned becuase the deal with freedom and democracy is
> that you do what you want without harming others or breaking laws put in place
> to protect the public. Don' try the "drug users are only hurting
> themselves" thing because thousands die in South America every year in the
> drug wars, and many DEA agents and other people have ben killed trying to halt
> the trade of drugs world wide. You have choices in deocracy-responsible ones. To
> be able to make choices without taking responsibility for them is the road to
> chaos, and for an example of the results of that look at Mogadishu.
Well I said NOT drug dealers. The drug wars wouldnt exist if all drugs were legal. The criminals only make money because the drugs are banned, and people want them. Its like the prohibition of alchol. You can tell people to stop taking drugs, but they will just get them through illegal and dangerous sources. Might as well take that money away from the drug lords and into your federal reserve.
people who use drugs for their own use and are not part of a gang should not have to suffer for a personal choice.
In fact their is an EU law which states this.
and i quote ' anyone can do whatever they like, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else'
that is true freedom. And that is what america should embrace.
Fact:the UN is not America,
> the UN is not supposed to be the enemy according to Bin Laden, its the USA and
> UK. The proposal was for arab verifiers. Again its not the Afghans that are
> blocking this, its the Taliban.
Fact: the taliban see the UN as an american controlled organisation, which to an extent it is. They are not going to take the risk of letting them in their borders just to satisfy our morbis curiosity.
Roosevelt wanted to enter the war before Pearl Harbour but the
> american public opinion ment to do so would be suicidal politically. When the
> Dutch submarine KXVII sighted the Japanese attack fleet enroute to Pearl Harbour
> on 28th November 1941 it radioed this information to its Royal Navy base the
> message was intercepted by Birtish Intelligence. Tehy informed Churchill who
> informed Roosevelt. The only other men to know about it at the time were a
> British intelligence head and an American general. Roosevelt knew that if
> America declared war on Japan then Germany would follow suit. He and Churchill
> also knew that if the Japanese were left unopposed in Asia then they would
> eventually be too strong to attack anyway and America would face destruction.
> The decision was made too never alert Pearl Harbour, the Japanese attackedm, and
> the rest is history...
yes, but america's hesitation made the war last far too long, and cost thousands of british soldiers lives. they are the real ones who saved us.
Yes he is using it as an excuse for Holy War. Most of
> the arab states will in no way even consider helping, because it is only small
> proportions of their population which are opposed, and yes I know that a small
> proportion of Indias population runs into millions, Iran would actually rather
> like Al Queda taken out, Syria is opposed but would really like to be left
> alone, Iraq is dead opposed but the coalition could flatten every square inch of
> Iraq if it came down to it- though obviously this is hyperbole, we don't want to
> kill civlians. The point is that yes, staes are opposed, but weak states. Whatit
> comes down to is that the coalition has the superior technology, the best
> trained forces, and widespread public support - not small minorities. If anyone
> else feels like opposing the coalition, well... its been nice knowing you
well, arabs stick STRONGLY to their religion. God is on their side, so it doesnt matter that they dont have a chance. they will fight us with ever weapon they have...and that includes nukes.
It is worth the risk, because if you are not willing to defend your
> beliefs, freedom, democracy and everything else you believe in then you are
> nothing. Bin Laden started this, and the coalition will finish it. He made a
> mistake and know he, his people and everyone around him is paying for it. yes
> civilains are being harmed, but did the Taliban eject him from the country ? Did
> they stop him entering all those years ago ? No, they welcomed him. The tlaiban
> are not children, they are grown ups and any adult knows that your actions have
> consequences. Every civilian casualty is ultimately the fault of the Taliban. It
> doesnt take rocket science to figure out that if you position your military
> facilites by major population centres then they will get hit too. The west
> doesnt put military targets in cities and towns, they do because they thought it
> would stop them being attacked. Bad mistake in a long line of mistakes.
You are far too proud. I would gladly lay down my beliefs and personal freedoms to protect my family's lives and the lives of others. America is rushing into this war too quickly, and so many will needlessly die on both sides.
And the population dont even have a choice. If a tailban leader puts a base near your home, are you going to dare to tell him to go away?
In the end this is a war over personal beliefs, and all the innocent bystanders are dieing. The terroists attack civilians, the americans attack civilians. They are both as bad as each other.
Anyway the tailban cant eject him. Its the ancient tradition of 'xenos' (thats the greek word for it) that is stated in most holy texts that says you have to treat a visitor kindly. The tailiban cant throw osma bin laden to the death peanlty without saying to the arab world 'we have no ethics, we will do what america says.'
I am a big a man to admit when i am wrong. I have done so twice in this argument. Can you say the same?
> realise that comitting a similar act would lead to SAS, Paras and other units
> dragging every single known terrorist right into jail. The difference is that
> the IRA is largely an organisation we, the west, know about. The fact we are
> negotiatiing with them proves that. Sure, other terrorist groups would love to
> do something like this, which is why Enduring Freedom had to
> initiate.
Yes but if the IRA could get away with it, they would do it. They are just as bad as the afgan terrorists.
No I havent,
> but if not him then who ? The Iraqui's ? Doubtful, Bin Ladens warning to Muslims
> to avoid living in high buildings and not to travel on airliners is almost an
> admission of guilt. Secondly, the US orived he initiated other action like the
> Kenyan Embassy bombing and the ambush of the rangers in Somalia 1993 amongst
> other things. Thirdly if the evidence is given to the public it will risk
> valuable intel sources. The evidence is almost certainly the kind only very few
> people know of, if it becomes known what it is then the source of that
> information will be killed, or worse.
Hold on, isnt the law in america 'innocent until proven guilty'? Just because another scapegoat cant be found doesnt justify blaming someone who you 'think' has done it.
Looks to me that america is sacrificing the very personal beliefs it is trying to protect with this war.
A few tons in the overall picture is nothing, though
> of course it could have helped people. The taliban could have used it as food
> for themselves, and thats not what the coalition wants happening is it
A few tons of food is everything to a starving family. what would you do if it had been your food supply which had been blown up?
And its not exactly as if the terroists only have one food dump. Only the local people who would have shared that food got hurt.
> ?
>Alright the security point is valid - to a
> point.
Well still,
> why are the citizens of a 'free' country imprisoned for
> drug possesion
> (NOT dealing, or violence)?
Surely in a free country it should
> be their
> choice?
They are imprisoned becuase the deal with freedom and democracy is
> that you do what you want without harming others or breaking laws put in place
> to protect the public. Don' try the "drug users are only hurting
> themselves" thing because thousands die in South America every year in the
> drug wars, and many DEA agents and other people have ben killed trying to halt
> the trade of drugs world wide. You have choices in deocracy-responsible ones. To
> be able to make choices without taking responsibility for them is the road to
> chaos, and for an example of the results of that look at Mogadishu.
Well I said NOT drug dealers. The drug wars wouldnt exist if all drugs were legal. The criminals only make money because the drugs are banned, and people want them. Its like the prohibition of alchol. You can tell people to stop taking drugs, but they will just get them through illegal and dangerous sources. Might as well take that money away from the drug lords and into your federal reserve.
people who use drugs for their own use and are not part of a gang should not have to suffer for a personal choice.
In fact their is an EU law which states this.
and i quote ' anyone can do whatever they like, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else'
that is true freedom. And that is what america should embrace.
Fact:the UN is not America,
> the UN is not supposed to be the enemy according to Bin Laden, its the USA and
> UK. The proposal was for arab verifiers. Again its not the Afghans that are
> blocking this, its the Taliban.
Fact: the taliban see the UN as an american controlled organisation, which to an extent it is. They are not going to take the risk of letting them in their borders just to satisfy our morbis curiosity.
Roosevelt wanted to enter the war before Pearl Harbour but the
> american public opinion ment to do so would be suicidal politically. When the
> Dutch submarine KXVII sighted the Japanese attack fleet enroute to Pearl Harbour
> on 28th November 1941 it radioed this information to its Royal Navy base the
> message was intercepted by Birtish Intelligence. Tehy informed Churchill who
> informed Roosevelt. The only other men to know about it at the time were a
> British intelligence head and an American general. Roosevelt knew that if
> America declared war on Japan then Germany would follow suit. He and Churchill
> also knew that if the Japanese were left unopposed in Asia then they would
> eventually be too strong to attack anyway and America would face destruction.
> The decision was made too never alert Pearl Harbour, the Japanese attackedm, and
> the rest is history...
yes, but america's hesitation made the war last far too long, and cost thousands of british soldiers lives. they are the real ones who saved us.
Yes he is using it as an excuse for Holy War. Most of
> the arab states will in no way even consider helping, because it is only small
> proportions of their population which are opposed, and yes I know that a small
> proportion of Indias population runs into millions, Iran would actually rather
> like Al Queda taken out, Syria is opposed but would really like to be left
> alone, Iraq is dead opposed but the coalition could flatten every square inch of
> Iraq if it came down to it- though obviously this is hyperbole, we don't want to
> kill civlians. The point is that yes, staes are opposed, but weak states. Whatit
> comes down to is that the coalition has the superior technology, the best
> trained forces, and widespread public support - not small minorities. If anyone
> else feels like opposing the coalition, well... its been nice knowing you
well, arabs stick STRONGLY to their religion. God is on their side, so it doesnt matter that they dont have a chance. they will fight us with ever weapon they have...and that includes nukes.
It is worth the risk, because if you are not willing to defend your
> beliefs, freedom, democracy and everything else you believe in then you are
> nothing. Bin Laden started this, and the coalition will finish it. He made a
> mistake and know he, his people and everyone around him is paying for it. yes
> civilains are being harmed, but did the Taliban eject him from the country ? Did
> they stop him entering all those years ago ? No, they welcomed him. The tlaiban
> are not children, they are grown ups and any adult knows that your actions have
> consequences. Every civilian casualty is ultimately the fault of the Taliban. It
> doesnt take rocket science to figure out that if you position your military
> facilites by major population centres then they will get hit too. The west
> doesnt put military targets in cities and towns, they do because they thought it
> would stop them being attacked. Bad mistake in a long line of mistakes.
You are far too proud. I would gladly lay down my beliefs and personal freedoms to protect my family's lives and the lives of others. America is rushing into this war too quickly, and so many will needlessly die on both sides.
And the population dont even have a choice. If a tailban leader puts a base near your home, are you going to dare to tell him to go away?
In the end this is a war over personal beliefs, and all the innocent bystanders are dieing. The terroists attack civilians, the americans attack civilians. They are both as bad as each other.
Anyway the tailban cant eject him. Its the ancient tradition of 'xenos' (thats the greek word for it) that is stated in most holy texts that says you have to treat a visitor kindly. The tailiban cant throw osma bin laden to the death peanlty without saying to the arab world 'we have no ethics, we will do what america says.'
I am a big a man to admit when i am wrong. I have done so twice in this argument. Can you say the same?
etila wrote:
> We did it in the gulf war (tell them some of the attacks)
>but we still won, and
> it's only the minor ops that they tell you about not the >delta force/ commandos
> secrecy missions.
>And anyway it helps the civilians to get out of the
> area.
>Also, what are the Talbannies going to do about it?
:)
Hes right, the Iraqui's said they could resist the UN force for months, they lasted as a cohesive army for about 16 hours after the ground invasion started. Anyone can talk, yesterday the Taliban were saying the repulsed the Ranger led assault. They only appeared to because the Taliban do not graps modern warfare. The objective of that raid was to go in, grab stuff, and get out. Only an idiot gets bogged down in a firefight. Etila is quite right in pointing out that only the minor ops will be heard of, we only know about yesterdays because it was excellent PR material.
> We did it in the gulf war (tell them some of the attacks)
>but we still won, and
> it's only the minor ops that they tell you about not the >delta force/ commandos
> secrecy missions.
>And anyway it helps the civilians to get out of the
> area.
>Also, what are the Talbannies going to do about it?
:)
Hes right, the Iraqui's said they could resist the UN force for months, they lasted as a cohesive army for about 16 hours after the ground invasion started. Anyone can talk, yesterday the Taliban were saying the repulsed the Ranger led assault. They only appeared to because the Taliban do not graps modern warfare. The objective of that raid was to go in, grab stuff, and get out. Only an idiot gets bogged down in a firefight. Etila is quite right in pointing out that only the minor ops will be heard of, we only know about yesterdays because it was excellent PR material.
Edwin25 wrote:
>The ira would kill 7000 people if they got the
> chance. All terrorists would. The whole point of terroism >is to kill people
> until the goverment gives you what you want.
>Just because the afgan terroists
> got more resources doesnt mean that other's in their >place wouldnt have donr the
> same thing.
I thik the IRA would realise that comitting a similar act would lead to SAS, Paras and other units dragging every single known terrorist right into jail. The difference is that the IRA is largely an organisation we, the west, know about. The fact we are negotiatiing with them proves that. Sure, other terrorist groups would love to do something like this, which is why Enduring Freedom had to initiate.
>Well it is.
> Thousands are suffering, just because the US wants one >man. And anyway, where is
> this 'proof' that osama bin laden did the attacks anyway? >I havent seen it. have
> you?
No I havent, but if not him then who ? The Iraqui's ? Doubtful, Bin Ladens warning to Muslims to avoid living in high buildings and not to travel on airliners is almost an admission of guilt. Secondly, the US orived he initiated other action like the Kenyan Embassy bombing and the ambush of the rangers in Somalia 1993 amongst other things. Thirdly if the evidence is given to the public it will risk valuable intel sources. The evidence is almost certainly the kind only very few people know of, if it becomes known what it is then the source of that information will be killed, or worse.
Actually,
> there were several tons of grain in the building, according to the official
> reports. And what exactly would the terroists done with the grain to hurt us?
> (if they actually had it) thow it?
A few tons in the overall picture is nothing, though of course it could have helped people. The taliban could have used it as food for themselves, and thats not what the coalition wants happening is it ?
>Alright the security point is valid - to a
> point.
Well still, why are the citizens of a 'free' country imprisoned for
> drug possesion (NOT dealing, or violence)?
Surely in a free country it should
> be their choice?
They are imprisoned becuase the deal with freedom and democracy is that you do what you want without harming others or breaking laws put in place to protect the public. Don' try the "drug users are only hurting themselves" thing because thousands die in South America every year in the drug wars, and many DEA agents and other people have ben killed trying to halt the trade of drugs world wide. You have choices in deocracy-responsible ones. To be able to make choices without taking responsibility for them is the road to chaos, and for an example of the results of that look at Mogadishu.
Oh yes, the afgans are
> going to let people who they consider the enemy into their country. Would we
> have let the germans into london to check how many casuties they inflicted? I
> dont think so.
Fact:the UN is not America, the UN is not supposed to be the enemy according to Bin Laden, its the USA and UK. The proposal was for arab verifiers. Again its not the Afghans that are blocking this, its the Taliban.
>america did help us out in ww2, but only because the >japanese
> bombed them, not because they wanted to. If the japanese >had left pearl harbour
> alone, we would all be hailing the furer now.
Roosevelt wanted to enter the war before Pearl Harbour but the american public opinion ment to do so would be suicidal politically. When the Dutch submarine KXVII sighted the Japanese attack fleet enroute to Pearl Harbour on 28th November 1941 it radioed this information to its Royal Navy base the message was intercepted by Birtish Intelligence. Tehy informed Churchill who informed Roosevelt. The only other men to know about it at the time were a British intelligence head and an American general. Roosevelt knew that if America declared war on Japan then Germany would follow suit. He and Churchill also knew that if the Japanese were left unopposed in Asia then they would eventually be too strong to attack anyway and America would face destruction. The decision was made too never alert Pearl Harbour, the Japanese attackedm, and the rest is history...
Osama bin laden is using this as
> an excuse for a holy war. And his propaganda is winning. If most of the arab
> states help him out, it will be world war 3, and none of us may survive. Is it
> worth that risk, for one man?
Yes he is using it as an excuse for Holy War. Most of the arab states will in no way even consider helping, because it is only small proportions of their population which are opposed, and yes I know that a small proportion of Indias population runs into millions, Iran would actually rather like Al Queda taken out, Syria is opposed but would really like to be left alone, Iraq is dead opposed but the coalition could flatten every square inch of Iraq if it came down to it- though obviously this is hyperbole, we don't want to kill civlians. The point is that yes, staes are opposed, but weak states. Whatit comes down to is that the coalition has the superior technology, the best trained forces, and widespread public support - not small minorities. If anyone else feels like opposing the coalition, well... its been nice knowing you !
It is worth the risk, because if you are not willing to defend your beliefs, freedom, democracy and everything else you believe in then you are nothing. Bin Laden started this, and the coalition will finish it. He made a mistake and know he, his people and everyone around him is paying for it. yes civilains are being harmed, but did the Taliban eject him from the country ? Did they stop him entering all those years ago ? No, they welcomed him. The tlaiban are not children, they are grown ups and any adult knows that your actions have consequences. Every civilian casualty is ultimately the fault of the Taliban. It doesnt take rocket science to figure out that if you position your military facilites by major population centres then they will get hit too. The west doesnt put military targets in cities and towns, they do because they thought it would stop them being attacked. Bad mistake in a long line of mistakes.
>The ira would kill 7000 people if they got the
> chance. All terrorists would. The whole point of terroism >is to kill people
> until the goverment gives you what you want.
>Just because the afgan terroists
> got more resources doesnt mean that other's in their >place wouldnt have donr the
> same thing.
I thik the IRA would realise that comitting a similar act would lead to SAS, Paras and other units dragging every single known terrorist right into jail. The difference is that the IRA is largely an organisation we, the west, know about. The fact we are negotiatiing with them proves that. Sure, other terrorist groups would love to do something like this, which is why Enduring Freedom had to initiate.
>Well it is.
> Thousands are suffering, just because the US wants one >man. And anyway, where is
> this 'proof' that osama bin laden did the attacks anyway? >I havent seen it. have
> you?
No I havent, but if not him then who ? The Iraqui's ? Doubtful, Bin Ladens warning to Muslims to avoid living in high buildings and not to travel on airliners is almost an admission of guilt. Secondly, the US orived he initiated other action like the Kenyan Embassy bombing and the ambush of the rangers in Somalia 1993 amongst other things. Thirdly if the evidence is given to the public it will risk valuable intel sources. The evidence is almost certainly the kind only very few people know of, if it becomes known what it is then the source of that information will be killed, or worse.
Actually,
> there were several tons of grain in the building, according to the official
> reports. And what exactly would the terroists done with the grain to hurt us?
> (if they actually had it) thow it?
A few tons in the overall picture is nothing, though of course it could have helped people. The taliban could have used it as food for themselves, and thats not what the coalition wants happening is it ?
>Alright the security point is valid - to a
> point.
Well still, why are the citizens of a 'free' country imprisoned for
> drug possesion (NOT dealing, or violence)?
Surely in a free country it should
> be their choice?
They are imprisoned becuase the deal with freedom and democracy is that you do what you want without harming others or breaking laws put in place to protect the public. Don' try the "drug users are only hurting themselves" thing because thousands die in South America every year in the drug wars, and many DEA agents and other people have ben killed trying to halt the trade of drugs world wide. You have choices in deocracy-responsible ones. To be able to make choices without taking responsibility for them is the road to chaos, and for an example of the results of that look at Mogadishu.
Oh yes, the afgans are
> going to let people who they consider the enemy into their country. Would we
> have let the germans into london to check how many casuties they inflicted? I
> dont think so.
Fact:the UN is not America, the UN is not supposed to be the enemy according to Bin Laden, its the USA and UK. The proposal was for arab verifiers. Again its not the Afghans that are blocking this, its the Taliban.
>america did help us out in ww2, but only because the >japanese
> bombed them, not because they wanted to. If the japanese >had left pearl harbour
> alone, we would all be hailing the furer now.
Roosevelt wanted to enter the war before Pearl Harbour but the american public opinion ment to do so would be suicidal politically. When the Dutch submarine KXVII sighted the Japanese attack fleet enroute to Pearl Harbour on 28th November 1941 it radioed this information to its Royal Navy base the message was intercepted by Birtish Intelligence. Tehy informed Churchill who informed Roosevelt. The only other men to know about it at the time were a British intelligence head and an American general. Roosevelt knew that if America declared war on Japan then Germany would follow suit. He and Churchill also knew that if the Japanese were left unopposed in Asia then they would eventually be too strong to attack anyway and America would face destruction. The decision was made too never alert Pearl Harbour, the Japanese attackedm, and the rest is history...
Osama bin laden is using this as
> an excuse for a holy war. And his propaganda is winning. If most of the arab
> states help him out, it will be world war 3, and none of us may survive. Is it
> worth that risk, for one man?
Yes he is using it as an excuse for Holy War. Most of the arab states will in no way even consider helping, because it is only small proportions of their population which are opposed, and yes I know that a small proportion of Indias population runs into millions, Iran would actually rather like Al Queda taken out, Syria is opposed but would really like to be left alone, Iraq is dead opposed but the coalition could flatten every square inch of Iraq if it came down to it- though obviously this is hyperbole, we don't want to kill civlians. The point is that yes, staes are opposed, but weak states. Whatit comes down to is that the coalition has the superior technology, the best trained forces, and widespread public support - not small minorities. If anyone else feels like opposing the coalition, well... its been nice knowing you !
It is worth the risk, because if you are not willing to defend your beliefs, freedom, democracy and everything else you believe in then you are nothing. Bin Laden started this, and the coalition will finish it. He made a mistake and know he, his people and everyone around him is paying for it. yes civilains are being harmed, but did the Taliban eject him from the country ? Did they stop him entering all those years ago ? No, they welcomed him. The tlaiban are not children, they are grown ups and any adult knows that your actions have consequences. Every civilian casualty is ultimately the fault of the Taliban. It doesnt take rocket science to figure out that if you position your military facilites by major population centres then they will get hit too. The west doesnt put military targets in cities and towns, they do because they thought it would stop them being attacked. Bad mistake in a long line of mistakes.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
Actually it was Albert Einstein who first conceived of the
> idea, Openheimer was involved in the testing and making but it wasnt is theory
> to start with. The neutron bomb, whilst not destroying buildings, does
> contaminate them so you idea that everyone moves in within a month is not
> correct. It was made after the war, but at the same time the Russians were
> already working on an equivalent device. It was designed not for invading cities
> but as an airburst weapon. At the same time the UK, the French and the Israelis
> were all working on their own projects. Just because you develop weapons does
> not mean you arent peaceful- the concept of MAD and nuclear deterrance worked
> pretty damn well because we're all still here ! -
Alright i will concede on this point. I still think that america should have scuppled all the other nuke projects rather than just making a bigger one.
Okay so
> when did the IRA kill 7000+ ? Erm...I dont know. Any terrorist organisation bey
> definition uses mass violence to attempt to further its cause. Also the IRA does
> not have a central bankrolling figure head, its made up of many many cells and
> leaders who spend as much tiem fighting each other as the British and other
> Irish groups. There is a difference
The ira would kill 7000 people if they got the chance. All terrorists would. The whole point of terroism is to kill people until the goverment gives you what you want.
Just because the afgan terroists got more resources doesnt mean that other's in their place wouldnt have donr the same thing.
The Afghans didnt start this, Al Queda did. This is
> not a war against the Afghan people, unless you believe mr Bin Laden.
Well it is. Thousands are suffering, just because the US wants one man. And anyway, where is this 'proof' that osama bin laden did the attacks anyway? I havent seen it. have you?
Yeah, I'm sure the Afghans just love eating tents and other shelter
> supplies because that was what was mianly in the building. It was a red cross
> centre on the map but the whole area was Taliban controlled so it was pretty
> reasonable to assume they had the supplies.
Actually, there were several tons of grain in the building, according to the official reports. And what exactly would the terroists done with the grain to hurt us? (if they actually had it) thow it?
Yes, because freedom gives
> you the ability to screw up. You choose your life. In dictatorships the truth is
> even more hidden, what gives us the right to think that our governments should
> tell us every little thing ? For National Security it is unreasonable to
> announce every action/operation because it endangers those who make them
> possible.
Alright the security point is valid - to a point.
Well still, why are the citizens of a 'free' country imprisoned for drug possesion (NOT dealing, or violence)?
Surely in a free country it should be their choice?
Okay so if hundreds are dead where are the bodies ? In
> American we've seen the body bags, the funerals, but in Afghanistan what do we
> see ? Destroyed buildings and not much actual real evidence. Will the Taliban
> allow independant UN verification, erm nope. As for Hitler and army of god being
> in mine ? What on earth is that supposed to mean ?? The couch potato ? That
> couch potato is the reason this country and Europe ended the war in 1945 and
> probably why were not all talking russian right now. The internet was developed
> by theUS military to survive a nuclear attack, another US invention. Again its
> not Islam this war is against, the Taliban are the ones suppressing women and
> its them this war is against. Not Islam, not Muslims, the taliban and anyone who
> fancies getting in the way. This whole operation has been a long time due, and
> its not just americans who have died in the attacks, 100+ British also did and
> many other nationalities. For years Bin Laden and others have attacked targets
> all over the world and they finally slipped up. So what if America has finally
> acted ? This was going to happen one day anyway so its beter to act now and stop
> this right here, right now.
Oh yes, the afgans are going to let people who they consider the enemy into their country. Would we have let the germans into london to check how many casuties they inflicted? I dont think so.
america did help us out in ww2, but only because the japanese bombed them, not because they wanted to. If the japanese had left pearl harbour alone, we would all be hailing the furer now.
Its a basic life lesson, if you hit someone
> then maybe they'll shout at you, if you keep on hitting them then they will hit
> you back. If you really hurt them then they come after you, but if you really
> badly hurt them then they come after you, with all their friends, and they make
> sure one way or another that you NEVER do it again. Al Queda need this lesson
> teaching to them, and nothing short of total surrender will stop Enduring
> Freedom and I doubt any country will help them, after all what benefit is their
> from helping a probably soon to be extinct organisation ?
Osama bin laden is using this as an excuse for a holy war. And his propaganda is winning. If most of the arab states help him out, it will be world war 3, and none of us may survive. Is it worth that risk, for one man?
Actually it was Albert Einstein who first conceived of the
> idea, Openheimer was involved in the testing and making but it wasnt is theory
> to start with. The neutron bomb, whilst not destroying buildings, does
> contaminate them so you idea that everyone moves in within a month is not
> correct. It was made after the war, but at the same time the Russians were
> already working on an equivalent device. It was designed not for invading cities
> but as an airburst weapon. At the same time the UK, the French and the Israelis
> were all working on their own projects. Just because you develop weapons does
> not mean you arent peaceful- the concept of MAD and nuclear deterrance worked
> pretty damn well because we're all still here ! -
Alright i will concede on this point. I still think that america should have scuppled all the other nuke projects rather than just making a bigger one.
Okay so
> when did the IRA kill 7000+ ? Erm...I dont know. Any terrorist organisation bey
> definition uses mass violence to attempt to further its cause. Also the IRA does
> not have a central bankrolling figure head, its made up of many many cells and
> leaders who spend as much tiem fighting each other as the British and other
> Irish groups. There is a difference
The ira would kill 7000 people if they got the chance. All terrorists would. The whole point of terroism is to kill people until the goverment gives you what you want.
Just because the afgan terroists got more resources doesnt mean that other's in their place wouldnt have donr the same thing.
The Afghans didnt start this, Al Queda did. This is
> not a war against the Afghan people, unless you believe mr Bin Laden.
Well it is. Thousands are suffering, just because the US wants one man. And anyway, where is this 'proof' that osama bin laden did the attacks anyway? I havent seen it. have you?
Yeah, I'm sure the Afghans just love eating tents and other shelter
> supplies because that was what was mianly in the building. It was a red cross
> centre on the map but the whole area was Taliban controlled so it was pretty
> reasonable to assume they had the supplies.
Actually, there were several tons of grain in the building, according to the official reports. And what exactly would the terroists done with the grain to hurt us? (if they actually had it) thow it?
Yes, because freedom gives
> you the ability to screw up. You choose your life. In dictatorships the truth is
> even more hidden, what gives us the right to think that our governments should
> tell us every little thing ? For National Security it is unreasonable to
> announce every action/operation because it endangers those who make them
> possible.
Alright the security point is valid - to a point.
Well still, why are the citizens of a 'free' country imprisoned for drug possesion (NOT dealing, or violence)?
Surely in a free country it should be their choice?
Okay so if hundreds are dead where are the bodies ? In
> American we've seen the body bags, the funerals, but in Afghanistan what do we
> see ? Destroyed buildings and not much actual real evidence. Will the Taliban
> allow independant UN verification, erm nope. As for Hitler and army of god being
> in mine ? What on earth is that supposed to mean ?? The couch potato ? That
> couch potato is the reason this country and Europe ended the war in 1945 and
> probably why were not all talking russian right now. The internet was developed
> by theUS military to survive a nuclear attack, another US invention. Again its
> not Islam this war is against, the Taliban are the ones suppressing women and
> its them this war is against. Not Islam, not Muslims, the taliban and anyone who
> fancies getting in the way. This whole operation has been a long time due, and
> its not just americans who have died in the attacks, 100+ British also did and
> many other nationalities. For years Bin Laden and others have attacked targets
> all over the world and they finally slipped up. So what if America has finally
> acted ? This was going to happen one day anyway so its beter to act now and stop
> this right here, right now.
Oh yes, the afgans are going to let people who they consider the enemy into their country. Would we have let the germans into london to check how many casuties they inflicted? I dont think so.
america did help us out in ww2, but only because the japanese bombed them, not because they wanted to. If the japanese had left pearl harbour alone, we would all be hailing the furer now.
Its a basic life lesson, if you hit someone
> then maybe they'll shout at you, if you keep on hitting them then they will hit
> you back. If you really hurt them then they come after you, but if you really
> badly hurt them then they come after you, with all their friends, and they make
> sure one way or another that you NEVER do it again. Al Queda need this lesson
> teaching to them, and nothing short of total surrender will stop Enduring
> Freedom and I doubt any country will help them, after all what benefit is their
> from helping a probably soon to be extinct organisation ?
Osama bin laden is using this as an excuse for a holy war. And his propaganda is winning. If most of the arab states help him out, it will be world war 3, and none of us may survive. Is it worth that risk, for one man?
Edwin25 wrote:
>Well,
> it was an american scientist Robert oppenhiemer who first >made and tested the
> first nuke. The 2 nukes used in japan killed 220,000 >people. Not satisfied with
> that, they made the neutron bomb. This is designed to emit high levels of
> radiation over blast or heat, so only life is destroyed. The city can be
> repopulated in a month. This was made in 1952 AFTER the war. There was no need
> for this device, designed only for invadeing other cities. Not a very peaceful
> lot are those americans?
Actually it was Albert Einstein who first conceived of the idea, Openheimer was involved in the testing and making but it wasnt is theory to start with. The neutron bomb, whilst not destroying buildings, does contaminate them so you idea that everyone moves in within a month is not correct. It was made after the war, but at the same time the Russians were already working on an equivalent device. It was designed not for invading cities but as an airburst weapon. At the same time the UK, the French and the Israelis were all working on their own projects. Just because you develop weapons does not mean you arent peaceful- the concept of MAD and nuclear deterrance worked pretty damn well because we're all still here ! -
Osama bin ladens
> group wants america to stop helping the jews, just like the IRA wants ireland.
> Both organisations have used mass violence to gain there goals. They are no
> different. Osama bin laden just got more press.
Okay so when did the IRA kill 7000+ ? Erm...I dont know. Any terrorist organisation bey definition uses mass violence to attempt to further its cause. Also the IRA does not have a central bankrolling figure head, its made up of many many cells and leaders who spend as much tiem fighting each other as the British and other Irish groups. There is a difference
yes, but if i die because the US p'issed off the afgans,
> i wouldnt get to choose. A government should not play with its people's
> lives.
The Afghans didnt start this, Al Queda did. This is not a war against the Afghan people, unless you believe mr Bin Laden.
Yes but this was an obvious
> red cross centre. It was on the bloody map as a red cross >centre. thousands of
> people went hungry because america blew up their food.
Yeah, I'm sure the Afghans just love eating tents and other shelter supplies because that was what was mianly in the building. It was a red cross centre on the map but the whole area was Taliban controlled so it was pretty reasonable to assume they had the supplies.
>America? freedom? ha ha
> ha. A country where 70% of convicts are non violent - non resistant drug
> users?
A country where pro - life and pro death penalty campaigners are the
> same people?
A country where the goverment hides the truth from the people?
Is
> that what you cal freedom?
Yes, because freedom gives you the ability to screw up. You choose your life. In dictatorships the truth is even more hidden, what gives us the right to think that our governments should tell us every little thing ? For National Security it is unreasonable to announce every action/operation because it endangers those who make them possible.
>Afganistan is a perscuted country. One man in its
> boundaries has caused the 'couch potatoe' to waken and bomb it. Hundreds of
> innocents are dead for the crimes of the leader. And women are perscuted, but it
> isnt islam its the people. Not all muslim people are idiots you know. Not long
> ago we used to stone women to death for being witches.
Dont badmouth other
> religions when hitler and 'the army of god' are still in yours.
Okay so if hundreds are dead where are the bodies ? In American we've seen the body bags, the funerals, but in Afghanistan what do we see ? Destroyed buildings and not much actual real evidence. Will the Taliban allow independant UN verification, erm nope. As for Hitler and army of god being in mine ? What on earth is that supposed to mean ?? The couch potato ? That couch potato is the reason this country and Europe ended the war in 1945 and probably why were not all talking russian right now. The internet was developed by theUS military to survive a nuclear attack, another US invention. Again its not Islam this war is against, the Taliban are the ones suppressing women and its them this war is against. Not Islam, not Muslims, the taliban and anyone who fancies getting in the way. This whole operation has been a long time due, and its not just americans who have died in the attacks, 100+ British also did and many other nationalities. For years Bin Laden and others have attacked targets all over the world and they finally slipped up. So what if America has finally acted ? This was going to happen one day anyway so its beter to act now and stop this right here, right now.
Its a basic life lesson, if you hit someone then maybe they'll shout at you, if you keep on hitting them then they will hit you back. If you really hurt them then they come after you, but if you really badly hurt them then they come after you, with all their friends, and they make sure one way or another that you NEVER do it again. Al Queda need this lesson teaching to them, and nothing short of total surrender will stop Enduring Freedom and I doubt any country will help them, after all what benefit is their from helping a probably soon to be extinct organisation ?
>Well,
> it was an american scientist Robert oppenhiemer who first >made and tested the
> first nuke. The 2 nukes used in japan killed 220,000 >people. Not satisfied with
> that, they made the neutron bomb. This is designed to emit high levels of
> radiation over blast or heat, so only life is destroyed. The city can be
> repopulated in a month. This was made in 1952 AFTER the war. There was no need
> for this device, designed only for invadeing other cities. Not a very peaceful
> lot are those americans?
Actually it was Albert Einstein who first conceived of the idea, Openheimer was involved in the testing and making but it wasnt is theory to start with. The neutron bomb, whilst not destroying buildings, does contaminate them so you idea that everyone moves in within a month is not correct. It was made after the war, but at the same time the Russians were already working on an equivalent device. It was designed not for invading cities but as an airburst weapon. At the same time the UK, the French and the Israelis were all working on their own projects. Just because you develop weapons does not mean you arent peaceful- the concept of MAD and nuclear deterrance worked pretty damn well because we're all still here ! -
Osama bin ladens
> group wants america to stop helping the jews, just like the IRA wants ireland.
> Both organisations have used mass violence to gain there goals. They are no
> different. Osama bin laden just got more press.
Okay so when did the IRA kill 7000+ ? Erm...I dont know. Any terrorist organisation bey definition uses mass violence to attempt to further its cause. Also the IRA does not have a central bankrolling figure head, its made up of many many cells and leaders who spend as much tiem fighting each other as the British and other Irish groups. There is a difference
yes, but if i die because the US p'issed off the afgans,
> i wouldnt get to choose. A government should not play with its people's
> lives.
The Afghans didnt start this, Al Queda did. This is not a war against the Afghan people, unless you believe mr Bin Laden.
Yes but this was an obvious
> red cross centre. It was on the bloody map as a red cross >centre. thousands of
> people went hungry because america blew up their food.
Yeah, I'm sure the Afghans just love eating tents and other shelter supplies because that was what was mianly in the building. It was a red cross centre on the map but the whole area was Taliban controlled so it was pretty reasonable to assume they had the supplies.
>America? freedom? ha ha
> ha. A country where 70% of convicts are non violent - non resistant drug
> users?
A country where pro - life and pro death penalty campaigners are the
> same people?
A country where the goverment hides the truth from the people?
Is
> that what you cal freedom?
Yes, because freedom gives you the ability to screw up. You choose your life. In dictatorships the truth is even more hidden, what gives us the right to think that our governments should tell us every little thing ? For National Security it is unreasonable to announce every action/operation because it endangers those who make them possible.
>Afganistan is a perscuted country. One man in its
> boundaries has caused the 'couch potatoe' to waken and bomb it. Hundreds of
> innocents are dead for the crimes of the leader. And women are perscuted, but it
> isnt islam its the people. Not all muslim people are idiots you know. Not long
> ago we used to stone women to death for being witches.
Dont badmouth other
> religions when hitler and 'the army of god' are still in yours.
Okay so if hundreds are dead where are the bodies ? In American we've seen the body bags, the funerals, but in Afghanistan what do we see ? Destroyed buildings and not much actual real evidence. Will the Taliban allow independant UN verification, erm nope. As for Hitler and army of god being in mine ? What on earth is that supposed to mean ?? The couch potato ? That couch potato is the reason this country and Europe ended the war in 1945 and probably why were not all talking russian right now. The internet was developed by theUS military to survive a nuclear attack, another US invention. Again its not Islam this war is against, the Taliban are the ones suppressing women and its them this war is against. Not Islam, not Muslims, the taliban and anyone who fancies getting in the way. This whole operation has been a long time due, and its not just americans who have died in the attacks, 100+ British also did and many other nationalities. For years Bin Laden and others have attacked targets all over the world and they finally slipped up. So what if America has finally acted ? This was going to happen one day anyway so its beter to act now and stop this right here, right now.
Its a basic life lesson, if you hit someone then maybe they'll shout at you, if you keep on hitting them then they will hit you back. If you really hurt them then they come after you, but if you really badly hurt them then they come after you, with all their friends, and they make sure one way or another that you NEVER do it again. Al Queda need this lesson teaching to them, and nothing short of total surrender will stop Enduring Freedom and I doubt any country will help them, after all what benefit is their from helping a probably soon to be extinct organisation ?
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
>
The origins of the nuclear weapon lie during World War 2. Back then it
> was a simple case of the allies developing the atom bomb before the axis. There
> was no messing around or morality- a simple case of "do it before they
> do" Many allied/resistance troops gave their lives to hinder german atom
> bomb development because if germany made it before we did it was endgame-
> defeat, not a setback but defeat. In the end we destroyed the german project but
> didnt get all the scientists, the russians got some of them too. Once the
> russians developed it then the americans had to better it and the Uk had to make
> the initial discovery of creating the weapon. As for giving it to every military
> force on the planet, well its the Russians who are guilty on that part - the
> fall of the USSR has meant much equipment/material being available on the black
> market in Asia.
Well, it was an american scientist Robert oppenhiemer who first made and tested the first nuke. The 2 nukes used in japan killed 220,000 people. Not satisfied with that, they made the neutron bomb. This is designed to emit high levels of radiation over blast or heat, so only life is destroyed. The city can be repopulated in a month. This was made in 1952 AFTER the war. There was no need for this device, designed only for invadeing other cities. Not a very peaceful lot are those americans?
The IRA has never actually shown much
> interest in killing every single british person there is, unlike Bin Laden and
> his organisation, they are trying to get the british out of Ireland. Many
> American presidents have participated in he peace process - a process the
> british government has pursued for years - and our own security forces have been
> suited to the task of counter terrorist ops and surveliance/intel gathering. The
> type of conflict is way different to the Afghanistan one, low level intensity
> compared to conventional warfare.
Osama bin ladens group wants america to stop helping the jews, just like the IRA wants ireland. Both organisations have used mass violence to gain there goals. They are no different. Osama bin laden just got more press.
>The whole arab world doesnt hate America
> - just the portions you see on tv protesting. It isnt just about Israel, its
> because America stands for freedom, with such ideas as letting women actually
> do what they want, consumerism, peace, justice, not puposely killing civilians -
> I dont think the Taliban go along with those ideas. Sure Bin LAden would love to
> have the whole arab world behind him but the northern alliance are proof thats
> not true even just in Afghanistan. France, Germany and Russia are not directly
> involved in a way you see on tcv but they are confirmed to be indirectly
> involved, France and Germany are because of being NATO members. Will we be
> attacked again ? Maybe, but that is why this war must be carried on boht in
> Afghanistan and wherever terrorists run to. France has a problem with ETA,
> Germany with Neo Nazis, Russia with Chechen Rebels, so no nation is free of
> terrorism.
yes, but if i die because the US p'issed off the afgans, i wouldnt get to choose. A government should not play with its people's lives.
>And if americans are so
> smart, how the hell did they
> hit a red cross centre (with >a big red cross on the
> top) by accident?
>
It wasnt an accident, they believed it held taliban controlled supplies.
> Anyone can get red paint and do a cross so that alone is not enough to stop an
> attack. Bitter experience has taught our militaries that the red cross is not
> always all it seems.
Yes but this was an obvious red cross centre. It was on the bloody map as a red cross centre. thousands of people went hungry because america blew up their food.
And this isnt the first time america has screwed up in a war. In the gulf war, more british soldiers were killed by americans then by iraqies.
>I've said it before and i'll say it again: America
> sucks.
And you're allowed to say that because of freedom. Now if you were in
> Afghanistan or some other "persecuted" country and you said that about
> the regime then it'd be a different story ! America is about freedom, and we've
> all had that for a pretty long time without questioning how we got it. Now we
> know that if we want that freedom then we better be prepared to fight for it,
> because others will take it from us anyway they can.
America? freedom? ha ha ha. A country where 70% of convicts are non violent - non resistant drug users?
A country where pro - life and pro death penalty campaigners are the same people?
A country where the goverment hides the truth from the people?
Is that what you cal freedom?
Afganistan is a perscuted country. One man in its boundaries has caused the 'couch potatoe' to waken and bomb it. Hundreds of innocents are dead for the crimes of the leader. And women are perscuted, but it isnt islam its the people. Not all muslim people are idiots you know. Not long ago we used to stone women to death for being witches.
Dont badmouth other religions when hitler and 'the army of god' are still in yours.
>
The origins of the nuclear weapon lie during World War 2. Back then it
> was a simple case of the allies developing the atom bomb before the axis. There
> was no messing around or morality- a simple case of "do it before they
> do" Many allied/resistance troops gave their lives to hinder german atom
> bomb development because if germany made it before we did it was endgame-
> defeat, not a setback but defeat. In the end we destroyed the german project but
> didnt get all the scientists, the russians got some of them too. Once the
> russians developed it then the americans had to better it and the Uk had to make
> the initial discovery of creating the weapon. As for giving it to every military
> force on the planet, well its the Russians who are guilty on that part - the
> fall of the USSR has meant much equipment/material being available on the black
> market in Asia.
Well, it was an american scientist Robert oppenhiemer who first made and tested the first nuke. The 2 nukes used in japan killed 220,000 people. Not satisfied with that, they made the neutron bomb. This is designed to emit high levels of radiation over blast or heat, so only life is destroyed. The city can be repopulated in a month. This was made in 1952 AFTER the war. There was no need for this device, designed only for invadeing other cities. Not a very peaceful lot are those americans?
The IRA has never actually shown much
> interest in killing every single british person there is, unlike Bin Laden and
> his organisation, they are trying to get the british out of Ireland. Many
> American presidents have participated in he peace process - a process the
> british government has pursued for years - and our own security forces have been
> suited to the task of counter terrorist ops and surveliance/intel gathering. The
> type of conflict is way different to the Afghanistan one, low level intensity
> compared to conventional warfare.
Osama bin ladens group wants america to stop helping the jews, just like the IRA wants ireland. Both organisations have used mass violence to gain there goals. They are no different. Osama bin laden just got more press.
>The whole arab world doesnt hate America
> - just the portions you see on tv protesting. It isnt just about Israel, its
> because America stands for freedom, with such ideas as letting women actually
> do what they want, consumerism, peace, justice, not puposely killing civilians -
> I dont think the Taliban go along with those ideas. Sure Bin LAden would love to
> have the whole arab world behind him but the northern alliance are proof thats
> not true even just in Afghanistan. France, Germany and Russia are not directly
> involved in a way you see on tcv but they are confirmed to be indirectly
> involved, France and Germany are because of being NATO members. Will we be
> attacked again ? Maybe, but that is why this war must be carried on boht in
> Afghanistan and wherever terrorists run to. France has a problem with ETA,
> Germany with Neo Nazis, Russia with Chechen Rebels, so no nation is free of
> terrorism.
yes, but if i die because the US p'issed off the afgans, i wouldnt get to choose. A government should not play with its people's lives.
>And if americans are so
> smart, how the hell did they
> hit a red cross centre (with >a big red cross on the
> top) by accident?
>
It wasnt an accident, they believed it held taliban controlled supplies.
> Anyone can get red paint and do a cross so that alone is not enough to stop an
> attack. Bitter experience has taught our militaries that the red cross is not
> always all it seems.
Yes but this was an obvious red cross centre. It was on the bloody map as a red cross centre. thousands of people went hungry because america blew up their food.
And this isnt the first time america has screwed up in a war. In the gulf war, more british soldiers were killed by americans then by iraqies.
>I've said it before and i'll say it again: America
> sucks.
And you're allowed to say that because of freedom. Now if you were in
> Afghanistan or some other "persecuted" country and you said that about
> the regime then it'd be a different story ! America is about freedom, and we've
> all had that for a pretty long time without questioning how we got it. Now we
> know that if we want that freedom then we better be prepared to fight for it,
> because others will take it from us anyway they can.
America? freedom? ha ha ha. A country where 70% of convicts are non violent - non resistant drug users?
A country where pro - life and pro death penalty campaigners are the same people?
A country where the goverment hides the truth from the people?
Is that what you cal freedom?
Afganistan is a perscuted country. One man in its boundaries has caused the 'couch potatoe' to waken and bomb it. Hundreds of innocents are dead for the crimes of the leader. And women are perscuted, but it isnt islam its the people. Not all muslim people are idiots you know. Not long ago we used to stone women to death for being witches.
Dont badmouth other religions when hitler and 'the army of god' are still in yours.
Page: