The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, the much argued about, criticised, applauded, etc War on Terror (TM)...
At first a success with the removal of the Taliban and large elements of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the capture of various cells and individuals involved in the devestating September 11th attacks themselves, and involved in plotting future attacks which were foiled.
The Anthrax scare in America following the September 11th attacks was a stark warning of events in the future, but I'm digressing here.
Following September 11th the world's leaders, minus Saddam Hussein who I don't think we could have lumped under the title 'world's leaders' even if he had criticised the attacks, came together and generally insisted that:
A) We, whoever "we" are, would win this new War on Terror.
B) We would not let the attacks destroy our way of life - again who "we" was and which way of life this was referring to was left unsaid.
C) Every nation would co-operate.
Despite very real gains, I'd argue that we, and by this I mean everyone who despises acts of terrorism whoever commits them, are so far losing hands down.
Why ?
America, Britain, and just about every other nation involved is fighting the wrong battle.
In the past we, and here I mean the Western powers such as Western Europe, the United Kingdom, America and the often forgotten Canada and Australia, had nice tangible enemies of various scales and power. Native Americans, Native Africans, Aborigines, Hitler's Germany, the USSR, Cuba, any nation which decided they really would like to try Socialism rather than Capitalism, and so on.
The common theme with all of them was that if you wanted to retaliate against them for anything, or even attack them pre-emptively, you had a nice clean target.
Native Americans ? Dispatch the Cav to kill afew campfulls.
Native Africans ? Send your troops off to take prisoners.
Socialist nation ? Point the task force in the right direction.
Now we face terrorism. Afghanistan, despite the civilian casualties, was certainly a campaign which had to happen when the Taliban refused to remove Al-Qaeda themselves. Iraq ? I don't think anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam was a good thing, whether their were terrorist links relted to Iraq is debateable, and not something I know enough about to comment on.
There are not any obvious targets anymore. Anyone who considers designating North Korea, Iran or Syria as one really needs to reconsider, and the very fact that some in the American and UK administration have done so shows just how the War on Terror is being wrongly fought.
You see, there is a big target. Terrorism as an idea, a way of thinking.
Want to stop terrorism ?
Then stop the factors which create terrorists. This can never be done 100%, there will always be someone who hates something, but the nations on this planet should address those things which let terrorist groups form in the first place.
Some would argue that addressing issues, like a Palestinian state, or Third World development and debt, or the demands of various groups for independent states, is a capitulation to the terrorists. But if there are people out there willing to die, to kill, for a cause then maybe we should at least recognise that somewhere in that hatred is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Bombs, bullets and armour will only take a War on Terror so far, and we've gone that far. They can destroy people, places, and weapons, but not ideas, and that is what we face, an idea.
If we look at just this country we can see how we're losing this war, our way of life is changing for the worse. I'm not just talking about concrete blocks around important government buildings, but the fact that we now accept as commonplace the sight of policemarksmen walking around with MP5 Submachine guns in our airports in greater numbers, and elsewhere, that our only reaction to the site of military vehicles at airports is one of cynicism and shock, that Chinook helicopters disgorging a stream of troops as it lands at an airport - in this country - get mere seconds of news, that the government has the power to seize any suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely and no one has challenged this noticeably..... If one speaks against bombing something to smithereens then they're obviously unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser, that never used to be the case did it ? What happened to freedom of speech ?
The list goes on and on, and that is just in the UK, a country which has so far suffered little damage in this war. And it's not just the big changes which are worrying, but small things also. In the US the country group Dixie Chicks criticised President Bush, and suddenly radio stations were pulling their songs from the air, and people were not buying their material. That's wrong. Since when did believing in your country mean being uncritical of everything it's leader does ?
Bit by bit, Freedom is dying.
Of course, we all know whose fault this is don't we ?
I'm not going to say who, but I'm sure some of you will come up with the answer.
To me, that answer does not matter. We, as a society, can scream blame for things all we like and nothing changes one bit.
Yet blame is all this is about for a fair few of our political pundits and talkshow hosts, amongst many. The terrorists are to blame because....America is to blame because..... etc.
Me ? Well I really don't know what I support in all this. I despise terrorism, but can see why some people feel it is their only option, and that there is good reason for certain military action, but balanced against what I cannot set aside as the horror that this means we are killing people, people whose only true crime was to be born outside of the West. Everyone who dies, on either side, is somebody's son or daughter. No one deserves to die.
Until more people in power address this war in a new light, looking at why it began rather than how we can kill everyone who decides to be a terrorist, then we can never win, and the endless cycle will continue for decades, if not centuries.
A totally fair world, with equality for all, is unrealistic, but a finer world than this is not, and it is the only real way we, and this time I mean everyone on this planet, will attain some kind of real true lasting peace.
If anyone has read this far then thanks, I think it got a little long winded at parts but this is my first proper post in this forum, so be gentle okay ?
At first a success with the removal of the Taliban and large elements of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the capture of various cells and individuals involved in the devestating September 11th attacks themselves, and involved in plotting future attacks which were foiled.
The Anthrax scare in America following the September 11th attacks was a stark warning of events in the future, but I'm digressing here.
Following September 11th the world's leaders, minus Saddam Hussein who I don't think we could have lumped under the title 'world's leaders' even if he had criticised the attacks, came together and generally insisted that:
A) We, whoever "we" are, would win this new War on Terror.
B) We would not let the attacks destroy our way of life - again who "we" was and which way of life this was referring to was left unsaid.
C) Every nation would co-operate.
Despite very real gains, I'd argue that we, and by this I mean everyone who despises acts of terrorism whoever commits them, are so far losing hands down.
Why ?
America, Britain, and just about every other nation involved is fighting the wrong battle.
In the past we, and here I mean the Western powers such as Western Europe, the United Kingdom, America and the often forgotten Canada and Australia, had nice tangible enemies of various scales and power. Native Americans, Native Africans, Aborigines, Hitler's Germany, the USSR, Cuba, any nation which decided they really would like to try Socialism rather than Capitalism, and so on.
The common theme with all of them was that if you wanted to retaliate against them for anything, or even attack them pre-emptively, you had a nice clean target.
Native Americans ? Dispatch the Cav to kill afew campfulls.
Native Africans ? Send your troops off to take prisoners.
Socialist nation ? Point the task force in the right direction.
Now we face terrorism. Afghanistan, despite the civilian casualties, was certainly a campaign which had to happen when the Taliban refused to remove Al-Qaeda themselves. Iraq ? I don't think anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam was a good thing, whether their were terrorist links relted to Iraq is debateable, and not something I know enough about to comment on.
There are not any obvious targets anymore. Anyone who considers designating North Korea, Iran or Syria as one really needs to reconsider, and the very fact that some in the American and UK administration have done so shows just how the War on Terror is being wrongly fought.
You see, there is a big target. Terrorism as an idea, a way of thinking.
Want to stop terrorism ?
Then stop the factors which create terrorists. This can never be done 100%, there will always be someone who hates something, but the nations on this planet should address those things which let terrorist groups form in the first place.
Some would argue that addressing issues, like a Palestinian state, or Third World development and debt, or the demands of various groups for independent states, is a capitulation to the terrorists. But if there are people out there willing to die, to kill, for a cause then maybe we should at least recognise that somewhere in that hatred is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Bombs, bullets and armour will only take a War on Terror so far, and we've gone that far. They can destroy people, places, and weapons, but not ideas, and that is what we face, an idea.
If we look at just this country we can see how we're losing this war, our way of life is changing for the worse. I'm not just talking about concrete blocks around important government buildings, but the fact that we now accept as commonplace the sight of policemarksmen walking around with MP5 Submachine guns in our airports in greater numbers, and elsewhere, that our only reaction to the site of military vehicles at airports is one of cynicism and shock, that Chinook helicopters disgorging a stream of troops as it lands at an airport - in this country - get mere seconds of news, that the government has the power to seize any suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely and no one has challenged this noticeably..... If one speaks against bombing something to smithereens then they're obviously unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser, that never used to be the case did it ? What happened to freedom of speech ?
The list goes on and on, and that is just in the UK, a country which has so far suffered little damage in this war. And it's not just the big changes which are worrying, but small things also. In the US the country group Dixie Chicks criticised President Bush, and suddenly radio stations were pulling their songs from the air, and people were not buying their material. That's wrong. Since when did believing in your country mean being uncritical of everything it's leader does ?
Bit by bit, Freedom is dying.
Of course, we all know whose fault this is don't we ?
I'm not going to say who, but I'm sure some of you will come up with the answer.
To me, that answer does not matter. We, as a society, can scream blame for things all we like and nothing changes one bit.
Yet blame is all this is about for a fair few of our political pundits and talkshow hosts, amongst many. The terrorists are to blame because....America is to blame because..... etc.
Me ? Well I really don't know what I support in all this. I despise terrorism, but can see why some people feel it is their only option, and that there is good reason for certain military action, but balanced against what I cannot set aside as the horror that this means we are killing people, people whose only true crime was to be born outside of the West. Everyone who dies, on either side, is somebody's son or daughter. No one deserves to die.
Until more people in power address this war in a new light, looking at why it began rather than how we can kill everyone who decides to be a terrorist, then we can never win, and the endless cycle will continue for decades, if not centuries.
A totally fair world, with equality for all, is unrealistic, but a finer world than this is not, and it is the only real way we, and this time I mean everyone on this planet, will attain some kind of real true lasting peace.
If anyone has read this far then thanks, I think it got a little long winded at parts but this is my first proper post in this forum, so be gentle okay ?
Page:
So, the much argued about, criticised, applauded, etc War on Terror (TM)...
At first a success with the removal of the Taliban and large elements of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the capture of various cells and individuals involved in the devestating September 11th attacks themselves, and involved in plotting future attacks which were foiled.
The Anthrax scare in America following the September 11th attacks was a stark warning of events in the future, but I'm digressing here.
Following September 11th the world's leaders, minus Saddam Hussein who I don't think we could have lumped under the title 'world's leaders' even if he had criticised the attacks, came together and generally insisted that:
A) We, whoever "we" are, would win this new War on Terror.
B) We would not let the attacks destroy our way of life - again who "we" was and which way of life this was referring to was left unsaid.
C) Every nation would co-operate.
Despite very real gains, I'd argue that we, and by this I mean everyone who despises acts of terrorism whoever commits them, are so far losing hands down.
Why ?
America, Britain, and just about every other nation involved is fighting the wrong battle.
In the past we, and here I mean the Western powers such as Western Europe, the United Kingdom, America and the often forgotten Canada and Australia, had nice tangible enemies of various scales and power. Native Americans, Native Africans, Aborigines, Hitler's Germany, the USSR, Cuba, any nation which decided they really would like to try Socialism rather than Capitalism, and so on.
The common theme with all of them was that if you wanted to retaliate against them for anything, or even attack them pre-emptively, you had a nice clean target.
Native Americans ? Dispatch the Cav to kill afew campfulls.
Native Africans ? Send your troops off to take prisoners.
Socialist nation ? Point the task force in the right direction.
Now we face terrorism. Afghanistan, despite the civilian casualties, was certainly a campaign which had to happen when the Taliban refused to remove Al-Qaeda themselves. Iraq ? I don't think anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam was a good thing, whether their were terrorist links relted to Iraq is debateable, and not something I know enough about to comment on.
There are not any obvious targets anymore. Anyone who considers designating North Korea, Iran or Syria as one really needs to reconsider, and the very fact that some in the American and UK administration have done so shows just how the War on Terror is being wrongly fought.
You see, there is a big target. Terrorism as an idea, a way of thinking.
Want to stop terrorism ?
Then stop the factors which create terrorists. This can never be done 100%, there will always be someone who hates something, but the nations on this planet should address those things which let terrorist groups form in the first place.
Some would argue that addressing issues, like a Palestinian state, or Third World development and debt, or the demands of various groups for independent states, is a capitulation to the terrorists. But if there are people out there willing to die, to kill, for a cause then maybe we should at least recognise that somewhere in that hatred is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Bombs, bullets and armour will only take a War on Terror so far, and we've gone that far. They can destroy people, places, and weapons, but not ideas, and that is what we face, an idea.
If we look at just this country we can see how we're losing this war, our way of life is changing for the worse. I'm not just talking about concrete blocks around important government buildings, but the fact that we now accept as commonplace the sight of policemarksmen walking around with MP5 Submachine guns in our airports in greater numbers, and elsewhere, that our only reaction to the site of military vehicles at airports is one of cynicism and shock, that Chinook helicopters disgorging a stream of troops as it lands at an airport - in this country - get mere seconds of news, that the government has the power to seize any suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely and no one has challenged this noticeably..... If one speaks against bombing something to smithereens then they're obviously unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser, that never used to be the case did it ? What happened to freedom of speech ?
The list goes on and on, and that is just in the UK, a country which has so far suffered little damage in this war. And it's not just the big changes which are worrying, but small things also. In the US the country group Dixie Chicks criticised President Bush, and suddenly radio stations were pulling their songs from the air, and people were not buying their material. That's wrong. Since when did believing in your country mean being uncritical of everything it's leader does ?
Bit by bit, Freedom is dying.
Of course, we all know whose fault this is don't we ?
I'm not going to say who, but I'm sure some of you will come up with the answer.
To me, that answer does not matter. We, as a society, can scream blame for things all we like and nothing changes one bit.
Yet blame is all this is about for a fair few of our political pundits and talkshow hosts, amongst many. The terrorists are to blame because....America is to blame because..... etc.
Me ? Well I really don't know what I support in all this. I despise terrorism, but can see why some people feel it is their only option, and that there is good reason for certain military action, but balanced against what I cannot set aside as the horror that this means we are killing people, people whose only true crime was to be born outside of the West. Everyone who dies, on either side, is somebody's son or daughter. No one deserves to die.
Until more people in power address this war in a new light, looking at why it began rather than how we can kill everyone who decides to be a terrorist, then we can never win, and the endless cycle will continue for decades, if not centuries.
A totally fair world, with equality for all, is unrealistic, but a finer world than this is not, and it is the only real way we, and this time I mean everyone on this planet, will attain some kind of real true lasting peace.
If anyone has read this far then thanks, I think it got a little long winded at parts but this is my first proper post in this forum, so be gentle okay ?
At first a success with the removal of the Taliban and large elements of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the capture of various cells and individuals involved in the devestating September 11th attacks themselves, and involved in plotting future attacks which were foiled.
The Anthrax scare in America following the September 11th attacks was a stark warning of events in the future, but I'm digressing here.
Following September 11th the world's leaders, minus Saddam Hussein who I don't think we could have lumped under the title 'world's leaders' even if he had criticised the attacks, came together and generally insisted that:
A) We, whoever "we" are, would win this new War on Terror.
B) We would not let the attacks destroy our way of life - again who "we" was and which way of life this was referring to was left unsaid.
C) Every nation would co-operate.
Despite very real gains, I'd argue that we, and by this I mean everyone who despises acts of terrorism whoever commits them, are so far losing hands down.
Why ?
America, Britain, and just about every other nation involved is fighting the wrong battle.
In the past we, and here I mean the Western powers such as Western Europe, the United Kingdom, America and the often forgotten Canada and Australia, had nice tangible enemies of various scales and power. Native Americans, Native Africans, Aborigines, Hitler's Germany, the USSR, Cuba, any nation which decided they really would like to try Socialism rather than Capitalism, and so on.
The common theme with all of them was that if you wanted to retaliate against them for anything, or even attack them pre-emptively, you had a nice clean target.
Native Americans ? Dispatch the Cav to kill afew campfulls.
Native Africans ? Send your troops off to take prisoners.
Socialist nation ? Point the task force in the right direction.
Now we face terrorism. Afghanistan, despite the civilian casualties, was certainly a campaign which had to happen when the Taliban refused to remove Al-Qaeda themselves. Iraq ? I don't think anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam was a good thing, whether their were terrorist links relted to Iraq is debateable, and not something I know enough about to comment on.
There are not any obvious targets anymore. Anyone who considers designating North Korea, Iran or Syria as one really needs to reconsider, and the very fact that some in the American and UK administration have done so shows just how the War on Terror is being wrongly fought.
You see, there is a big target. Terrorism as an idea, a way of thinking.
Want to stop terrorism ?
Then stop the factors which create terrorists. This can never be done 100%, there will always be someone who hates something, but the nations on this planet should address those things which let terrorist groups form in the first place.
Some would argue that addressing issues, like a Palestinian state, or Third World development and debt, or the demands of various groups for independent states, is a capitulation to the terrorists. But if there are people out there willing to die, to kill, for a cause then maybe we should at least recognise that somewhere in that hatred is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Bombs, bullets and armour will only take a War on Terror so far, and we've gone that far. They can destroy people, places, and weapons, but not ideas, and that is what we face, an idea.
If we look at just this country we can see how we're losing this war, our way of life is changing for the worse. I'm not just talking about concrete blocks around important government buildings, but the fact that we now accept as commonplace the sight of policemarksmen walking around with MP5 Submachine guns in our airports in greater numbers, and elsewhere, that our only reaction to the site of military vehicles at airports is one of cynicism and shock, that Chinook helicopters disgorging a stream of troops as it lands at an airport - in this country - get mere seconds of news, that the government has the power to seize any suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely and no one has challenged this noticeably..... If one speaks against bombing something to smithereens then they're obviously unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser, that never used to be the case did it ? What happened to freedom of speech ?
The list goes on and on, and that is just in the UK, a country which has so far suffered little damage in this war. And it's not just the big changes which are worrying, but small things also. In the US the country group Dixie Chicks criticised President Bush, and suddenly radio stations were pulling their songs from the air, and people were not buying their material. That's wrong. Since when did believing in your country mean being uncritical of everything it's leader does ?
Bit by bit, Freedom is dying.
Of course, we all know whose fault this is don't we ?
I'm not going to say who, but I'm sure some of you will come up with the answer.
To me, that answer does not matter. We, as a society, can scream blame for things all we like and nothing changes one bit.
Yet blame is all this is about for a fair few of our political pundits and talkshow hosts, amongst many. The terrorists are to blame because....America is to blame because..... etc.
Me ? Well I really don't know what I support in all this. I despise terrorism, but can see why some people feel it is their only option, and that there is good reason for certain military action, but balanced against what I cannot set aside as the horror that this means we are killing people, people whose only true crime was to be born outside of the West. Everyone who dies, on either side, is somebody's son or daughter. No one deserves to die.
Until more people in power address this war in a new light, looking at why it began rather than how we can kill everyone who decides to be a terrorist, then we can never win, and the endless cycle will continue for decades, if not centuries.
A totally fair world, with equality for all, is unrealistic, but a finer world than this is not, and it is the only real way we, and this time I mean everyone on this planet, will attain some kind of real true lasting peace.
If anyone has read this far then thanks, I think it got a little long winded at parts but this is my first proper post in this forum, so be gentle okay ?
I haven't been here too long but it is the best thing I have read since I got here. Probably the best thing I have read for the past few months to be entirely honest.
Then the Patriot Act comes along - it's an American act that allows the government to investigate anyone at anytime, whether they've got evidence or not, stripping away the liberties and rights of the public at large.
Is it not strange how the very people who restrict us most are those who are meant to protect our liberty?
Is it not strange how the very people who restrict us most are those who are meant to protect our liberty?
There will always be terrorism. It's all perspective: one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I am sorry but it appears Britains 'multicultural experiment' has gone wrong. War is not the answer now, Diplomacy combined with intelligence and counter intelligence are the best bet.
I thik the biggest problem with the so called Western Powers is the overwhelming ammount of hypercrisy that goes on
Take Tony Blair and the rest of the politicians as an example, saying we must deal with the threat of the terrorist states such as Afghanistan and Iraq. I think its strange that he's talking about dealing with international terrorists when he cant even seem to deal with the terrorist groups that are on our own doorstep in Ireland (the Real IRA etc)
And good ol' Bush talking about equality for all people in all over the world. Now i suppose that every african-american in the southern states is treated as an normal amerian citizen
I think we should deal with th problems in our own countries first, rather tahn distracting the public by putting ours noses in other peoples businesses
Take Tony Blair and the rest of the politicians as an example, saying we must deal with the threat of the terrorist states such as Afghanistan and Iraq. I think its strange that he's talking about dealing with international terrorists when he cant even seem to deal with the terrorist groups that are on our own doorstep in Ireland (the Real IRA etc)
And good ol' Bush talking about equality for all people in all over the world. Now i suppose that every african-american in the southern states is treated as an normal amerian citizen
I think we should deal with th problems in our own countries first, rather tahn distracting the public by putting ours noses in other peoples businesses
I have a lot to say on this subject, but I find that I can't say it - anger and sadness overwhelm me when I think about it.
When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by killing people - it just fans the flames.
I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what they want.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and charged with crimes against humanity.
When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by killing people - it just fans the flames.
I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what they want.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and charged with crimes against humanity.
DanDaGr8 wrote:
> I think we should deal with th problems in our own countries first,
> rather tahn distracting the public by putting ours noses in other
> peoples businesses
But don't you see that that is no longer an option? That is why we've ended up like this in the first place, we, the West, believed terrorism was this thing which largely happened outside of our borders. Some One Else's Problem.
We're all connected now, to solve the world's problems requires a global response, not everyone retreating to their respective dugouts. In that respect America deserves some credit, after 9/11 the Americans could have withdrawn from so much and become isolationist as they were pre World War 2. For all the bad things America does there is also good, as there is with the actions of most nations.
That's one aspect of this I think more people should put into perspective, America has caused much of the divisions within the world, but France, England, Germany and most of Europe are right there beside America as to nations to blame. People argue that in many nation's cases it is not the people to blame, but the leader, hence Blair and Bush become the targets of blame. To that I say that all these countries are democracies, ones where around 50% do not even bother to vote in elections. And, as I've said before, what is the point in blame other than to shift responsibility to other people for today's situation ?
Terrorism is the business of every single person who wants life, because when the attacks come they target everyone in the area, not just certain people based on their opinions.
> I think we should deal with th problems in our own countries first,
> rather tahn distracting the public by putting ours noses in other
> peoples businesses
But don't you see that that is no longer an option? That is why we've ended up like this in the first place, we, the West, believed terrorism was this thing which largely happened outside of our borders. Some One Else's Problem.
We're all connected now, to solve the world's problems requires a global response, not everyone retreating to their respective dugouts. In that respect America deserves some credit, after 9/11 the Americans could have withdrawn from so much and become isolationist as they were pre World War 2. For all the bad things America does there is also good, as there is with the actions of most nations.
That's one aspect of this I think more people should put into perspective, America has caused much of the divisions within the world, but France, England, Germany and most of Europe are right there beside America as to nations to blame. People argue that in many nation's cases it is not the people to blame, but the leader, hence Blair and Bush become the targets of blame. To that I say that all these countries are democracies, ones where around 50% do not even bother to vote in elections. And, as I've said before, what is the point in blame other than to shift responsibility to other people for today's situation ?
Terrorism is the business of every single person who wants life, because when the attacks come they target everyone in the area, not just certain people based on their opinions.
Black Glove wrote:
> I have a lot to say on this subject, but I find that I can't say it -
> anger and sadness overwhelm me when I think about it.
>
> When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by
> killing people - it just fans the flames.
> I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive
> violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass
> destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what
> they want.
>
> Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and
> perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and
> charged with crimes against humanity.
It's not just the Americans' fault, which may shock a lot of people. It is everyone's fault - we need to be looking at why these people are doing this, not telling them that they're wrong. If they told us that we were wrong, we would annhililate them, just as they wish they could do to us.
We need to find their problems and address them, to either:
a) satisfy them to stop bombing and killing,
b) give those who are just bloodthirsty no reasons to launch attacks against others.
> I have a lot to say on this subject, but I find that I can't say it -
> anger and sadness overwhelm me when I think about it.
>
> When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by
> killing people - it just fans the flames.
> I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive
> violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass
> destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what
> they want.
>
> Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and
> perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and
> charged with crimes against humanity.
It's not just the Americans' fault, which may shock a lot of people. It is everyone's fault - we need to be looking at why these people are doing this, not telling them that they're wrong. If they told us that we were wrong, we would annhililate them, just as they wish they could do to us.
We need to find their problems and address them, to either:
a) satisfy them to stop bombing and killing,
b) give those who are just bloodthirsty no reasons to launch attacks against others.
Nice to see I'm not the only person who sees this whole situation as running deeper than the White House...
A couple of things to say on this one:-
Black Glove wrote:
> When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by
> killing people - it just fans the flames.
Tell me again, how was WW2 ended, oh, thats right, NUKE'S. That killed people, but ended a war that killed million's!
> I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive
> violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass
> destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what
> they want.
But there's a difference, the bomber pilot isn't targeting civilians. They do their damdest to avoid them. What is it suicide bombers do, ah, i know, detonate explosives next to a babies face. No difference in the people you say? I beg to differ.
> Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and
> perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and
> charged with crimes against humanity.
Remember 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Allied forces acted aggressively(going into Southern Iraq). Tell me, the liberators of Kuwait, are they guilty of crimes against humanity. I'm sure the people of Kuwait wouldn't think so.
Black Glove wrote:
> When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by
> killing people - it just fans the flames.
Tell me again, how was WW2 ended, oh, thats right, NUKE'S. That killed people, but ended a war that killed million's!
> I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive
> violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass
> destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what
> they want.
But there's a difference, the bomber pilot isn't targeting civilians. They do their damdest to avoid them. What is it suicide bombers do, ah, i know, detonate explosives next to a babies face. No difference in the people you say? I beg to differ.
> Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and
> perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and
> charged with crimes against humanity.
Remember 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Allied forces acted aggressively(going into Southern Iraq). Tell me, the liberators of Kuwait, are they guilty of crimes against humanity. I'm sure the people of Kuwait wouldn't think so.
Page: