TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- beheaded americans....
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster I am yet to watch any of the beheadings cos quite frankly i dont want those images burnt into my memory. If that makes me a coward than so be it i am a coward. I just dont feel you need to watch it to realise what is occurring is tragic and horrific. Just being told about the beheadings is enuff to know its shockingly wrong. Good one big man!

I don't like people telling me about what is happening when I can see it for myself. And that's not becuase I don't like other people's way of narrating but because my mind shows a more horrific scene when I hear it from someone else.
There's nothing wrong with being a coward. But images come and go. We see a lot, replacements are made, images move. We forget. To each his own I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I watch each and every beheading because not that it is reality, not that it is war but it is what is happening in Iraq on a daily basis and I choose to. I used to be one of those averted to seeing such things but then it dawned on me that I don't have to rationalize or reason about why this is happening in Iraq, it is the task and duty of the U.S. Mititary to stop such people from perpetrating these acts and the more the beheadings and kidnappings continue the more it represents the breakdown of law and order in that nation.

there is a serial rapist/killer running around in Kansas City. does that mean there is a breakdown of law and order in this country that Bush is responsible for?

quote:

George Bush claims Iraq is now the battlefront on terror, thx to his policy of going into Iraq under scrupulous claims, now he is charged with dealing with the psychopaths roaming around Iraq killing civilians and what is happening. I know for one thing I don't care how much money you pay me I would not go to Iraq for all of it in the world, those who go take a profound risk being civilians, sadly that is the atmosphere that has been created in Iraq whatever the reasons may have been for war

its funny you say that because the last time this happened it was in Saudi Arabia. and i don't remember you saying it was Bush's fault somebody lost their head then. before all this, it was happening in Afganistan, Pakistan, Chechnya. where was your righteous indignation then?

face it. your bias taints your ideology.

you ideology taints others that seek reasoning when exposed to violence like this.

thats why i'm telling you to...SHUT THE F**K UP already.

in fact, you blamed Saudi government for Paul Johnson
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ghlight=johnson

so which is it? is Bush the chicken or the egg?

in double fact! from the same thread not 3 months ago

quote:

originally posted by NYCTrancefan How nice to see you make mention of the fact that just like all those innocent Iraqis who died this man was also innocent and living in Saudi Arabia for ten years but your blind hatred of America doesn't let you see pass that. Right is right and wrong is wrong. So don't come here and be all sanctomonious and self righteous about the innocents who have been killed in Iraq yet you fail to acknowledge the barbarous acts of these individuals who would just as easily cut off your head, being from the Netherlands doesn't offer you an exception as you would like to believe. Self righteous indignation is merely a quality of those who cannot see the bigger picture around them. So I shall explain it for you, wakeup and realize what Islamic terrorism stands for, not freedom fighters, democracy, liberty or tolerance but hatred of others, intolerance, totalitarianism and cold blooded murder.

the f**king irony it's priceless.

I have no life BTW.

There is no irony, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are clearly two different scenarios, let the United States military invade Saudi Arabia and be charged with the security in that nation and then we can talk about what is ironic. Just as I felt the Saudi authorities should be responsible for the security in their nation, the U.S. military has to in Iraq for obvious reasons, WE INVADED. Nice try but where you fall short is that you do not acknowledge that it is the Americans that are responsible for security and catching these terrorists in Iraq. After many months of this scum Zarqawi being in Iraq why hasn't he been caught if he is terrorist persona non grata number one in that nation, clearly behind many of the orchestration of violence in Iraq.

If George W. Bush is going to talk the talk about terrorism and being tough then one of the most sickening perps is running free in Iraq undermining the U.S. plans there, isn't that rather ironic after all these months in Iraq with our entire military there.

Its pretty scary dude that you could dig up a thread from 3 mths ago, downright eery Too bad Saudi Arabi isn't Iraq however.

P.S. In Kansas City are there also bombings, kidnappings, 1000 pound bombs being dropped from the sky, innocent civilians being caught up in an open ended conflict of war. Cmon you are not serioius with that reasoning, I hope not.

how nice to see you make mention of the fact that these are two different scenarios when, in fact, its the brutal mentality that both countries are fighting but your blind hatred of Bush does not let you see past that. Right is right and wrong is wrong. So don't come here and be all sanctomonious and self righteous about the lack of security when it could just as easily happen here. yet you fail to acknowledge the barbarous acts of these individuals who would just as easily cut off your head for being from the country George Bush is President of and not for being the freedom fighters they would lead you to believe. Self righteous indignation is merely a quality of those who cannot see the bigger picture around them. So I shall explain it for you, wakeup and realize what Islamic terrorism stands for, not freedom fighters, democracy, liberty or tolerance but hatred of others, intolerance, totalitarianism and cold blooded murder.

that sound familiar?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo there is a serial rapist/killer running around in Kansas City. does that mean there is a breakdown of law and order in this country that Bush is responsible for? its funny you say that because the last time this happened it was in Saudi Arabia. and i don't remember you saying it was Bush's fault somebody lost their head then. before all this, it was happening in Afganistan, Pakistan, Chechnya. where was your righteous indignation then? face it. your bias taints your ideology. you ideology taints others that seek reasoning when exposed to violence like this. thats why i'm telling you to...SHUT THE F**K UP already.

Can you explain to me what righteous indignation you are referring to or do you even understand the term or just copied it. I have never and will never defend scum of the earth when it comes to the killing of innocent civilians so do not attempt to paint me into that corner in making your response.

My argument has and always will be that until we leave Iraq the U.S. is charged with securing Iraq and has failed to do so thus far. Get a clue no heads were cut off in Afghanistan last time I checked, Chechnya has nothing to do with the U.S. Military, Pakistan has had one incident involving Daniel Pearl, who placed himself in a dangerous position as a journalist going to that part of the world and being Jewish, which may or may not have played a role. We will never know for sure. I fail to see what any of that has to do with the security situation in Iraq. Until you can properly connect your points and reasoning continue to post the 9/11 Commission Report to connect Hussein, terrorist and 9/11 when it has already been stated that Iraq had nothing to do with that. Maybe you should try SHUTTING THE F**K UP already since you can't debate with others like an informed and respectable individual.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo how nice to see you make mention of the fact that these are two different scenarios when, in fact, its the brutal mentality that both countries are fighting but your blind hatred of Bush does not let you see past that. Right is right and wrong is wrong. So don't come here and be all sanctomonious and self righteous about the lack of security when it could just as easily happen here. yet you fail to acknowledge the barbarous acts of these individuals who would just as easily cut off your head for being from the country George Bush is President of and not for being the freedom fighters they would lead you to believe. Self righteous indignation is merely a quality of those who cannot see the bigger picture around them. So I shall explain it for you, wakeup and realize what Islamic terrorism stands for, not freedom fighters, democracy, liberty or tolerance but hatred of others, intolerance, totalitarianism and cold blooded murder. that sound familiar?

You are truly hilarious at best and absurd at worst. You seem to take offense to the fact that I hate Bush and also you seem to draw the conclusion that I defend terrorists, yet you cannot deny any of what I have stated when it comes to Iraq. Hey I think you may have failed to copy a few of my words, brilliant post too bad it isn't your own thoughts which leads me to wonder.

Moreover you quote me and then state that I hate Bush yet I made that commentary only a few months ago, ask yourself then why that has happened or better yet let me help you. A continual decline in security in the Sunni Triangle, a daily death toll that includes Iraqi civilians and U.S. Soldiers all of which does not add up to an improvement in the situation from three months ago but a decline.

Ironically my own point back then could be used to justify my objectivity and belief that what the Bush administration was saying in Iraq was worthwhile, something you claim I do not have, time has had just a little to do with that opinion changing along with many other events in Iraq, not Saudi Arabia, not Chechnya, not Pakistan. I wonder who has more objectivity when it comes to Iraq and what is transpiring there

Please answer my question Who is responsible for securing Iraq, who is responsible for catching the terrorists in Iraq, the Saudis caught the ringleader and killed him, who should be killing Zarqawi in Iraq. The answer isn't too hard, its too obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I have never and will never defend scum of the earth when it comes to the killing of innocent civilians so do not attempt to paint me into that corner in making your response.

i just did. read your own damn posts. i'm done.

quote:

My argument has and always will be that until we leave Iraq the U.S. is charged with securing Iraq and has failed to do so thus far. Get a clue no heads were cut off in Afghanistan last time I checked, Chechnya has nothing to do with the U.S. Military, Pakistan has had one incident involving Daniel Pearl, who placed himself in a dangerous position as a journalist going to that part of the world and being Jewish, which may or may not have played a role. We will never know for sure. I fail to see what any of that has to do with the security situation in Iraq. Until you can properly connect your points and reasoning continue to post the 9/11 Commission Report to connect Hussein, terrorist and 9/11 when it has already been stated that Iraq had nothing to do with that. Maybe you should try SHUTTING THE F**K UP already since you can't debate with others like an informed and respectable individual.

go to *********** and tell yourself that the Taliban never cut off heads. jeez you ever seen "Death of a Russian Soldier"? those were Chechyans. look, i'm not gonna get sidetracked and argue who started lopping off noggins on tape first. you would be wrong, but its not the point. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan. it's not the point.

sorry i told you to STFU, but you and i both know this could just as easily happen here in America. then who would be the victim of your righteous indignation?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo go to *********** and tell yourself that the Taliban never cut off heads. jeez you ever seen "Death of a Russian Soldier"? those were Chechyans. look, i'm not gonna get sidetracked and argue who started lopping off noggins on tape first. you would be wrong, but its not the point. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan. it's not the point. sorry i told you to STFU, but you and i both know this could just as easily happen here in America. then who would be the victim of your righteous indignation?

I have seen many of those videos you reference, that one is Ofex. I know what the Chechens do to Russians, and what the Russians do to Chechens. The Russian policy has been an abysmal failure in Chechnya, the entire international community is with us in Afghanistan including France and Germany, who many here love to bash. Pakistan had no go areas for the government until recently when it comes to the outlying provinces, Saudi Arabia as we all know promotes the brand of Islamic teachings that foster Islamic militancy throughout the region.

My frustration lies in seeing these kidnappings, bombings, beheadings occur with such frequency that you can't help but question what is going on in Iraq. What I do not want to see is everything listed above becoming permanent in Iraq, no go provinces as in Pakistan, the strong fostering of Saudi Wahhabism in Iraq, the lack of more international legitimacy in Iraq, which can all add up to a failure in policy as the Russians in Chechnya, those would be the connections I see between Iraq and those places and only one has U.S. troops there for purposes of securing the nation.

We may have had Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc but remember in normal societies the sociopaths and psychopaths are outnumbered by normal society, in societies where war is prevalent those boundaries are not as clearly delineated as many conflicts in Africa has shown us, an anything goes mentality takes over where rape, murder and a loss of human decency and morals take over. Food for thought

btw man, I am more than happy to have a critical debate, I just don't appreciate the profanity that isn't called for at all within the context of a one on one discussion. Sarcasm, Wittiness, etc are all fair game Once profanity enters in, the discussion usually breaks down into a slinging match of verbal explitives, like some Israeli-Palestinian threads No offense Cyrus and Yoepus.

The fact is the US can't be everywhere at once in Iraq. When people want to stage an uprising it will occur regardless of the force you have. It happens in Afghanistan(less publicized) and it could even happen here in this country. Remember the DC sniper a couple years back? Two people couldn't be found by basically the entire country mobilized to find these people including every law enforcement group. In fact if they weren't so dumb with their demands they would have gone on for months possibly.

The fact is, it is a big country, they don't like Americans and it isn't going to stop until we are gone regardless if we are helping them or not. For some reason or other they don't see the help, they don't see they they have more power now, have more newspapers, tv stations, goods, freedom in general, etc etc.

They blame Americans for security when a suicide bomber blows up their children yet when we provide security they don't like seeing our forces around and they help those same bombers to attack our forces. They complain about having power and water yet they refuse to tell their own people to stop blowing up pipelines and transformers. We would like to think that the Iraqi forces would help but in fact many times they defect to the other side, use the uniforms to give terrorists easy access, they provide intelligence, and often aren't working for the good of their own people.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan No offense Cyrus and Yoepus.

Oh, STFU

After being oppressed for decades it is hard to get used to fact that "youre free". its not something you can just learn over a period of weeks, or months; granted that most westerners were born with it, its hard for us to see.

The problem with matters such as these is that most of the media, if not all, is controlled by the American Government. Now think of this for a moment. A government, elected to govern a country of millions, takes part in action that if the citizens of the country knew, they would revolt. Now, also take into consideration that the media makes up for the majority of the information that is delt to the American population. Is it not possible for the government to manipulate any historical records, and only feed you what THEY want you to know? This seems very possible.

Some of you claim that the American government wishes to liberate the country of Iraq. Now tell me this...do you really think someone who can order cities, full of innocent people like us, to be bombed really cares about 'liberating' the people. You tell me, how can a country be liberated through the mass killing of innocent civilians. You tell me this is part of war? Can you imagine a country that ordered for cities of the U.S. to be bombed, because they felt that the country was run under a dictatorship and that the people needed to be liberated. You tell me, how will you see this as. Watching all your friends and families being blown to pieces, right infront of your eyes. Now imagine that you are unfortunate enough to survive this. Tell me what you would do. Taking into consideration the fustration, hate, and anger implanted into the minds of Americans, it would be a lot worse.
Of course, I am in no way excusing these actions. But I find the stupidity and ignorance of most Americans quite ammusing. The fact that they support their government in doing these things to other countries, but the moment someone else repeats the actions of the American government, it is all-of-a-sudden seen as 'terrorism'.

So tell me now, who is the real terrorist here. The one that uses his power and status to get away with the mass murdering of innocent people because of greed for money and world control? OR the one that fights for their country against this force who shows themselves in their country?

NYCTrancefan

Congradulations Americans!!!

You just found your new President!

....ill let someone like Shakka tackle this.
my head is too tired today

QUO

quote:

Originally posted by eXstatic The problem with matters such as these is that most of the media, if not all, is controlled by the American Government.

No, you got it backwards. The Government is controlled by the media.

quote:

Now think of this for a moment. A government, elected to govern a country of millions, takes part in action that if the citizens of the country knew, they would revolt. Now, also take into consideration that the media makes up for the majority of the information that is delt to the American population. Is it not possible for the government to manipulate any historical records, and only feed you what THEY want you to know? This seems very possible.

Of course it's possible. If you can convince a billion people they were created by an all-powerful being who wants them to do this and that without backing it up with a shred of evidence, you can convince them of anything. But the American government hasn't done it - at least, not yet.

quote:

Now tell me this...do you really think someone who can order cities, full of innocent people like us, to be bombed really cares about 'liberating' the people. You tell me, how can a country be liberated through the mass killing of innocent civilians.

Interesting theory. Since you seem to have so much knowledge on proper liberation methodology, please inform us all as to how to liberate people from a brutal dictator who places strategic military targets in the areas of highest population density to discourage bombing them without killing innocent civilians.

quote:

You tell me this is part of war? Can you imagine a country that ordered for cities of the U.S. to be bombed, because they felt that the country was run under a dictatorship and that the people needed to be liberated. You tell me, how will you see this as.

Well if the U.S. really was run under a dictatorship and the people needed to be liberated, it would be an temporarily unpleasant but ultimately rewarding set of circumstances, I think.

quote:

Watching all your friends and families being blown to pieces, right infront of your eyes. Now imagine that you are unfortunate enough to survive this. Tell me what you would do. I can probably make a hypothesis that it will be much more severe than the beheading of their soldiers. Taking into consideration the fustration, hate, and anger implanted into the minds of Americans, it would be a lot worse.

Right, because I'm sure it was so much better watching them being carted off to the gas chamber for voicing their opinions or being tortured to obtain information they don't have. Tell me, how does one obtain such a warped view of reality that they can overlook torture rather than do something which might upset a few people?

quote:

Of course, I am in no way excusing these actions. But I find the stupidity and ignorance of most Americans quite ammusing. The fact that they support their government in doing these things to other countries, but the moment someone else repeats the actions of the American government, it is all-of-a-sudden seen as 'terrorism'.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the American government doesn't kidnap innocent civilians and hold them hostage making ludicrous demands and ultimately beheading them.

quote:

So tell me now, who is the real terrorist here. The one that uses his power and status to get away with the mass murdering of innocent people because of greed for money and world control? OR the one that fights for their country against this force who shows themselves in their country?

I would say the real terrorist is the one taking part in terrorism - that being the willful targeting of civilians as opposed to military targets in a deliberate attempt to coerce some particular entity by means of the invocation of "terror." But perhaps you disagree: do you think that the real terrorist is the one not taking part in terrorism? I know it sounds absurd to ask, but that seems to be the implication.

quote:

Originally posted by policerobots ....ill let someone like Shakka tackle this. my head is too tired today

His comments hardly merit a response as they are predicated on some pretty thin opinions/arguments. If he had his way, the U.S. would've never gotten involved in WWII and all of Europe would be in shambles. Civilians die(unfortunately) in wars and combat scenes. They were dying under Saddam Hussein as well. To imply that the U.S. deliberately targets innocent civilians is downright irresponsible, and categorically false.

Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one.

Re: QUO

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter No, you got it backwards. The Government is controlled by the media.

I'm sorry to bring this to your attention, but it is actually you who has it mixed up. Government controls what is shown on tv, in magazine, heard on radios, etc. This is a proven fact. If you still think otherwise, research it, it you need 'concrete evidence'.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Of course it's possible. If you can convince a billion people they were created by an all-powerful being who wants them to do this and that without backing it up with a shred of evidence, you can convince them of anything. But the American government hasn't done it - at least, not yet.

And of course you have proof of this yourself. But the simple fact that you are un-aware of what the American Government is doing is enough proof that the they are controlling what the people of this world know about their operations. I am not saying I know everything myself, but I obviously know more than you, unless you are also aware of the actions and history of the American Government and you just support un-humane acts like this.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Interesting theory. Since you seem to have so much knowledge on proper liberation methodology, please inform us all as to how to liberate people from a brutal dictator who places strategic military targets in the areas of highest population density to discourage bombing them without killing innocent civilians.

Hypathetically speaking, let's just say you are correct about the placement of military targets. When you have criminals in your neighbourhood and the police are trying to capture them. Because they are situated around civilians such as yourself, does this give the police or army the right to shot down or bomb anyone within a certain proximity of that person? If so, then God help us all...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well if the U.S. really was run under a dictatorship and the people needed to be liberated, it would be an temporarily unpleasant but ultimately rewarding set of circumstances, I think.

All war is, is a struggle for power. Who can come out most powerful and superior. It has been proven countless times, and will continue to proove itself to the world, that humans CANNOT exist with inequalities in power. Having one person higher than the rest encourages competition. One sees this as an oppurtunity to take the power from another person, and it is an infinite cycle. I may not be an expert on liberating people, and freeing people from the struggles they have to endure, but I do know that using force, such as the American Government is doing will not only cost the lives of millions, but create further problems in the future, as you will soon see.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Right, because I'm sure it was so much better watching them being carted off to the gas chamber for voicing their opinions or being tortured to obtain information they don't have. Tell me, how does one obtain such a warped view of reality that they can overlook torture rather than do something which might upset a few people?

Let's just say you are coorect about these voicing of opinions. In America you voice any opinion that goes against the government and you are seen for commiting treason. Beating on the streets, arrested, put in jail for X amount of hours/days. You tell me that America is a country of freedome where everyone is intitled to voice their opinion. I challenge you to walk past the white house with a Hammer & Sickle on your shirt, and see how long you last.
You believe that what the Americans are doing is simple defined as 'upseting a few people'. I wonder how you feel if I walked right into your house and killed your loved one's, because I'm only trying to 'upset you' right?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the American government doesn't kidnap innocent civilians and hold them hostage making ludicrous demands and ultimately beheading them.

First off, the government of Iraq had nothing to do with the kidnappings of the those people. Second, the himuliation of the Iraqi prisoners was what instigated the entire beheading. But not only that, Bush excuses the actions of the soldiers that were responsible for the himuliation of the prisoners, and allowed them back into the war.

quote:

Originally posted by eXstatic The problem with matters such as these is that most of the media, if not all, is controlled by the American Government. Now think of this for a moment. A government, elected to govern a country of millions, takes part in action that if the citizens of the country knew, they would revolt. Now, also take into consideration that the media makes up for the majority of the information that is delt to the American population. Is it not possible for the government to manipulate any historical records, and only feed you what THEY want you to know? This seems very possible. Some of you claim that the American government wishes to liberate the country of Iraq. Now tell me this...do you really think someone who can order cities, full of innocent people like us, to be bombed really cares about 'liberating' the people. You tell me, how can a country be liberated through the mass killing of innocent civilians. You tell me this is part of war? Can you imagine a country that ordered for cities of the U.S. to be bombed, because they felt that the country was run under a dictatorship and that the people needed to be liberated. You tell me, how will you see this as. Watching all your friends and families being blown to pieces, right infront of your eyes. Now imagine that you are unfortunate enough to survive this. Tell me what you would do. Taking into consideration the fustration, hate, and anger implanted into the minds of Americans, it would be a lot worse. Of course, I am in no way excusing these actions. But I find the stupidity and ignorance of most Americans quite ammusing. The fact that they support their government in doing these things to other countries, but the moment someone else repeats the actions of the American government, it is all-of-a-sudden seen as 'terrorism'. So tell me now, who is the real terrorist here. The one that uses his power and status to get away with the mass murdering of innocent people because of greed for money and world control? OR the one that fights for their country against this force who shows themselves in their country?

Mass murder, oh comon who fed you that line? Who are you to declare who is dead on the ground and who are you to say who killed them? There is no accurate body count in iraq because so many iraqis are killing their own people mixed with crossfire killings etc. Sure Iraqis have died, so have Americans but its hardly mass murder as you keep talking about. There is even a website that is tracking all the deaths it can in iraq and all it has listed are the means of the person's death not the perpitrator because everything is too sketchy.

Again as was discussed in another thread, American's don't base their president solely on a single event, there are lots of issues and if you aren't keen on the issues then you have no right declaring what is right and wrong for us.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Mass murder, oh comon who fed you that line? Who are you to declare who is dead on the ground and who are you to say who killed them? There is no accurate body count in iraq because so many iraqis are killing their own people mixed with crossfire killings etc. Sure Iraqis have died, so have Americans but its hardly mass murder as you keep talking about. There is even a website that is tracking all the deaths it can in iraq and all it has listed are the means of the person's death not the perpitrator because everything is too sketchy. Again as was discussed in another thread, American's don't base their president solely on a single event, there are lots of issues and if you aren't keen on the issues then you have no right declaring what is right and wrong for us.

Just wondering. But is this death tally count site American by any chance?
As for knowing historical events. I believe it's you who is ignorant to them. OF course, you did know that Sadam was put in Iraq by the American Government. But you knew this already...didn't you?

Re: Re: QUO

quote:

Originally posted by eXstatic I'm sorry to bring this to your attention, but it is actually you who has it mixed up. Government controls what is shown on tv, in magazine, heard on radios, etc. This is a proven fact. If you still think otherwise, research it, it you need 'concrete evidence'.

Interesting theory, but the money trail indicates otherwise:

quote:

Capitol Cities/ABC/Disney gave $569,000 to the Democrats and $491,450 to the Republicans between 1991 and 1997. Viacom gave $418,400 to the Dems and $122,700 to the GOP. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, gave $750,000 to the California Republican Party in October 1996 alone. No big mystery here. The nation�s big broadcasters got up to $70 billion worth of digital TV licenses from Congress in 1996. (Digital TV is the new technology expected to replace the current analog format.) In 1997, it was Christmas-time again: Congress passed three new laws to benefit big broadcasters. Among them: Legislators agreed to allow broadcasters to hold onto their old analog TV licenses instead of having the Federal Communications Commission auction the licenses off, which would have raised billions for the Federal Treasury. A National Association of Broadcasters VP said he was "exceedingly pleased." http://lpa.igc.org/lpv31/lp04.htm

Yeah those media industry fellows are really getting pushed around by the big bad government, aren't they? Oh wait, no they aren't. They pay into the candidate's campaigns, and they get basically whatever they want in return.

So, where's your proof? Hidden between the bedsheets?

quote:

And of course you have proof of this yourself. But the simple fact that you are un-aware of what the American Government is doing is enough proof that the they are controlling what the people of this world know about their operations. I am not saying I know everything myself, but I obviously know more than you, unless you are also aware of the actions and history of the American Government and you just support un-humane acts like this.

Well I've been to most of the countries in Europe, not to mention India, China, Kenya and Tanzania in the last two years. None of the media in any of those places had anything to say that was different from what the media said in the U.S. - but I guess it must be that the U.S. government has control of all international news sources too!

quote:

Hypathetically speaking, let's just say you are correct about the placement of military targets. When you have criminals in your neighbourhood and the police are trying to capture them. Because they are situated around civilians such as yourself, does this give the police or army the right to shot down or bomb anyone within a certain proximity of that person? If so, then God help us all...

Answer the question: how do you liberate people from a brutal dictator who places strategic military targets in the areas of highest population density to discourage bombing them without killing innocent civilians? You're quick to criticize U.S. action, but you give no viable alternative, so your opinions are worthless.

Your analogy is false - common criminals don't possess the weapons or resources of the resources of a nation's government. If you expect to be able to use the same tactics to subdue an army that you'd use to subdue a criminal, you're a moron.

quote:

All war is, is a struggle for power. Who can come out most powerful and superior. It has been proven countless times, and will continue to proove itself to the world, that humans CANNOT exist with inequalities in power. Having one person higher than the rest encourages competition. One sees this as an oppurtunity to take the power from another person, and it is an infinite cycle. I may not be an expert on liberating people, and freeing people from the struggles they have to endure, but I do know that using force, such as the American Government is doing will not only cost the lives of millions, but create further problems in the future, as you will soon see.

Wow, you must be right on: I mean there has never been a successful revolution in the history of the world which used force. Seriously: pick up a history book - you'll find it's full of counter-examples to your baseless generalizations.

quote:

Let's just say you are coorect about these voicing of opinions. In America you voice any opinion that goes against the government and you are seen for commiting treason. Beating on the streets, arrested, put in jail for X amount of hours/days.

That's funny, because I criticize the U.S. government all the time - if you want proof, just read this forum! But somehow, they've forgot to beat me, arrest me, and put me in jail. I guess maybe I just got lucky. No one is arrested for voicing an opinion - but they may be arrested for the manner in which they choose to do so. I think that's a good thing, or we would have had to let McVeigh walk free since, after all, he was merely expressing his distaste for the government. I guess by putting him to death we no longer support free speech, right?

quote:

You tell me that America is a country of freedome where everyone is intitled to voice their opinion. I challenge you to walk past the white house with a Hammer & Sickle on your shirt, and see how long you last.

First of all I never told you that. Second, wearing a shirt doesn't have anything to do with your voice. Third, people probably do that all the time - I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever been to America. Maybe you just have a warped view of things here because the you're being deceived by the media.

quote:

You believe that what the Americans are doing is simple defined as 'upseting a few people'. I wonder how you feel if I walked right into your house and killed your loved one's, because I'm only trying to 'upset you' right?

Well if they were going to be tortured anyway, I'd say you were doing them a favor. Do you disagree? Would you prefer your loved ones to be tortured? It sure sounds like it - I'm glad I'm not related to you.

quote:

First off, the government of Iraq had nothing to do with the kidnappings of the those people. Second, the himuliation of the Iraqi prisoners was what instigated the entire beheading. But not only that, Bush excuses the actions of the soldiers that were responsible for the himuliation of the prisoners, and allowed them back into the war.

Please show where I said the government of Iraq had anything to do with the kidnappings of those people. In case you didn't know, the point of a debate is to actually address the points which the other person is making: not to try to refute arguments they never made.

quote:

Originally posted by eXstatic you did know that Sadam was put in Iraq by the American Government.

Americans had ties with Sadam? that cant be true,Sadam was a evil dictator,America would never want to negotiate with someone like him. They just used him to fight Iran and just gave hime some chemical weapons so he can use on his own people and the people of Iran thats all.

Re: Re: Re: QUO

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Interesting theory, but the money trail indicates otherwise: Capitol Cities/ABC/Disney gave $569,000 to the Democrats and $491,450 to the Republicans between 1991 and 1997. Viacom gave $418,400 to the Dems and $122,700 to the GOP. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, gave $750,000 to the California Republican Party in October 1996 alone.

"Capitol Cities/ABC/Disney gave $569,000 to the Democrats"
"$491,450 to the Republicans between 1991 and 1997"
"Viacom gave $418,400 to the Dems and $122,700 to the GOP."
"Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, gave $750,000 to the California Republican Party in October 1996 alone."

First off, take note of the quantities. Three companies giving half a million. Half a million. DO you realize that this firgure means absolutely nothing to them. They spend this money wiping their fucking asses on a daily bases. Another half a million over a span of 6 years, once again, pennies. The only significant number in that little statistic paragraph is the Fox contribution of 750k. But come to think of it, it's Fox. Isn't that funny, especially considering that they are responsible for broadcasting the presidents bullshit he has to say to the country. Isn't it only right that a company should give back to the person that keeps them in business.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yeah those media industry fellows are really getting pushed around by the big bad government, aren't they? Oh wait, no they aren't. They pay into the candidate's campaigns, and they get basically whatever they want in return. So, where's your proof? Hidden between the bedsheets?

Nowhere did I say that they were pushed around. I simple said they are told by the government as to what they can show. OF course it makes perfect sense. You give me what to show, you make business for me. You lie to the country, keep people in suspense to continue watching our show and you boost ratings. We gain money for the lies you have told us to show, and we give a small portion back to you. You scratch my back, and I sratch yours.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well I've been to most of the countries in Europe, not to mention India, China, Kenya and Tanzania in the last two years. None of the media in any of those places had anything to say that was different from what the media said in the U.S. - but I guess it must be that the U.S. government has control of all international news sources too!

What you just said supports my arguement. Nonetheless, American culture is exported to countries around the globe. The media is a large factor in the exportation of their culture. This media, created falsely, is exported as false, and when imported by another country, is taken in falsely.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Answer the question: how do you liberate people from a brutal dictator who places strategic military targets in the areas of highest population density to discourage bombing them without killing innocent civilians? You're quick to criticize U.S. action, but you give no viable alternative, so your opinions are worthless.

"...you give no viable alternative, so your opinions are worthless."
First off, critisism standing alone is not worthless. The critisism of one person can help another person develope a solution. Your ignorance is once again causing you to blurp out false statements such as that one.
Second, since the Americans spend, literally, trillions of dollars on military structure and developement, you would think that they have the technology to pin-point targets, which of course they do, but why spend money on using these pin-pointing target weapons when you can get away with bombing the fuck out of a city? Much more effecient, is it not?
In regard to your question, you have to first understand that these people, opressed as you say, are opressed for one reason, and that is because of the placement of Sadam in Iraq by the American government. As "hardcore trancer" further explains, Americans tried to invest in this leader, but it soon proves as a failure. So what happens when your own creation gets out of hand, you eliminate or restrain it. This is your answer. Sadam causes oppression, capture Sadam, stop opression. American Solution: bomb so called "military target" in civilian cities, to eliminate the treat these people must endure. Then once most of the country is chaotic due to the mass bombings, you infiltrate with your pussy ass military soldiers and ground units to capture Sadam. Why go through with bombing the country first, simple, to encounter less resistence. If you do not think that this is true, look up the events of the war a few months ago, there were multiple incidents in which ground units encountered resistence so they delt with it by bombing the cities in which these forces were located in.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Your analogy is false - common criminals don't possess the weapons or resources of the resources of a nation's government. If you expect to be able to use the same tactics to subdue an army that you'd use to subdue a criminal, you're a moron.

The tactics to capture an enemy follow basic principles. They do adapt dependant on their traget, but a person claimed to have WMD and a person running around town with a Glock, are both threats to their surrounding environments. The fact of the matter is, if it was your country that was in this situation, you would be saying the exact opposite of what you are now.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Wow, you must be right on: I mean there has never been a successful revolution in the history of the world which used force. Seriously: pick up a history book - you'll find it's full of counter-examples to your baseless generalizations.

No where have a said that a revolution won by force is a failure. I am aware of the Revolutions that have existed in our world. But, taking the Cuban Revolution as an example, this was taking by force, but it's objective was not to create a surperior power like the American mentality. It's objective was to create a society in which the people of the country have a say in what goes, and that every individual, no matter sex, hadicap, etc. are all treated and giving resources equally. Of course, this idealogy is to superior to the mind sets of you Capitalists idiots.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That's funny, because I criticize the U.S. government all the time - if you want proof, just read this forum! But somehow, they've forgot to beat me, arrest me, and put me in jail. I guess maybe I just got lucky. No one is arrested for voicing an opinion - but they may be arrested for the manner in which they choose to do so. I think that's a good thing, or we would have had to let McVeigh walk free since, after all, he was merely expressing his distaste for the government. I guess by putting him to death we no longer support free speech, right?

http://ventingmedia.com/bush04/
Peaceful protestors, speaking their opinion. Yet they are arrested. Isn't is amazing that it is required that over 30 police units are necessary at a peaceful protest AGAINST BUSH. Watch that and then stfu...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter First of all I never told you that. Second, wearing a shirt doesn't have anything to do with your voice. Third, people probably do that all the time - I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever been to America. Maybe you just have a warped view of things here because the you're being deceived by the media.

First off, wearing a shirt MAY not completely respresent your voice or beliefs, but it does have a lot of say in it. People do not ware shirts that they are in disagreement with, it's just not logical. Third, I have been to the states on a number of occasions, and have seen how the colored people of the country live in their 'ghettos' and the white people have their nice fancy houses, with their colored maids attending them for whatever they please. And please, if you do not think anything will happen to you, I encourage you to take on my challenge. I'll be there timing it for you, hopefully I get to start the timer in time.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well if they were going to be tortured anyway, I'd say you were doing them a favor. Do you disagree? Would you prefer your loved ones to be tortured? It sure sounds like it - I'm glad I'm not related to you.

Your ignorance ammuses me. If you want torture, go take a look at Israel, and how Palestines are being persecuted and kicked out of their own homes by the Jews of the country (of course not all Jews) Everyday hundreds of these people are murdered because of their nationality and religion. Who provides the Israeli army with the weapons and supplies to commit such acts? Your good ol' American Fucking Yankees.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Please show where I said the government of Iraq had anything to do with the kidnappings of those people. In case you didn't know, the point of a debate is to actually address the points which the other person is making: not to try to refute arguments they never made.

"Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the American government doesn't kidnap innocent civilians and hold them hostage making ludicrous demands and ultimately beheading them."

This implies that you believe the Iraqi government did have something to do with the prisoners, if not, then word your statements correctly.

Before you decide to defend your fucking American government think about the harm that is being inflicted onto these people, and think that you are supporting terrorists such as Bush of commiting these acts.









http://babykiller.com/ *For all you cold-hearted, ignorant, dumbass yankees...take a look at this site, and maybe you can open your eyes to what your country does for greed*

quote:

Originally posted by eXstatic Just wondering. But is this death tally count site American by any chance? As for knowing historical events. I believe it's you who is ignorant to them. OF course, you did know that Sadam was put in Iraq by the American Government. But you knew this already...didn't you?

It is not American, it is tallied by independant people who obviously have MUCH more information than you or I.

Here is the URL http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/ Note that it lists every body that they can find from the start of the war with the location and cause of death. Also note they don't note who killed the people, and this is noted on their website because it is next to impossible to tell afterwards.

Saddam was not put in Iraq by the US government, he worked his way up to power through the Baath party. He took command when he was given the reigns and then brutally murdered all those who opposed him. The US only funded him leading up to the Iran/Iraq war. But you knew this didnt u...

Why are you coming on here with your profanity and name calling? That should be left at the door. Your hatred of Americans is blinding your argument since I don't see a discussion, all I see is hate.

When I see those photos, I think, if the insurgents would only realize that we want to get the hell out of there as much as they want us to leave and stopped killing their own people there wouldn't be a reason for us to be there since the Iraqis could provide their own security. Their own self righteousness is killing their own people and they don't even realize it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.