Not too well, I guess; she doesn't want anyone but the choir she preaches to hearing her, apparently. Nothing to do with the cheat-sheet thing on her pa..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How's that pressy-attentiony thing workin' out for 'ya, Sarah?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, February 26, 2010 16:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9490
PAGE 3 of 4

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:11 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Niki, you're wasting your time. You should see him try to debate evolution. It's always, "Where are the missing links? Where are the fossils records?" I think he even asked to see proof of the missing links between his parents and him.



hey hey now.. lets non turn this into an evolution debate. but yeah, there are no missing links.. frankly, we havent seen the evolutionary progression between you and a chimp. not yet anyways, still looking..

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:14 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by traveler:

The recent Pakistan capture of a Taliban leader shows their willingness to support us. Their hiding places are getting fewer and smaller.

Excellent, if true.
I hope it is.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:19 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by traveler:

The recent Pakistan capture of a Taliban leader shows their willingness to support us. Their hiding places are getting fewer and smaller.

Excellent, if true.
I hope it is.

The laughing Chrisisall



US spokesman passes on question of Taliban capture

WASHINGTON — The White House’s lead spokesman is declining to confirm the capture of the Taliban’s top military commander.

Unnamed officials in Pakistan had said earlier Tuesday that a joint CIA-Pakistani operation captured Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Karachi. At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said he would not speak on the matter.

Gibbs told reporters the fight against extremists involves sensitive intelligence matters and he believes it’s best to collect that information without talking about it. Gibbs said reports that Baradar was arrested 10 days ago and was talking to his interrogators were “not helpful.”

Baradar is the most senior Afghan Taliban leader arrested since the beginning of the Afghan war in 2001.

February 16th, 2010

http://breakingnews.gaeatimes.com/2010/02/16/white -house-declines-comment-on-capture-of-taliban-lead er-in-joint-cia-pakistani-move-10761/



Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

While lectures are ADDRESSED AS 'professor', they are not in fact professors.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.




Doesn't matter. When a President is referred to as....


"an egg head from academia" , it's an apt description, given how the University where he worked referred to him, as well as having matriculated at Columbia and Harvard Law.


Lecturer or professor, is mere semantics when talking about from where Obama came, his education, his lack of having run ANYTHING, held any executive position, never made a payroll, come in under budget, or produced ANYTHING.

And the brief time he DID spend in the private sector, he referred to it as being " behind enemy lines ". Real telling on how this guy views the free market.





Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:32 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
What I understand OTB to be saying is that The Fed is The Great Satan, responsible for all economic evils.



you nailed it Rue! thats it, 'nuff said.. ill defend that position.

Quote:

But The Fed was created in 1913. "The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act by President Woodrow Wilson." And note that before that, there were many depressions/ recessions in the US. To list a few: 1807-1814, 1837-1844, 1873-1879, and 1893-1898. Considering the country didn't get going until 1776, that quite a record of economic failures in short order - that, may I note, had nothing to do with The Fed.


the point is that gold and silver are legal tender under the constitution, i promote free markets, and we should have one in money. instead we're stuck with the dollar, and its being intentionaly destroyed. the Fed hasnt brought stability, we're arguably in a worse position now then we've ever been.

Quote:



So apparently neither the silver standard, nor the gold standard, nor a combination of the gold standard AND a lack of The Fed in that idyllic gap between 1900 and 1913 was enough to stop depressions, even severe ones.



but youre underestimating the role the Fed has played in THESE ONES. thats why i posted the link, there is an opposing view in these events

Quote:

What then could be the cause ? Could it be the cyclical nature of capitalism which was elucidated almost 150 years ago ? The fact that the nature of capitalism is as a bistable state - of either grow or contract ?


yes. im simply saying the cycles are distorted when the Fed dictates interest rates, creates capital, monetizes debt etc. its not market driven, its central economic planning






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:42 PM

TRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:

I hope it is.



I hope it is too.
We can't just win battles. We need to win allies.
That is why I mentioned Pakistan. That action gives me hope. Leaving Iraq certainly will help.
I hope the day we leave Afganistan it is because they are free to follow their own path.


http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:46 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by traveler:

We can't just win battles. We need to win allies.

Agreed!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:20 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Somehow between the drone attacks, turning the blackwater crowd loose in their country, giving nuclear support to their mortal enemy next door, siding against people who were their friends the last 20 years to side with someone who constantly meddled with their gov, canceled loans they had promised and whatever else I forgotten or haven't heard about yet...

If the government in Pakistan lasts another 2 or 3 years being a US ally, they'd be very lucky...

And even if there was zero Al-Qaeda in that country, you would still have a large segment of a very populous country hating you, and despite what Niki says hate is one thing those people hold on to...








Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Traveler, I wish I could agree with you about our reason for staying, but aside from that fact that what you describe isn’t IT, it’s also not right, in my opinion. The Taliban and al Qaeda were never friends; there was a brief time when the Taliban tolerated them, but that’s long past. They want control of the country, not global domination.

Rue, thank you; awfully well reasoned, to me.
Quote:

It's the leaving of regulation to those who have goals other than a healthy economy in mind.
That’s how I feel as well, but I don’t blame EVERYTHING on any one cause, as I know neither do you.

By the way, I didn’t see OTB in this thread—are you saying Anti is his sock puppet? Given “Anti” is someone brand new to me and I haven’t seen OTB since he got here, that’s interesting. If that’s not what you’re saying, unconfused me, couldja please? I sure hope the new software makes them impossible, it really makes me paranoid and if this is true, has wasted an AWFUL lot of my time trying to make reasonable points and find backup to support them. Bah.

Thanks, Mike; yes, I gave up. I was trying to have a rational debate because he seemed fairly well spoken and gave good points at first, but it’s obvious the mindset is such that it’s impossible. I will leave it at that. Took up far too much of my day, which is okay if the debate is fair and each side acknowledges the other, but when it gets into hurling slurs for no good reason, and a mind so closed there’s no reasoning with it...sigh...I wish I had walked the dogs again. Beautifully sunny the past couple of days. I DID get them out with my bike real early; not taking the lab again, tho’. The huskies were ahead of me the whole way (even the weeber), but she dragged behind. Just the huskies from now on, and no more trying to reason with that particular closed mind...you’re right about the monopoly on truth; I shouldn’t have kept butting my head...
Quote:

I think the war on terror has to be won by having a really good look at why US foreign policy is producing so much hatred around the world...

until that happens, a new enemys will appear to replace the old... going on forever..

Agreed Gino, especially since that’s what gave birth to them and others in the first place. We did so much more harm than good by invading Iraq, I’m not sure how we crawl out of THAT hole, either.

But on the hate thing, as you indicated, we’ll have to agree to disagree. There’s quite a lot of difference between the attitudes of Afghans and those of Pakistanis, tho’ they cross each other’s borders and there are more similarities in attitude around those areas. Add to that the fact that the history of each with regard to the US is vastly different. You’re right about Pakistan remaining an ally—IF they really ever were. One thing both have in common is a willingness to accept aid without it actually “buying” any loyalty per se. Could you clarify
Quote:

siding against people who were their friends the last 20 years to side with someone who constantly meddled with their gov
for me? I assume you’re talking about Pakistan in that sentence, but if you mean by “friend”, Afghanistan, I disagree. Both Pakistan and India have been trying to meddle with Afghanistan for decades, and there’s been considerable animosity between Pakistan and Afghanistan for the same length of time. Yes, Afghans have taken refuge there...where else are they to go: Russia? At least there’s a common heritage of sorts with Pakistan. But they’ve never been “friends”, not by a long shot!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:36 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


You are quite wrong about Afghanistan and Pakistan Niki, the war with Russia and the support. Not only did refugees seek shelter in Pakistan, but all the material support for the fight against the Soviets moved through their country. The ISI ( Pakistans Intelligence Service ) providing trainers, medics, and other key support.

After the war, the Taliban had excellent relations with Pakistan, and really amounted to the only neighbor they had any contact with... and aid they received in those years came from Pakistan, and in return the ISI ran several training camps there.

Most of the so called al Qaeda camps in southern Afghanistan were in reality ISI camps training fighters going to Kashmir.




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. To an extent you're right, but tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan have historically not been good.
Quote:

Pakistan's largest intelligence service (the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) has long been involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. Cross-border attacks have been occurring before Pakistan was created in 1947 and continued til now.

The present Karzai administration in Kabul feels that the remnants of the former Taliban government are being supported by factions within Pakistan. However, Pakistan has said the government cannot control all elements of its intelligence agency, the ISI, which several countries accuse of contributing to instability in Afghanistan. On June 15 2008, in the after-math of successful major Taliban operations, due to growing internal instability within Afghanistan and the Karzai's government inability to address domestic issues, the Afghan government issued a statement threatening to send its army across the Durand Line in pursuit of rebels stationed along the mountainous border inside Pakistan; the statement caused considerable damage to bilateral relations and was rebuked by Pakistani officials as innapropriate.

There is a long history of bad blood between both countries going way back before the Russian invasion, with those in the Durand Line being kind of stuck in the middle, as it's history, culture, etc, is closely tied on both sides of the border. But as to the governments of both countries, there has historically been a lot of mistrust, and Pakistan has long been recognized as having tried to influence Afghanistan for its own reasons.

Good gawd, I just noticed the title of this thread. How did we get from Palin to Afghanistan/Pakistan? Wow...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:22 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. To an extent you're right, but tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan have historically not been good.
Quote:

Pakistan's largest intelligence service (the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) has long been involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. Cross-border attacks have been occurring before Pakistan was created in 1947 and continued til now.

The present Karzai administration in Kabul feels that the remnants of the former Taliban government are being supported by factions within Pakistan. However, Pakistan has said the government cannot control all elements of its intelligence agency, the ISI, which several countries accuse of contributing to instability in Afghanistan. On June 15 2008, in the after-math of successful major Taliban operations, due to growing internal instability within Afghanistan and the Karzai's government inability to address domestic issues, the Afghan government issued a statement threatening to send its army across the Durand Line in pursuit of rebels stationed along the mountainous border inside Pakistan; the statement caused considerable damage to bilateral relations and was rebuked by Pakistani officials as innapropriate.

There is a long history of bad blood between both countries going way back before the Russian invasion, with those in the Durand Line being kind of stuck in the middle, as it's history, culture, etc, is closely tied on both sides of the border. But as to the governments of both countries, there has historically been a lot of mistrust, and Pakistan has long been recognized as having tried to influence Afghanistan for its own reasons.

Good gawd, I just noticed the title of this thread. How did we get from Palin to Afghanistan/Pakistan? Wow...






I guess our differences is I tend to focus on post Soviet invasion Pakistan, with the changes that brought, as well as not counting the opinion of the present Karzai administration in Kabul as being that of all of Afghanistan, or even relevant. Like many Afghans I see him as a puppet ex pat who sides with criminals and foreigners.

Also you do have a bias against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, that I think blinds you abit to some of the implications involved. Both organizations have the good as well as the bad, I think both need to be considered.

As for present ISI / Taliban intrigue here is an interesting German article, which speculates the ISI is playing a long game strategy, influencing which Taliban leader they will be dealing with when the US pulls out...


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,678479,00.html

Arrest of Taliban Leader a 'Trump Card' for Pakistan

Tuesday's announcement that a top Taliban official is in prison in Pakistan represents an important victory in the fight against Islamist extremists in Afghanistan. German commentators, though, doubt whether the arrest means the dawning of a new age of cooperation between Islamabad and the West.

The arrest is being celebrated as an important success in the ongoing struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Tuesday, it emerged that Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, considered to be just below leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in the Taliban hierarchy, had been apprehended earlier this month. On Wednesday, Pakistani military officials confirmed the arrest.

But what is good for the US is potentially embarrassing for Pakistan. Baradar, alleged to have served as a go-between between Mullah Omar and Taliban field commanders, was picked up in the Pakistani city of Karachi. The Pakistani intelligence service ISI was involved in the operation, but it casts doubt on Pakistani claims that top Taliban leaders were all in Afghanistan. The arrest, however, could signal a new Pakistani willingness to work together with NATO forces currently fighting in Afghanistan.

Just what the arrest means for the Taliban remains to be seen. One Taliban spokesman denied the reports, saying it was nothing but propaganda. But a Taliban commander confirmed the arrest in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Mullah Baradar travelled to Pakistan 10 days ago and five days ago we learned that he was arrested in Karachi," Mullah Wali Jan said.

German commentators on Wednesday take a closer look at the operation.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"(In arresting Baradar, Pakistan) is finally acknowledging that it has a problem with extremism. That might sound fairly banal, but it's no small step for a country like Pakistan, which usually keeps mum about such issues. Moreover, the fact that the arrest was made so far from the unstable border region with Afghanistan shows just how bad things have already gotten in Pakistan."

"However, the arrest does not prove by a long shot that Washington and Islamabad now share the same interests when it comes to Afghanistan's ultimate fate. Pakistan assumes that the Taliban will be a decisive power factor in its neighboring country once NATO withdraws its troops. The Western powers' desire to bring their troops home as quickly as possible strengthens the pragmatic view in Pakistan: Islamabad wants to be prepared for the day when the Taliban numbers among the decision-makers in Kabul -- and to not cause any permanent damage to its relationship with the Taliban. In that sense, nothing has really changed."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"(Baradar's arrest) could end up providing excellent information, for example, on the extent and intensity of ties that the Taliban continues to have with elements in the Pakistani intelligence apparatus. His arrest could also indicate that Pakistan has really decided to finally put some curbs on the trouble caused by militant Islamists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Time will also tell whether the arrest is the opening move in a larger game involving negotiations with so-called 'moderate' Taliban. The fact that the Taliban has vehemently denied the arrest shows just how much his loss affects them -- and perhaps just how much more serious the consequences will be."

Left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"The first question that Baradar's arrest in Pakistan raises is whether it will weaken the Taliban over the long term in its fight against the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai and his NATO allies. In the past, the Taliban has always shown itself capable of compensating for loss -- even of key commanders -- very quickly. … As head of day-to-day operations, though, Baradar is somewhat more important that other commanders. His loss will surely have consequences on the ongoing Helmand offensive."

"The second question is whether it can harm President Karzai's push for reconciliation with the Taliban.... Up to now, Pakistani intelligence services have preferred to apprehend those Taliban leaders who were open to talks. This includes Baradar, who gave his blessing to holding talks with the United Nations in January."

"On the other hand, were Pakistan to negotiate with the Taliban via Baradar, it wouldn't be the first time a deal was struck with the imprisoned leader of one's enemies. Whatever Pakistan is considering, it now has a trump card it can use in Afghanistan talks and to exert influence on its neighbor."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"For a long time, all of the parties involved in the conflict … have been in contact with each other via secret channels. This is particularly the case with Pakistan … which is better networked than others. Indeed, Islamabad has shown just how well informed it is with the sudden 'detection' of one of the most important members of the Taliban. Some responsibility for this also lies with the Pakistani Taliban itself, whose brutal campaign of terror has driven Pakistan into a permanent crisis. Islamabad is determined to make sure that its own strategic interests will be kept in mind during the negotiations aimed at finding a solution to the problems in Afghanistan. As Baradar's arrest shows, if this precondition is met, Pakistan is willing to help. Peace is still a long way off in Afghanistan. But, when it does arrive, if India's position in the Hindu Kush becomes too strong, for example, or the Pakistanis believe that their economic interests have been given short shrift, its generals could also sabotage each and every agreement."

Josh Ward





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:18 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No, I don't put any faith in Karzai either, and see him just as you described. I was just trying to point out historical matters. You may be right that, after the Russian invasion, attitudes have changed. Obviously I can't speak to that.

Yes, I have a virulent dislike of both, but while I see potential possibilities for the Taliban, unpleasant tho' the thought may be, I find it impossible to see any "good" in al Qaeda. What good do you see?

As for the German articles, I found them most interesting. It's always helpful to see other countries' views on what's happening. Thank you.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:24 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
No, I don't put any faith in Karzai either, and see him just as you described. I was just trying to point out historical matters. You may be right that, after the Russian invasion, attitudes have changed. Obviously I can't speak to that.

Yes, I have a virulent dislike of both, but while I see potential possibilities for the Taliban, unpleasant tho' the thought may be, I find it impossible to see any "good" in al Qaeda. What good do you see?

As for the German articles, I found them most interesting. It's always helpful to see other countries' views on what's happening. Thank you.






al Qaeda has several points in what fuels their outrage,

if only there was some other way to address these issues


we have talked about many of them here,

The Israel / Palestine issue remains the biggest obstacle to peace in the region, and the one sided support the US has given, makes the US culpable to Israeli policy...

US military basing in Saudi and elsewhere, this props up corrupt govs and prevent any sort of change in government that might begin locally

The deaths caused by the Iraqi sanctions, in 1998 the UN released figures that 500,000 children had died, mostly from cholera as the US had bombed out all water treatment facility's and the sanctions prevented the import of replacement equipment and chemicals... When confronted with that number Madeline Albright called it a small price for US security ( how would that make you feel )

Other examples, I'd have to pull out some books to do their description justice

basically they came together from many smaller groups who were at odds with US policy, and suffered for it

Islamic Jihad originally tried to force multi party elections in Egypt, then were declared a criminal organization, many of its member arrested and tortured ( by a US funded, trained and support Egyptian intelligence service )

as this fight became dirtier and dirtier the more extreme element, became the ones who survived and carried on the fight... lots of historical president there

I wish people would look at why they are fighting, and acknowledge the US has done many wrongs as well ( well over the 2000 people bodycount that outraged the US so much )

Maybe then US foreign policy might get some pressure to change, and maybe this war will find its end... because the way it is going, it will never stop.



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Gino; I agree with you on every single point; our unilateral backing of Israel has bothered me for a long time now.

But the question of what "good" there is in al Qaeda...you didn't answer that, and I'd really like to hear. I don't consider their anger, although VERY well deserved, to be a "good" in what they are doing.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:50 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Gino; I agree with you on every single point; our unilateral backing of Israel has bothered me for a long time now.

But the question of what "good" there is in al Qaeda...you didn't answer that, and I'd really like to hear. I don't consider their anger, although VERY well deserved, to be a "good" in what they are doing.





I suppose the good is they have brought these issues out into the open... and moved the world in the direction to resolve them

that without something stopping it US foreign policy would remain unchanged, continue to cause the crap we both seem to object to but cannot stop.

While what they are doing and US policy would constitute two wrongs, perhaps two wrongs can make a right... Looking at how long these things have gone on, unchecked...

In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

Its not like we listen to their issues, or the UN, or any other mechanism exists... with diplomacy removed the only options are acceptance of the wrongs that were and are being done to them, or escalation.

We are facing change now, one way or the other... I suppose I'm saying that is good in the long run.
The issues which generated their anger will eventually be resolved, or the price to maintain the status quo will bring down the system that created those conditions, and then those issues will resolve themselves.

Resolution = Good

Better options just don't seem to exist, please show me I'm wrong about that...







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:53 PM

CHRISISALL


Gino goes blue...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:11 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


No answer Niki ?





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:15 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


No answer Niki ?

double post




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I find it bewildering that there are those who think al Qaeda is doing any of their terrorism , their 'jihad' against the West on behalf of Israel's existence.


It's one of a long list of 'demands' these medieval whack jobs have against the rest of the world.

To think that it starts and stops there? ...Wow.



Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:29 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


In their shoes, how would you effect change ?


I would release Dark Angel widescreen & Robocop the series like they have in the UK, so we wouldn't be so pissed & wanna f**k things up all over the world!!


Uh...


Sorry. I seem to be a bit hyper-focused here...

Carry on.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:43 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


In their shoes, how would you effect change ?


I would release Dark Angel widescreen & Robocop the series like they have in the UK, so we wouldn't be so pissed & wanna f**k things up all over the world!!


Uh...


Sorry. I seem to be a bit hyper-focused here...

Carry on.


The laughing Chrisisall



Bring Dark Angel back period...

I liked that show...

BTW you hear something ? the buzz of the missing bees perhaps?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:56 PM

CHRISISALL


Just some pro-Zionist anti-World static filtering thru; pay it no mind.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:18 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Cool, thought my speakers were buggered








Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:22 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


In their shoes, how would you effect change ?


I would release Dark Angel widescreen & Robocop the series like they have in the UK, so we wouldn't be so pissed & wanna f**k things up all over the world!!


Uh...


Sorry. I seem to be a bit hyper-focused here...

Carry on.


The laughing Chrisisall



Bring Dark Angel back period...

I liked that show...

BTW you hear something ? the buzz of the missing bees perhaps?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"




Sounded more like a big wet fart.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:33 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

It's one of a long list of 'demands' these medieval whack jobs have against the rest of the world.


This does sound like pro-zionist head-in-the-sand denial: "Even IF Israel made concessions and agreed Middle East Peace, it wouldn't solve any of the worlds problems..."

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:55 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I suppose the good is they have brought these issues out into the open... and moved the world in the direction to resolve them

that without something stopping it US foreign policy would remain unchanged, continue to cause the crap we both seem to object to but cannot stop.

While what they are doing and US policy would constitute two wrongs, perhaps two wrongs can make a right... Looking at how long these things have gone on, unchecked...

In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

Its not like we listen to their issues, or the UN, or any other mechanism exists... with diplomacy removed the only options are acceptance of the wrongs that were and are being done to them, or escalation.

We are facing change now, one way or the other... I suppose I'm saying that is good in the long run.
The issues which generated their anger will eventually be resolved, or the price to maintain the status quo will bring down the system that created those conditions, and then those issues will resolve themselves.

Resolution = Good

Better options just don't seem to exist, please show me I'm wrong about that...










Or, in the terms of another analogy, the Middle East are the whales, and the U.S. is the whaling fleet claiming it's acting legally, and Al Qaeda is the Sea Shepherds, trying in vain to stop the killing by any means necessary.

:)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 6:28 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I suppose the good is they have brought these issues out into the open... and moved the world in the direction to resolve them

that without something stopping it US foreign policy would remain unchanged, continue to cause the crap we both seem to object to but cannot stop.

While what they are doing and US policy would constitute two wrongs, perhaps two wrongs can make a right... Looking at how long these things have gone on, unchecked...

In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

Its not like we listen to their issues, or the UN, or any other mechanism exists... with diplomacy removed the only options are acceptance of the wrongs that were and are being done to them, or escalation.

We are facing change now, one way or the other... I suppose I'm saying that is good in the long run.
The issues which generated their anger will eventually be resolved, or the price to maintain the status quo will bring down the system that created those conditions, and then those issues will resolve themselves.

Resolution = Good

Better options just don't seem to exist, please show me I'm wrong about that...










Or, in the terms of another analogy, the Middle East are the whales, and the U.S. is the whaling fleet claiming it's acting legally, and Al Qaeda is the Sea Shepherds, trying in vain to stop the killing by any means necessary.

:)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde




But if a function UN or World Court existed where all groups and problems could get fair, consistent rulings, as well as enforceable judgements on said rulings

You would be able to address Both groups and their problems


Diplomacy is so dysfunctionaly one sided on the side of the G8, even if you are in the right you are in the wrong




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 6:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Or, in the terms of another analogy, the Middle East are the whales, and the U.S. is the whaling fleet claiming it's acting legally, and Al Qaeda is the Sea Shepherds, trying in vain to stop the killing by any means necessary.




worst....analogy....ever.



Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 7:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Gino, did you hear a fart?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 7:22 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 7:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


"With the market these days, if you own anything but land, you own a popcorn fart!"


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 20, 2010 6:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Gino: Went to bed.

I see no good whatsoever in what they’re doing. They’re universally labeled “bad guys”, which means their view is rejected, first of all. Second, nothing like what Al Qaeda is doing will change foreign policy, our government has to do that, and hasn’t in almost a hundred years. All they’re doing is killing a bunch of innocent people in order to make a statement, which statement is lost on the wind...not our wind, the world’s. Our wind thinks America can do wrong, foreign policy-wise. Two wrongs never do make a right.

What would I do? I dunno, make allies enough to have some kind of power against us—financial would be the best, we likes our money. It would take another power, or combination of powers, to change our policies. Otherwise it’s just up to the government in power at the time, and Obama’s made a first step in recognizing (somewhat!) the sovereignty of other nations and showing SOME respect.

Al Qaeda will do nothing to change America’s foreign policy; we’ll just continue to hunt them down, and actually, their actions have led to us occupying Afghanistan...Yemen, Syria, maybe others will be next. How does that effect good change?

Aside from which, Al Qaeda isn’t going after us for our foreign policy...they’re an ideologically Islamist group (however loosely run) and their aim is world domination and killing all the “infidels”. Changing our foreign policy doesn’t interest them, they want to wipe us out (at least that’s what they claim, we all know differently).

Terrorism doesn’t solve anything. No amount of “bringing it out into the open” will change foreign policy; it’s already IN the open and has been for a long time. That’s how I see it.

I do agree with you 100% that
Quote:

if a function UN or World Court existed where all groups and problems could get fair, consistent rulings, as well as enforceable judgements on said rulings
But none such exists, or is likely to as long as America is such a world power. Perhaps as we continue our decline, we’ll have less sway, and that’s coming. But for now, it’s a fantasy.

Mike, I see your analogy, but it’s not really pertinent given the difference between the Sea Shepherd’s actions and those of Al Qaeda. A better one might be Frem’s hashisheen (Sea Shepherd) going after the Karzai government (“legal”) for its abuse of its citizens (whales). One can come up with myriad analogies if one wants to, but they’re irrelevant.

Yeah, I heard that too, but I actually heard some words whistling on the wind...some that actually made SENSE, scary as that is. Something about “waaaccckkk jooooobssss” and “woooorst annnaaaalllloooogy”, which I actually agree with!

Boy, we sure wandered a long way from Sarah Palin, hee, hee, hee!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:30 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:


I see no good whatsoever in what they’re doing. They’re universally labeled “bad guys”, which means their view is rejected, first of all.



Rejected by who? They are not out to win American hearts and minds, they have given up on the existence of either. Their revolution is going to happen on the streets of Karachi, Aden, Cairo, etc
Quote:




Second, nothing like what Al Qaeda is doing will change foreign policy, our government has to do that, and hasn’t in almost a hundred years.



How many brushfire wars can the US afford to fight? Look at the cost of having troops in Afghanistan, add Yemen, Somalia, the Phillipines, Indonesian, maybe a redeployment to Iraq, maybe a civil war in Egypt... in addition to the additional security forces deployed inside the US to hassle Americans. To say they haven't changed US policy is foolish, this is as close to taking down your government as anyone has even been.
Quote:




All they’re doing is killing a bunch of innocent people in order to make a statement, which statement is lost on the wind...not our wind, the world’s.



How do you define innocent ? As I have posted before the US govs definition seems to change with whatever their objective are. They have decided that if you pay taxes to a government, vote in their elections, live under their roof... you share responsibly for their actions. This isn`t new thinking, look at the fire bombing of Dresden, or the nuking of Japan as examples.
Quote:




Our wind thinks America can do wrong, foreign policy-wise. Two wrongs never do make a right.




And sometimes you can only fight evil, with another type of evil
Quote:



What would I do? I dunno, make allies enough to have some kind of power against us—financial would be the best, we likes our money. It would take another power, or combination of powers, to change our policies.



And now you are spending your money faster than it is coming in, now and for the foreseeable future until you change your ways. You own the financial world, nobody is going to support a push as you suggest, but view this as a variation


Quote:


Otherwise it’s just up to the government in power at the time, and Obama’s made a first step in recognizing (somewhat!) the sovereignty of other nations and showing SOME respect.




Obama is all talk, he hasn`t done anything concrete, how many decades do you wait for action...
Quote:



Al Qaeda will do nothing to change America’s foreign policy; we’ll just continue to hunt them down, and actually, their actions have led to us occupying Afghanistan...Yemen, Syria, maybe others will be next. How does that effect good change?



Keep Going, wear your vaunted military down, spend, spend, spend. How long can you keep it up, and everywhere you go you make more people upset enough with you to take up arms to fight you. Allied Countries will number less and less over time... Canada and the Dutch are leaving Afghanistan soon, Germany is debating the same as a overwhelming majority of people there are calling for their gov to pull out. The harder you push, the weak you will get.

Quote:



Aside from which, Al Qaeda isn’t going after us for our foreign policy...they’re an ideologically Islamist group (however loosely run) and their aim is world domination and killing all the “infidels”.



So says Faux News, with all the lies fed the MSM you want to pick and choose the ones you believe?

Quote:



Changing our foreign policy doesn’t interest them, they want to wipe us out (at least that’s what they claim, we all know differently).




see comment above, as a start I suggest reading this
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Inc-Inside-Secret/dp/0743205022
written by the only Western Journalist to get an interview

Besides, even if I am misreading this, changing your foreign policy would have both the effect of dampening their recruiting, as well as removing their targets from their sphere of influence

Quote:



Terrorism doesn’t solve anything. No amount of “bringing it out into the open” will change foreign policy; it’s already IN the open and has been for a long time. That’s how I see it.




And nothing has changed, and hundreds of thousands of their people have got down as a result. Terrorism is the only option short of obedience left to them

Quote:


I do agree with you 100% that
Quote:

if a function UN or World Court existed where all groups and problems could get fair, consistent rulings, as well as enforceable judgements on said rulings
But none such exists, or is likely to as long as America is such a world power.



Then perhaps it is time for America to decline as a power, perhaps this will be that catalysis for change

Quote:



Perhaps as we continue our decline, we’ll have less sway, and that’s coming. But for now, it’s a fantasy.




Rome wouldn`t have declined without the barbarians and huns, perhaps this is the example they are following... The loss of prestige, economy and military power are paralleled surprising close


Quote:



Mike, I see your analogy, but it’s not really pertinent given the difference between the Sea Shepherd’s actions and those of Al Qaeda. A better one might be Frem’s hashisheen (Sea Shepherd) going after the Karzai government (“legal”) for its abuse of its citizens (whales). One can come up with myriad analogies if one wants to, but they’re irrelevant.




Not really, the question is what law exists outside the law? Their is no law to reign the US in, as their is no law to reign the whalers in. Both problems could be addressed, if only a fair impartial, non politically driven process was available as an option. But TPTB do not want that sort of check to their power.


Quote:



Yeah, I heard that too, but I actually heard some words whistling on the wind...some that actually made SENSE, scary as that is. Something about “waaaccckkk jooooobssss” and “woooorst annnaaaalllloooogy”, which I actually agree with!



Gas has no opinion, it just smells, thats what it does




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 20, 2010 5:32 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


I spoke of this earlier but here are some cites


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/02/201022033131334896.ht
ml


Dutch cabinet falls over Afghan row

The Netherlands' coalition government has collapsed after the two largest parties failed to agree on whether to withdraw Dutch troops from Afghanistan later this year, as had been planned.

Germany

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,677289,00.html

Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/18/afghan-liberals.html



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 4:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Aside from which, Al Qaeda isn’t going after us for our foreign policy...they’re an ideologically Islamist group (however loosely run) and their aim is world domination and killing all the “infidels”.



I take issue with that. Al Qaeda is a fundamentally NON-Islamic group. The actions they take and endorse are specifically forbidden by the text of the Koran; even their "Jihad" explicitly breaks the rules of the Koran - and yes, Jihad *DOES* have rules.

Al Qaeda is a fundamentally, ideologically anti-Western group, and their aim is getting the U.S. and "the West" out of the MIddle East. The "killing all the infidels" thing is a line of hooey right up there with them "hating our freedom".

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

The "killing all the infidels" thing is a line of hooey right up there with them "hating our freedom".






Daniel Pearl

(October 10, 1963 – February 1, 2002)



Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 8:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Gino: Whew, long comeback! Let’s see; if/when America ceases to be a world power (which I definitely think is on the way), we’ll have to see what changes come. Yes, spreading our military out has been a stated intent of theirs. But even if we “shrink”, I find it hard to believe our willingness to go to war will be much changed; once we recover, I’ll betcha we do it all over again. It’s in our nature as a government to love the military, it seems to me.

How do I define “innocent”? All the people injured and killed called “collateral damage”. Us AND them. As to fighting evil with evil, I don’t believe in that. Our government does, as has been obvious, and I don’t know if they’ll ever figure it out, but I don’t think it works in the end. History has proven that terrorism ALWAYS fails; if Al qaeda can change that, it’ll be interesting, but I don’t believe they will.

As to Obama being all talk, what I meant is that his public dealings with the rest of the world haven’t been the bullying and boasting of Dumbya’s. He’s at least showing respect; that helps, at least, make some of the world hate us less. What they’re actually DOING, I have doubt any of it has changed much, you’re right.

Gino and Mike both: When it comes to Al qaeda’s intent, I shouldn’t have said they’re not after us for our foreign policy, that was a misstatement. No, I don’t believe that—it’s our foreign policy that got us into this mess, and yes, I recognize it’s about the mideast, not religion. Religion is USED to recruit, brainwash, manipulate, etc., and it has worked nicely many times throughout history. I don’t think most people know enough about the actual tenants of their religion to question what they’re told, any more than Christian fundamentalists actually grasp the tenants of Christianity. So those thought of as speaking for whatever god are just accepted as doing so.

No, I don’t believe Faux News was the one to put that up or encourage it...at least not alone. Dumbya started that one, and I think there is a certain number of Al qaeda which believe they are on a true jihad. I don’t think most people understand the true meaning of “jihad”, so, see above.

Actually, Gino’s link has one pertinent statement which backs up what I said: “Bergen asserts that bin Laden's hostility emanates from his religious opposition to an American military presence in Saudi Arabia, American policy toward Israel, and the "un-Islamic" behavior of Egypt and Saudi Arabia”. “Religious opposition”; whatever other motives they embrace, however wrongly it’s used, I think that’s a biggie.

Time for America to decline in power? It already IS, and has been for quite some time. The decline of America as an empire fits all the signs that have been there for every empire’s decline. “The decline of the Roman Empire refers to both the gradual disintegration of the economy of Rome and the barbarian invasions that were its final doom.” (Wikipedia) There is far more involved in the decline of an empire, and it’s decline is usually what contributes to it being invaded/conqured by some other power. “The decline of the Ottoman Empire (1828–1908) is the period that followed after the stagnation of the Ottoman Empire (1683–1827) in which the empire experienced several economic and political setbacks.”
Quote:

In at least a rough and tumble sort of way, I take it as an historical truth that although many small states in the past perished as a result of being invaded and defeated by stronger foreign states, the most powerful states, like the Roman Empire in the West and other great empires in Persia, India, and China in the East, all eventually declined after their days of glory and ultimately perished primarily as a result of their own internal corruptions and decay, rather than as a result of being invaded and defeated by other states. If a mighty empire is finally defeated and destroyed militarily by a foreign state, it is after it has already grown too weak to defend itself as a result of a long, ongoing process of internal decay, which is the true underlying cause of its eventual demise.

In at least a rough and tumble sort of way, I take it as an historical truth that although many small states in the past perished as a result of being invaded and defeated by stronger foreign states, the most powerful states, like the Roman Empire in the West and other great empires in Persia, India, and China in the East, all eventually declined after their days of glory and ultimately perished primarily as a result of their own internal corruptions and decay, rather than as a result of being invaded and defeated by other states. If a mighty empire is finally defeated and destroyed militarily by a foreign state, it is after it has already grown too weak to defend itself as a result of a long, ongoing process of internal decay, which is the true underlying cause of its eventual demise.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Decline-of-Empires-in--by-Nathan-
Nahm-080713-403.html
Quote:

History teaches three pretty clear messages.

One is that all empires die.

Second, empires take a long time to die. Finally, the citizens of the empire rarely recognize the warning signs for what they are.

The necessity for change is immutable. Empires by their natures do not change very well. They have had positive feedback for not changing -- usually it's called "standing by our principles" -- for years, even centuries.

Empires think they have beaten the rule of change. They haven't. Empires think size will protect them. It won't. Empires think military might will protect them. It won't. Empires think charismatic leaders will protect them. They won't. Nothing will. The old makes way for the new.

The American empire is beginning to die. We will not see its death, nor will our grandchildren, but it is dying. Its leaders, sensing trouble, are fetishizing the "old ways," the ways that brought us power in a different world, a world in which America was young and the other empires were fading.

They have made denial a national creed. They have made arrogance a national stance. "We do not need the others because we are America," they say. A dying empire is like a dying dinosaur; the only question is how much damage the huge tail will do as it thrashes around.

http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/suncol2.html

There are many things that contribute to an empire’s decline. Lack of innovation, declination of art, education, gap between rich and poor, and much more. We’ve shown all the signs for decades. Decline in military might is the result of decay within the society.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:51 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Gino: Whew, long comeback! Let’s see; if/when America ceases to be a world power (which I definitely think is on the way), we’ll have to see what changes come. Yes, spreading our military out has been a stated intent of theirs. But even if we “shrink”, I find it hard to believe our willingness to go to war will be much changed; once we recover, I’ll betcha we do it all over again. It’s in our nature as a government to love the military, it seems to me.



Sure, are your nature will be your undoing

Quote:



How do I define “innocent”? All the people injured and killed called “collateral damage”. Us AND them. As to fighting evil with evil, I don’t believe in that. Our government does, as has been obvious, and I don’t know if they’ll ever figure it out, but I don’t think it works in the end. History has proven that terrorism ALWAYS fails; if Al qaeda can change that, it’ll be interesting, but I don’t believe they will.




Always fails ? How about Israel? they started off as terrorists, or Frems favorite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin#Downfall_and_aftermath,
or Castros Cuban revolution, or the revolution of the United States...

Quote:



As to Obama being all talk, what I meant is that his public dealings with the rest of the world haven’t been the bullying and boasting of Dumbya’s. He’s at least showing respect; that helps, at least, make some of the world hate us less. What they’re actually DOING, I have doubt any of it has changed much, you’re right.




Which is worse, he is two faced. Talks with respect, acts without. What message does that send, and what response does it deserve

Quote:



Gino and Mike both: When it comes to Al qaeda’s intent, I shouldn’t have said they’re not after us for our foreign policy, that was a misstatement. No, I don’t believe that—it’s our foreign policy that got us into this mess, and yes, I recognize it’s about the mideast, not religion. Religion is USED to recruit, brainwash, manipulate, etc., and it has worked nicely many times throughout history. I don’t think most people know enough about the actual tenants of their religion to question what they’re told, any more than Christian fundamentalists actually grasp the tenants of Christianity. So those thought of as speaking for whatever god are just accepted as doing so.



Its not just religion used like that, watch any event when they wave your flag and go about America is si great and related crap. I put all that in the same box

Quote:



No, I don’t believe Faux News was the one to put that up or encourage it...at least not alone. Dumbya started that one, and I think there is a certain number of Al qaeda which believe they are on a true jihad. I don’t think most people understand the true meaning of “jihad”, so, see above.




They were the ultimate example of the flame fanning, and that was the position you seemed to be taking.

Quote:



Actually, Gino’s link has one pertinent statement which backs up what I said: “Bergen asserts that bin Laden's hostility emanates from his religious opposition to an American military presence in Saudi Arabia, American policy toward Israel, and the "un-Islamic" behavior of Egypt and Saudi Arabia”. “Religious opposition”; whatever other motives they embrace, however wrongly it’s used, I think that’s a biggie.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

Quote:



Time for America to decline in power? It already IS, and has been for quite some time. The decline of America as an empire fits all the signs that have been there for every empire’s decline. “The decline of the Roman Empire refers to both the gradual disintegration of the economy of Rome and the barbarian invasions that were its final doom.” (Wikipedia) There is far more involved in the decline of an empire, and it’s decline is usually what contributes to it being invaded/conqured by some other power. “The decline of the Ottoman Empire (1828–1908) is the period that followed after the stagnation of the Ottoman Empire (1683–1827) in which the empire experienced several economic and political setbacks.”
Quote:

In at least a rough and tumble sort of way, I take it as an historical truth that although many small states in the past perished as a result of being invaded and defeated by stronger foreign states, the most powerful states, like the Roman Empire in the West and other great empires in Persia, India, and China in the East, all eventually declined after their days of glory and ultimately perished primarily as a result of their own internal corruptions and decay, rather than as a result of being invaded and defeated by other states. If a mighty empire is finally defeated and destroyed militarily by a foreign state, it is after it has already grown too weak to defend itself as a result of a long, ongoing process of internal decay, which is the true underlying cause of its eventual demise.





Screw eventual, I would like to see the United States split into 3 or 4 smaller countrys in my lifetime. The Romans also went through a similar phase.

Quote:



In at least a rough and tumble sort of way, I take it as an historical truth that although many small states in the past perished as a result of being invaded and defeated by stronger foreign states, the most powerful states, like the Roman Empire in the West and other great empires in Persia, India, and China in the East, all eventually declined after their days of glory and ultimately perished primarily as a result of their own internal corruptions and decay, rather than as a result of being invaded and defeated by other states. If a mighty empire is finally defeated and destroyed militarily by a foreign state, it is after it has already grown too weak to defend itself as a result of a long, ongoing process of internal decay, which is the true underlying cause of its eventual demise.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Decline-of-Empires-in--by-Nathan-
Nahm-080713-403.html
Quote:

History teaches three pretty clear messages.

One is that all empires die.

Second, empires take a long time to die. Finally, the citizens of the empire rarely recognize the warning signs for what they are.

The necessity for change is immutable. Empires by their natures do not change very well. They have had positive feedback for not changing -- usually it's called "standing by our principles" -- for years, even centuries.

Empires think they have beaten the rule of change. They haven't. Empires think size will protect them. It won't. Empires think military might will protect them. It won't. Empires think charismatic leaders will protect them. They won't. Nothing will. The old makes way for the new.

The American empire is beginning to die. We will not see its death, nor will our grandchildren, but it is dying. Its leaders, sensing trouble, are fetishizing the "old ways," the ways that brought us power in a different world, a world in which America was young and the other empires were fading.

They have made denial a national creed. They have made arrogance a national stance. "We do not need the others because we are America," they say. A dying empire is like a dying dinosaur; the only question is how much damage the huge tail will do as it thrashes around.

http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/suncol2.html

There are many things that contribute to an empire’s decline. Lack of innovation, declination of art, education, gap between rich and poor, and much more. We’ve shown all the signs for decades. Decline in military might is the result of decay within the society.





True, but one thing that I think you are missing, the decline of your other examples did not happen with our more modern technology. Not only do we have farther to fall, modern communications pass information instantly, where it took weeks and months before. Leaders are disgraced and denounced at a speed unseen before. Figure that as well as other tech wonders into the models as well as the dependence on the global economy...

Could be alot faster than you realize




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Posted by Niki2:


Actually, Gino’s link has one pertinent statement which backs up what I said: “Bergen asserts that bin Laden's hostility emanates from his religious opposition to an American military presence in Saudi Arabia, American policy toward Israel, and the "un-Islamic" behavior of Egypt and Saudi Arabia”. “Religious opposition”; whatever other motives they embrace, however wrongly it’s used, I think that’s a biggie.



And there's the rub. Bin Laden may have what he calls a "religious opposition" to the behavior of the West and the behaviors and reactions of the mid-east, but he's taken that "religious opposition" and distorted it in a vain justification for acting in a way that is contrary to the core fundamentals of Islam.

He is to Islam what Scott Roeder is to Christianity. He wants to murder, and he's found what he considers a religious justification for his simple blood lust. Al Qaeda is a reflection on Islam as a religion to the exact same degree that murdering doctors who perform legal abortions is a reflection on Christianity.

As for your comments and links on the death of empire, I completely agree. And it's funny, because if you make the mistake in today's climate of "committing truth" in pointing out that we ARE an empire in decline, and that trying to prove otherwise by lashing out militarily only hastens that decline, not forestalls it, then you're labeled anti-American by those who are so eager to claim that we're not in decline at all. We've seen, since the ascendency of America as a nation, the decline of the empires of the French, the British, the Dutch, and Spanish, the Germans (twice!), the Russians, the Japanese, and more. Their empires are gone, our shrunk to a fraction of their previous influence and power, yet the countries behind those empires are still alive, vibrant, and strong; in some cases, they're better now than they ever were before.

And end to empire is in no way an end to greatness.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:31 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Israel, as far as I know, was helped to be set up by several other countries.
Quote:

Following World War I, Great Britain received (1922) Palestine as a mandate from the League of Nations. The struggle by Jews for a Jewish state in Palestine had begun in the late 19th cent. and had become quite active by the 1930s and 40s. The militant opposition of the Arabs to such a state and the inability of the British to solve the problem eventually led to the establishment (1947) of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which devised a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small internationally administered zone including Jerusalem.
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/I/Israel-history.html
Whatever they do today, they didn’t start out as “terrorists” per se.

Cuba was a revolution, as was America. We weren’t terrorists per se either, in my opinion and from what history shows. We used different TACTICS than the British, but it was a declared War of Independence. In Cuba,
Quote:

Castro’s attempts in the 1960’s to bring revolutionary, anti-American regimes to power failed. His support for guerrillas and terrorist groups in Guatemala, Venezuela, and Bolivia only produced violence and suffering to those countries and their people, which repudiated violence as a means to achieve power.
http://www.cubanterrorism.com/chronology.htm

The hashisheen were true terrorists, but in the end they achieved nothing lasting.

I realize my view won’t be shared by everyone, but it’s my view.

I agree wholeheartedly about nationalism working as well as religion (well, almost as well). Anything that creates “us v. them” mentality can work, some more effectively than others.

I think Faux News followed the administration’s “flame fanning”, and that was the origin of the propaganda.

I’d need clarification as to how Joan of Arc is pertinent, I don’t get it, sorry.

I agree that things move much faster these days, never said or thought otherwise; our decline has really only been since WWII, and is moving faster than previous empires’. No argument there. I don’t know about multiple other countries—a lot of us sure would like it (hell, many Californians would like to split THIS state!)—but without conquest which resulted in countries’ boundaries changing such as in Europe or Asia, I’m not sure how it will/would happen. It’s like envisioning Australia or Canada splitting up--only time will tell.

Mike, I agree with everything you said. I'm not sure about the word "greatness", but other than that, yes, it has been healthier when "empires" become just "countries"--the wider empires spread, the more it contributes to their decline. In that we are well on our way, as well.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

But even if we “shrink”, I find it hard to believe our willingness to go to war will be much changed; once we recover, I’ll betcha we do it all over again. It’s in our nature as a government to love the military, it seems to me.


And how damn sad is that? For all their talk of reducing spending and not taxing the people, the ONE thing the tea-baggers still insist we MUST spend our money on is defense. Why is it that NOBODY will consider cutting even a single dollar from our defense budget? We refuse to ask ourselves WHY we feel the need to spend almost as much on defense as the entire rest of the world combined.



Oh, and as an aside, all that talk about Bin Laden wanting to kill all the infidels because he hates our freedom? He seems to find Muslims to be overwhelimingly more "infidelic" and free, it would seem.

Quote:

The fact is that the vast majority
of al‐Qa’ida’s victims are Muslims: the analysis here shows that only 15% of the
fatalities resulting from al‐Qa’ida attacks between 2004 and 2008 were Westerners.

The results show that non‐Westerners are much more likely to be killed in an al‐Qa’ida
attack. From 2004 to 2008, only 15% percent of the 3,010 victims were Western. During
the most recent period studied the numbers skew even further. From 2006 to 2008, only
2% (12 of 661 victims) are from the West, and the remaining 98% are inhabitants of
countries with Muslim majorities. During this period, a person of non‐Western origin
was 54 times more likely to die in an al‐Qa’ida attack than an individual from the West.
The overwhelming majority of al‐Qa’ida victims are Muslims.



http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Deadly%20Vanguards_Complete_L.pdf



Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


As to defense spending, don't get me started!!! Obama has said they're going to look into reducing it along with the other "deficit-reduction" he proposes, but I can just imagine trying to pry bucks out of the military's "cold, dead hands" (anyone recognize the reference?)

Muslims dying by terrorist hands is what I meant when I said "innocents" earlier. I don't think it was fully understood, tho'.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:58 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Irgun (Hebrew: ארגון‎; shorthand for Ha'Irgun HaTzva'i HaLe'umi BeEretz Yisra'el, הארגון הצבאי הלאומי בארץ ישראל, "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel") was a militant Zionist group that operated in the British mandate of Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was an offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: "The Defense", ההגנה). Since the group originally broke from the Haganah it became known as the Haganah Bet (Hebrew: literally "Defense 'B' " or "Second Defense", הגנה ב), or alternatively as Haganah Ha'leumit (ההגנה הלאומית) or Ha'ma'amad (המעמד‎).[1] Irgun members were absorbed into the Israel Defence Forces at the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. In present-day Israel, the Irgun is commonly referred to as Etzel (אצ"ל), an acronym of the Hebrew initials.

The Irgun policy was based on what was then called Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. According to Howard Sachar, "The policy of the new organization was based squarely on Jabotinsky's teachings: every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".[2]

Some of the better-known attacks by the Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with Lehi) on 9 April 1948.

In 1947 "the British army in Mandate Palestine banned the use of the term 'terrorist' to refer to the Irgun zvai Leumi ... because it implied that British forces had reason to be terrified,"[3] but this did not stop others referring to it as a terrorist organization, e.g. the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,[4] several media sources,[5][6][7][8][9] and a number of prominent world and Jewish figures.[10][11][12] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare."[13] The Israeli government, in September 1948, acting in response to the assassination of Lord Moyne, dissolved the Irgun and Lehi groups as part of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance.[14]

The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut (or "Freedom") party, which led to today's Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.

Including two Israeli leaders

As for the other examples, they were terrorists who won... so they choose to call themselves revolutionarys

The British thought them terrorists, as did Bastisa... if they had of lost, the historical footnote would have said terrorists, and traitors. Perhaps OBL will cease to be a terrorist some time in the future too.

BTW " but it was a declared War of Independence "

OBL declared war on the US not once, but twice

http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

laid out his grievances, even gave time for them to be addressed.

The hashisheen stood from 1094 to 1275, lasting enough

" “Religious opposition”; whatever other motives they embrace, however wrongly it’s used, I think that’s a biggie. "

You are saying religion shouldn't be used in such a way... I think

A peasant girl born in eastern France, she led the French army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War, claiming divine guidance, and was indirectly responsible for the coronation of Charles VII

Religion used in a similar fashion

" I agree that things move much faster these days, never said or thought otherwise; our decline has really only been since WWII, and is moving faster than previous empires’. No argument there. I don’t know about multiple other countries—a lot of us sure would like it (hell, many Californians would like to split THIS state!)—but without conquest which resulted in countries’ boundaries changing such as in Europe or Asia, I’m not sure how it will/would happen. It’s like envisioning Australia or Canada splitting up--only time will tell. "

Sometimes civil wars cause that split, tell me the domestic clampdowns don't add to that tension

Texas will likely lead the way







Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

You are saying religion shouldn't be used in such a way... I think
Yes.

As to the rest, we can argue all day; you make some good points, on others we disagree. To me, terrorists are those who go into other countries than their own to create terror among the populace, not to change those countries' foreign policy toward other countries. I guess that's my definition of it. It's certainly an arguable term and a subjective one.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:10 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:

You are saying religion shouldn't be used in such a way... I think
Yes.

As to the rest, we can argue all day; you make some good points, on others we disagree. To me, terrorists are those who go into other countries than their own to create terror among the populace, not to change those countries' foreign policy toward other countries. I guess that's my definition of it. It's certainly an arguable term and a subjective one.





By your definition the United State is a terrorist nation then ?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mostly, no. I said terrorists "are those who go into other countries than their own to create terror among the populace"; we don't go in with the intention of creating terror, we go in to invade and change governments. We don't send individuals in to become suicide bombers, tho' whether we support others who DO is open to question.

But in many other ways, yes. When it comes to surreptitiously working to undermine regimes, covert ops, funding others and stuff, I would call us a terrorist nation. "The Quiet American" is a prime example of that, and I'm sure there are other movies as well.

I don't have the arrogance of many Americans and I don't think we're inherently better than any other place. We got a head start because it's such a huge continent full of rich natural elements and arable land which hadn't been invaded prior to our arrival. We became a power easier than many other countries because of the richness of what the country had to offer, the space to expand, and our innovation in taking advantage of it.

BUT, if Australia were as rich a land as the US, or Canada had more arable, less frozen land, they could well have ended up the same. We got lucky; doesn't make us better, in many ways makes us worse because we're separated by oceans so have little contact with other nations--which leads easily to arrogance--and have been "rich" for most of our short history. Just my "humble" (as in non-arrogant) opinion.

Just curious, given your signature; what does it mean, and how do you define "terrorist"?

Wiki says "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”."

Britanica defines it as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."

Mirriam Webster merely say " the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Obviously it's a subjective term. That may be part of our problem in reaching an agreement.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Damn Gino, steal *all* my thunder, why don't ya ?

You've left me with really not much to say, but I do have to take issue with the idea of Texas or Utah being the first to secede...

See, Utah, and moreso Texas, they *TALK* a good game, but historically, when the rubber meets the road they take a dive so fast it's appalling.
(Ok, maybe imma a little hard on TX, but I got my reasons, not the least of which was living there...)
If they'd REALLY wanted to be independent, they woulda pulled out at the end of the Civil War when the Union had almost nothin left to throw at them and all they woulda had to to was bait those fools out into the badlands and cut off their supplies with mounted irregulars, then watch em bake to death out there.

But instead they knuckled under despite having every possible advantage they *could* have, and given previous and subsequent behavior from a historical viewpoint fully convinces me they'll only *actually* secede if a secessionist victory is a foregone conclusion, and they'll hold off a while spouting platitudes and condemning the "traitors" right up to the quick "we were always on your side, really.." change of heart near the very end - and should things go badly, they'll also be the FIRST to jump ship on you, too.

Seriously, look at the history, they might talk a good game, but the texan primary battle tactic is to run for the hills as soon as things get nasty.
That said, you back em into a corner, they'll hand you your ass on a plate.

Still, I wouldn't be sanguine about counting on them for any backup.

Vermont and New Hampshire are your better options, especially as they've actually put the time, effort and money into a secondary level of infrastructure as a check against disaster (like that massive blackout that wiped out power damn near everywhere) but also in the eventuality it should come to such a thing, and while they're very conservative folk who take half of forever to make up their minds - once they do, they're also some of the most stubborn folk in the country.

They go, Maine will prolly go with em, and Rhode Island never really gave a damn what the Union thought in the first place, being so small it goes mostly unnoticed, although Massachusetts is kind of a toss-up, and New York wouldn't budge for quite a while.

So if you're lookin for how that'd go, look north, not south - and I note for the record that Michigan happens to be probably THE most defensible state up here from - barring the UP, we only really got one border to defend, and decayed that it is, the industrial capacity to field the heavy stuff, along with a population and mindset that doesn't have a lotta problems about usin it on somebody (or anybody, we *are* admittedly a little trigger happy), plus we get on with the Canadians quite well, thankee muchly.

Not that I think it'd ever come to that, cause state authority would likely fall before federal, and the resulting social collapse would make such a scenario unviable, as the scattered communities thrown back on their own resources would prolly see federal intervention as a blessing once the ugly realties of such an event come clear to them in an unignorable way, and those who don't will be in community-sized chunks, easy prey for the imperial war machine.

Most of the folk talking about secession really have no idea just how fast things can and will go to hell in a handbasket if you start taking an axe to the mutual support systems which enable us to go on about our daily lives, because they take these things for granted to the point where they're invisible save when the bill gets paid at the end of the month.

Trust me, you do NOT wanna see what happens to a medium-largish city when you cut off food, water and power to it - remember we've done casualty estimates for this, and that's why I don't support it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:11 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Frem, I agree
Quote:

Most of the folk talking about secession really have no idea just how fast things can and will go to hell in a handbasket if you start taking an axe to the mutual support systems which enable us to go on about our daily lives, because they take these things for granted to the point where they're invisible save when the bill gets paid at the end of the month.
About Texas, too, by the way.

We're a strong country partly because we ARE so big, so we can share resources, etc. Cutting us into little countries--much as intellectually I think we're too big to be one--would leave an awful lot of states in an awful state of affairs! Not the least of which might well be Alaska and Texas, who have talked about it most!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:15 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Mostly, no. I said terrorists "are those who go into other countries than their own to create terror among the populace"; we don't go in with the intention of creating terror, we go in to invade and change governments. We don't send individuals in to become suicide bombers, tho' whether we support others who DO is open to question.

But in many other ways, yes. When it comes to surreptitiously working to undermine regimes, covert ops, funding others and stuff, I would call us a terrorist nation. "The Quiet American" is a prime example of that, and I'm sure there are other movies as well.

I don't have the arrogance of many Americans and I don't think we're inherently better than any other place. We got a head start because it's such a huge continent full of rich natural elements and arable land which hadn't been invaded prior to our arrival. We became a power easier than many other countries because of the richness of what the country had to offer, the space to expand, and our innovation in taking advantage of it.

BUT, if Australia were as rich a land as the US, or Canada had more arable, less frozen land, they could well have ended up the same. We got lucky; doesn't make us better, in many ways makes us worse because we're separated by oceans so have little contact with other nations--which leads easily to arrogance--and have been "rich" for most of our short history. Just my "humble" (as in non-arrogant) opinion.

Just curious, given your signature; what does it mean, and how do you define "terrorist"?

Wiki says "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”."

Britanica defines it as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."

Mirriam Webster merely say " the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Obviously it's a subjective term. That may be part of our problem in reaching an agreement.






I think our differences in the definition is you are stuck with the idea that other people use terror as an end and the US uses terror as a means.

I think I established the ends the people we are talking about are looking for, and the means they are using are what they are

Terror can be applied through unconventional means : one guys with a light airplane, a bomb, a rifle

or through a fleet of aircraft dropping bombs

or drones firing missiles

or there is economic terror, cutting a nation off from vital supplies... The Iraq sanctions, or Stalin in the Ukraine

or diplomatic terrorism, bribing, blackmailing, threating, etc other nations to publicly support your position against others ( Hillary being your pointman )

and dont get me started as to how many " non combatants " get killed, while both sides have done it, the body count is rather lopsided.


You haven't commented on my Irgun cite ?

My sig, both sides deserve each other...

one is as bad as the other, and the hope is the there will be a result where both of you are no longer standing at the end of the fight.

And your sig, my response is divide and conquer.

I'd pick apart some of your other comments, but I think you might begin to take offense





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL