16 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat the hell is an international incident?
What ARE you talking about?
I think that international incidents should be handled peacefully as much as possible, through the proper diplomatic channels. If military action is absolutely required, it should be, again, through the proper channels, not unilaterally, and should seek to minimise civilian casualties - not like the "shock and awe" campai ...[text shortened]... endable, lives of your soldiers. If you had any sense you'd be ashamed of your government.
Do you mean wars and stuff like that?
What do you propose in the war on terror? Assuming it qualifies as an "international incident".
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI have no idea what you just said.
Gee. When it fails to be true?
It ain't an argument. It's a GOD DAMNED WAR. ahem... in case you miss that tiny part of it.
What's to follow like a sheep. It's a war. I'm on the side of Israel. You are on neither side. Others are on the side of the beheaders. So?
This ain't some crappy college course with a balding commie in round glasses at the ...[text shortened]...
Or set in your silly ice palace and snort rotten fish.
Who cares what you do?
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotSurely the sanity of anyone who chooses to represent himself as a clone of Lenin must be suspect so why bother to reply to his posts?
his support of his government's actions and your disagreement with his government's actions does not actually mean that he or is government are incorrect in their assessments or decisions.
or has anything to do with the possibility that he may or may not watch fox news, drink coors, etc., etc.
you might be the one in this instance. imagine that 🙂.
He may as well represent himself as Hitler.
16 Jul 06
Do the Americans really think that they would win a war on terrorism?
Ever since they have declared war on terrorism there have been more acts of terrorism,if anything they have created bigger fronts to fight this so called war.
So if anyone is to blame for the terrorist attacks it is good ol America proudly represented by a crazy madmen named George Dubya Bush,he seems to think that what he wants is good for the whole world ,he is now being shown different.
In writing this i do not support terrorism ,i just think you should let sleeping dogs lie.The more you antagonise them the more dangerous and hostile they become.
16 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by boarmanEver since they have declared war on terrorism there have been more acts of terrorism
Do the Americans really think that they would win a war on terrorism?
Ever since they have declared war on terrorism there have been more acts of terrorism,if anything they have created bigger fronts to fight this so called war.
So if anyone is to blame for the terrorist attacks it is good ol America proudly represented by a crazy madmen named George Du ...[text shortened]... d let sleeping dogs lie.The more you antagonise them the more dangerous and hostile they become.
Prove it.
.
.
.
.
Judging from your post below...you can't, and the reason is simple.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOh really? Maybe you'd like to read a little closer before you take the condescending line? Pretty sure I said something drastic must be done against Salafist groups. Did you miss that bit?
So give us your word as to what we SHOULD do. Don't act like a damn UN goof ball.
So far all YOU have said is:
"Do nothing. It's all right. If we just don't think about it or do anything, it'll go away. A night-lite by the door where that big monster lurks when i gotta pee is good. Let's put a night-lite by ALL the dark places. And mommy can come ...[text shortened]... song about the baby falling on it's head from the tree. Mommy scares me with that one!"
I think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and a sound strategic move. I think the effort that was made invading Iraq (where there was only one miniscule Salafist group..., that actually OPPOSED Saddam) was a waste of resources that should have been utilised in Afghanistan. If the new Afghani government had been given much more support, resources and their mandate pushed further than Kabul, a greater reconstruction effort may have been made. I feel that if Afghanistan was a much greater success than it has/n't been, the US would have gained much more international legitimacy for its nation re/building efforts and would have been able to gather a greater international presence for its efforts throughout the Middle East.
If the US is seen to provide for the ME instead of manipulating it for the US's strategic concerns, there would have been a greater chance of success and the global Salafist movement would not have profited from the invasion of Iraq as they have. This is why I think the strategy in the WOT is flawed.
I believe ideological, financial and religious agendas hijacked rational decision making and strategic concerns that should have been obvious. Without the mistake of Iraq, I think there would also have been more co-operation from ME and Nth African governments against the Salafist groups, being that they too are threatened by their presence.
I swear some people on here only want to argue and tell people off rather than discuss issues. I would love to know the average age of the members on this board. I'd also like to know how many people have experience and education working with international security/policy issues.
16 Jul 06
3 edits
Originally posted by xsFrom the US state Dept. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/
Ever since they have declared war on terrorism there have been more acts of terrorism
Prove it.
.
.
.
.
Judging from your post below...you can't, and the reason is simple.
There were 423 international terrorist attacks in 2000, an increase of 8 percent from the 392 attacks recorded during 1999
Despite the horrific events of September 11, the number of international terrorist attacks in 2001 declined to 346, down from 426 the previous year.
International terrorists conducted 199 attacks in 2002, a significant drop (44% ) from the 3US embassy staff load flag-draped casked of US diplomats daugter into a van in Islamabad (Reuters copyrighted photo)55 attacks recorded during 2001.
There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.
As of 2004, the State Dept. changed its methodology of assessing terror attacks and much more analysis will be required to gain these types of states. I just thought some one would like some actual facts on the issue rather than taking easy shots with no actual evidence for either side of the debate.
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by boarmanSo you think th US should do nothing. Shall we msit on our hands? If you think thats a good idea you are mistaken. you are wrong that there are more acts of terrorism. Read "dis-information" by minter it will clear-up your misconseptions.
Do the Americans really think that they would win a war on terrorism?
Ever since they have declared war on terrorism there have been more acts of terrorism,if anything they have created bigger fronts to fight this so called war.
So if anyone is to blame for the terrorist attacks it is good ol America proudly represented by a crazy madmen named George Du ...[text shortened]... d let sleeping dogs lie.The more you antagonise them the more dangerous and hostile they become.
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensYou could, as a nation, try not to provoke the rest of the world by not imposing unfair trade conditions, illegal invasions etc.
So you think th US should do nothing. Shall we msit on our hands? If you think thats a good idea you are mistaken. you are wrong that there are more acts of terrorism. Read "dis-information" by minter it will clear-up your misconseptions.
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by yojohnnyI know I'm only picking out a small part of the report,
From the US state Dept. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64337.htm
but from this
"Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on "security grounds." Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial. "
it sounds like Iran has their very own Guantanamo
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by aging blitzerAnd that's exactly what I'd say it is. People try and make a link between Iran and Al Qaeda, pretty obvious that they don not understand the difference between Salafism and Shi'ism (sp).
I know I'm only picking out a small part of the report,
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64337.htm
but from this
"Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on "security grounds." Iran has also resisted numerous cal ...[text shortened]... ries for interrogation and/or trial. "
it sounds like Iran has their very own Guantanamo