The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 then...5 people are released without charge after having been held incommunicado for 2 years without charge. These men are entirely innocent. Not one charge is levelled against them, and no implication is made that they are anything other than men who were in the wrong place with the wrong skin colour at the wrong time. These men make it clear that they were tortured both physically and mentally by American troops whilst in Guantanamo Bay. These are not terrorists or soldiers remember; they're innocent men. Now aside from the standard claim of the mentally deficient on this board (which will doubtless be along the lines of "Ah, you're so naive if you think they're REALLY innocent"; christ, I sometimes think that if Bell ever saw The Crucible he'd be at a loss as to what the problem with the Salem witch trials actually was...), there is no evidence whatsoever to claim otherwise. So the Americans, as well as torturing men who may be Al-Quaida members, are torturing innocent people.
Remind me again; why are we fighting this "war on terror"? Surely the point was to stop terror. Seems to me that we're actually fighting for the right to terrorise nations of brown men and women whilst making sure they don't get uppity and help us to reap what we sow. Has anyone with half a brain in their head got any thoughts on this one?
Remind me again; why are we fighting this "war on terror"? Surely the point was to stop terror. Seems to me that we're actually fighting for the right to terrorise nations of brown men and women whilst making sure they don't get uppity and help us to reap what we sow. Has anyone with half a brain in their head got any thoughts on this one?
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Well I know the quote that's going through my mind when reading this
> thread..."don't call it a war on terror, it will be a never
> ending war if we do".
>
> Anyone care to guess who said those words and to whom?
>
> George W. Bush
Partly, Rumsfeld to Bush on 9/12 2001
> Belldandy wrote:
> Well I know the quote that's going through my mind when reading this
> thread..."don't call it a war on terror, it will be a never
> ending war if we do".
>
> Anyone care to guess who said those words and to whom?
>
> George W. Bush
Partly, Rumsfeld to Bush on 9/12 2001
Goatboy wrote:
> I'd go one further.
> There doesn't seem to be any middle ground here.
> You either have people like you saying that we can do nothing wrong
> and excusing every action, no matter how bad-tasting
> OR
> People like me that view everything the government does as evil and
> with an underlying purpose.
>
> There doesn't seem to be any middle ground
I'd beg to differ. I believe a fair percentage of the people are in the middle ground. They might read about camp x-ray, and just not be too bothered.
They couldn't care if the Government is evil and lying, or if, no matter what they do, its alright. Thats why i believe the next general election will have a really, really low turn out.
> I'd go one further.
> There doesn't seem to be any middle ground here.
> You either have people like you saying that we can do nothing wrong
> and excusing every action, no matter how bad-tasting
> OR
> People like me that view everything the government does as evil and
> with an underlying purpose.
>
> There doesn't seem to be any middle ground
I'd beg to differ. I believe a fair percentage of the people are in the middle ground. They might read about camp x-ray, and just not be too bothered.
They couldn't care if the Government is evil and lying, or if, no matter what they do, its alright. Thats why i believe the next general election will have a really, really low turn out.
Belldandy wrote:
> I think part of the problem is that people are too divided - the major
> groups protesting about Guantanamo are anti-Iraq and generally
> anti-war on terror.
----------------------
I'd go one further.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground here.
You either have people like you saying that we can do nothing wrong and excusing every action, no matter how bad-tasting
OR
People like me that view everything the government does as evil and with an underlying purpose.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground
> I think part of the problem is that people are too divided - the major
> groups protesting about Guantanamo are anti-Iraq and generally
> anti-war on terror.
----------------------
I'd go one further.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground here.
You either have people like you saying that we can do nothing wrong and excusing every action, no matter how bad-tasting
OR
People like me that view everything the government does as evil and with an underlying purpose.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground
Belldandy wrote:
> Well I know the quote that's going through my mind when reading this
> thread..."don't call it a war on terror, it will be a never
> ending war if we do".
>
> Anyone care to guess who said those words and to whom?
George W. Bush
> Well I know the quote that's going through my mind when reading this
> thread..."don't call it a war on terror, it will be a never
> ending war if we do".
>
> Anyone care to guess who said those words and to whom?
George W. Bush
Well I know the quote that's going through my mind when reading this thread..."don't call it a war on terror, it will be a never ending war if we do".
Anyone care to guess who said those words and to whom?
Anyone care to guess who said those words and to whom?
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> Well, to be fair to the Americans, since their 'War On Terror',
> there
> have been no more 9/11s. So, Terrorism might not be being destroyed,
> but, in the eyes of the US public, the 'War On Terror' must be doing
> something good.
>
> Bombs in Madrid the other day?
I clearly was commenting on the AMERICAN 'War on Terror', and the fact that the US administration/population probable feels that they are doing something right, as there have been no more 9/11's there.
I agree, the War on Terrorism isn't eradicating terrorism, what else do you expect the US to do?
> Skarra wrote:
> Well, to be fair to the Americans, since their 'War On Terror',
> there
> have been no more 9/11s. So, Terrorism might not be being destroyed,
> but, in the eyes of the US public, the 'War On Terror' must be doing
> something good.
>
> Bombs in Madrid the other day?
I clearly was commenting on the AMERICAN 'War on Terror', and the fact that the US administration/population probable feels that they are doing something right, as there have been no more 9/11's there.
I agree, the War on Terrorism isn't eradicating terrorism, what else do you expect the US to do?
Skarra wrote:
> Well, to be fair to the Americans, since their 'War On Terror', there
> have been no more 9/11s. So, Terrorism might not be being destroyed,
> but, in the eyes of the US public, the 'War On Terror' must be doing
> something good.
Bombs in Madrid the other day?
> Well, to be fair to the Americans, since their 'War On Terror', there
> have been no more 9/11s. So, Terrorism might not be being destroyed,
> but, in the eyes of the US public, the 'War On Terror' must be doing
> something good.
Bombs in Madrid the other day?
Skarra wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
> America should learn that the best way to stop 9/11 attacks, is to
> stop bombing third world countries to the point where people only
> live to get revenge on them.
>
> So you think if the US stops taking action in the Middle-East and
> other places, Bin Laden and his lot win turn around and say, all is
> forgiven? No he won't. Bell was right, these terrorists will not stop
> until the 'corrupt and evil west' is no more. How would you go about
> convincing the terrorists around the world to stop what they are
> doing?
>
> America would save a fortune, both on the bombs they would've
> dropped
> and the military expenses they get from "sorting out" the
> terrorists after an attack.
>
> The military expenses from the war on terrorism pre-9/11 was minimal,
> and look how that turned out, 3,000 dead. Terrorism would not just go
> away if the US said screw it, somebody else can police the world.
Yeh, all these influential politics are paving the way for the great tribulation.
> Strafio wrote:
> America should learn that the best way to stop 9/11 attacks, is to
> stop bombing third world countries to the point where people only
> live to get revenge on them.
>
> So you think if the US stops taking action in the Middle-East and
> other places, Bin Laden and his lot win turn around and say, all is
> forgiven? No he won't. Bell was right, these terrorists will not stop
> until the 'corrupt and evil west' is no more. How would you go about
> convincing the terrorists around the world to stop what they are
> doing?
>
> America would save a fortune, both on the bombs they would've
> dropped
> and the military expenses they get from "sorting out" the
> terrorists after an attack.
>
> The military expenses from the war on terrorism pre-9/11 was minimal,
> and look how that turned out, 3,000 dead. Terrorism would not just go
> away if the US said screw it, somebody else can police the world.
Yeh, all these influential politics are paving the way for the great tribulation.
Strafio wrote:
> America should learn that the best way to stop 9/11 attacks, is to
> stop bombing third world countries to the point where people only
> live to get revenge on them.
So you think if the US stops taking action in the Middle-East and other places, Bin Laden and his lot win turn around and say, all is forgiven? No he won't. Bell was right, these terrorists will not stop until the 'corrupt and evil west' is no more. How would you go about convincing the terrorists around the world to stop what they are doing?
> America would save a fortune, both on the bombs they would've dropped
> and the military expenses they get from "sorting out" the
> terrorists after an attack.
The military expenses from the war on terrorism pre-9/11 was minimal, and look how that turned out, 3,000 dead. Terrorism would not just go away if the US said screw it, somebody else can police the world.
> America should learn that the best way to stop 9/11 attacks, is to
> stop bombing third world countries to the point where people only
> live to get revenge on them.
So you think if the US stops taking action in the Middle-East and other places, Bin Laden and his lot win turn around and say, all is forgiven? No he won't. Bell was right, these terrorists will not stop until the 'corrupt and evil west' is no more. How would you go about convincing the terrorists around the world to stop what they are doing?
> America would save a fortune, both on the bombs they would've dropped
> and the military expenses they get from "sorting out" the
> terrorists after an attack.
The military expenses from the war on terrorism pre-9/11 was minimal, and look how that turned out, 3,000 dead. Terrorism would not just go away if the US said screw it, somebody else can police the world.
Strafio wrote:
> America should learn that the best way to stop 9/11 attacks, is to
> stop bombing third world countries to the point where people only
> live to get revenge on them.
Well the good news is that Al Qaeda isn't all that interested in that - the stated goal of almost all Islamic terrorists is the establishment of an Islamic Empire across the world. Bin Laden opposed the US presence in Saudi because, if you're going to set up a new empire, you don't want the threat to that empire right at the centre of it...
In other words, they want to be the new America in terms of power. As it is the USSR was the only one to bomb Afghanistan, so your theory is totally out of the window - the US actually helped the Afghanistan resistance.
> America should learn that the best way to stop 9/11 attacks, is to
> stop bombing third world countries to the point where people only
> live to get revenge on them.
Well the good news is that Al Qaeda isn't all that interested in that - the stated goal of almost all Islamic terrorists is the establishment of an Islamic Empire across the world. Bin Laden opposed the US presence in Saudi because, if you're going to set up a new empire, you don't want the threat to that empire right at the centre of it...
In other words, they want to be the new America in terms of power. As it is the USSR was the only one to bomb Afghanistan, so your theory is totally out of the window - the US actually helped the Afghanistan resistance.
Page: