quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic i agree with ya bro..i know we cant fight every terrorism group out there but the thing is the us was worned time and time again that it was there turn but no one listened and there were signs too like the first wtc bombing but obody paid to much attension to it..infact they had one of the most dangerous terrorist leaders just chillin in prison "omar abdel rahman"..not knowing how dangerous he is and all sort of bullshit he made for other countries...so makes u wonder and ask what if..and about iraq..lots of other countries have nukes..should we disarm each an every country..iraq didnt show any sign recently of using em..dont see anyone tryin to disarm india and pakistan and they came close to war..too many problems with the world of today

to briefly answer your questions here:
1) we know many countries have nukes - they also allow inspectors to go in and keep a count and make sure none are "pointed" at anyone in particular - iraq is not on this list...

2) the reason the USA did not join the war on terrorism earlier is for two reasons - yes b/c we had not been victim to it, but more importantly, a lack of resources to fight it. Believe it or not, we are strained right now, we have troops in almost every country of the world, and CIA is pretty much booked. Unfortunately the war on terrorism is mostly intelligence gathering, not storming the countryside with your troops. Yes we are helping now, but we already are strained.

3) the war on afghanistan wasn't pointless - it broke up the taliban, but more importantly displaced the al-qaeda camps... now there is no centralization system and poor communications between them.

...and to whoever made the comment about the terrorists held on the island in a camp without trial, well its a POW camp - you think they give out trials for POW's? What they'll probably do is wait for the end of the war and use these POWs as exchange bait or possibly wait till they get enough evidence on each individual to convict them. In the meantime they are in a maximum-security prison, most likely getting better clothing and rations than they had in their qaeda camp.

..and to renegade, i was not and had never been referring to you with my original post. See, posts like yours i know and respect, and over time have come to respect you greatly. Its several other Aussie's (that will go as of now unnamed) that i did not understand their posts. I have also noticed that it is so easy to "ride the wave" of opinion on here, and as soon as someone makes an eloquent post, the line is long of people simply "backing it up" here. I do have to admit that it was great getting another post out of you though

i don't "give up" on posting like some people. To some of us, its not so much the hoping to change people's minds, but also to educate, bring new topics to their attention, or for some (apparently), just the joy of debate... I as always am open to hearing good debates, only they usually come from Trancaholic and Renegade's side of the table...

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline to briefly answer your questions here: 3) the war on afghanistan wasn't pointless - it broke up the taliban, but more importantly displaced the al-qaeda camps... now there is no centralization system and poor communications between them. -ABT-

yeah thats the thing i dont get..afghanistan dont have much to do with the terrorist network of ben laden..do u think he gives a fuck about afghanistan..hell no..u can kill everyone in afghanistan and he wouldnt give a rat's ass..thats why i wasnt a strong supporter of the afghani strike...cause it did nothing to harm the terrorist netwoek of ben laden

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic yeah thats the thing i dont get..afghanistan dont have much to do with the terrorist network of ben laden..do u think he gives a fuck about afghanistan..hell no..u can kill everyone in afghanistan and he wouldnt give a rat's ass..thats why i wasnt a strong supporter of the afghani strike...cause it did nothing to harm the terrorist netwoek of ben laden

actually it did. That was the whole point of my post. Bin Laden's main camp was in afghanistan, as was the whole inner-web of his network for the al-qaeda. We have all-but exterminated this web of networks, and have eliminated their controlled-structure. Yes we haven't captured bin laden himself, but we have destroyed his structure making plannings and grooming of new terrorists extremely difficult.

Our biggest problem is he has gained sympathy from all other terrorist organizations around the globe and they are all forming up against westernized culture now. So, in our victory of breaking up the al qaeda, we have only made them stronger.

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.

I'm from Finland its between Sweden and Russia if you don't know it already.

To Tiesto:

I don't think this discussion is pointless. I haven't changed my views but I have learned much from others. Its much easier to decide your path if u hear what others think all over the world. This conversation makes you much open minded if you let it happen. After reading these posts I know more details of happenings this topic consists.

To flamers:

If you start your post with aggressive tone, no-one will take you seriously. With this I don't mean only non-US posters but also US ones. Don't take things personally and don't blame no-one personally. If you include your post these kind of sentences: "You are nothing but a sucker of USA proganda" or "you are just a anti-american who don't see the truth behind your country's propaganda" Its much likely no-one will take you seriously.

My view:

Constructive critics are constructive It will help you to see the errors you wont see by yourself and maybe offer answers to that. This is very good thing to be. Its called a freedom of speech. Basically its the core of the freedom. If the people has been silenced, only thing you will hear is propaganda.

I'm just thinking which ones have killed more civilians US military or terrorists. This is only a one view because theres an option that with its actions US has made terrorist strikes more difficult. So are these anti-terrorism strikes worth it if 10 civilians are killed per one terrorist. That 1/10 is only a guess, if its more like 1/1 then please tell me. Again one thing needing answering.

Terrorists if they are not holding something for a ransom have reason for their cause. Please stop blaming terrorists or US as evil, because we all know nothing is so simple. We can fight against terrorism for eternity and kill a lot of them and even more civilians on the side. Civilians from both sides. Maybe even soldiers but more civilians than soldiers. I think theres many possible ends for terrorism for idealism.

1. Killing every terrorist on the planet.

Hard to accomplish because civilian casulties creates more terrorists. Think it this way: Because false intelligence factory is bombed and you lost your family in that bombing, this would indeed increase the factor of you becoming a terrorist to revenge the death of your family. See the only way to pay back. Amongs the terrorists the ones "working" on the lowest level (the ones committing these acts) may have more idealism than the ones on charge. They are the ones killing themselves for their cause not the leaders. It wont even require false intelligence or failed bombing. It really doesn't matter if the bomb has killed only terrorists, not a single civilian. It can be and may be framed so that ppl will think it killed just civilians. I'm sure this is what those terrorist leaders are doing. Its called propaganda and if theres already an anti-us mentality, think how much ppl will think of the alternative options. Like if the bomb really killed just terrorist. Very unlikely. If my thoughts go right (I hope not) USA does more harm than good with this simple example.

2. Make the terrorists believe their cause is false. They must believe there is no rational reason for their strikes.

This would be the best option and maybe permanent, but doesn't it sound close to impossible? My solve to this would be constructive interfering. I mean raise country's "living level" (I don't know the right word for this) close to western ones. If I think my own country I don't see any reason to terrorize no-one I live secured life. No problems in feeding my selve or doing what I desire. If this would be given to ppl in afghanistan. Wouldn't it decrease the need to hate anyone. Problems: fundamentalist wont listen anyone else than his leader "chosen by God" and when the leader has another goals than "pleasing his God or helping his ppl" Aid would go in vain. I hope that their heads could be turned but at the same time I think its very difficult. As I said above quite impossible option.

I'm not a prophet and if I would be no-one would believe me, so I can't say how things should be solved.

Problems how I see it:
1. Religion named ISLAM and fundamentalist sections of it!!!
2. USA makes or had made things worse. It decides things for its own like it rules the world. This upsets ppl. It doesn't rule the world and I don't want to event where it could be tested (that would be called ww3)
3. Everyone has their own interest in the game. There is no common good or this is how I see it. I think that only UN thinks for common good no-one else and I'm not sure about this either. How can we solve crisis if no-one really wants to solve it permanently? Theres lots of talks about it, but actions made to solve it are for country's own interest. This is like a big game, not a cure for cancer. politics, politics, politics... basically making your voters happy.


One terrorist event:

In indonesia where from time to time terrorists capture civilians for ransom, the leaders stay away from the situation and lead the kidnapping from away so that they wont get hurt. But the fundamentalist fighters who believed that what they are doing is god's will are risking their lives with the incident. I have read a book where one finnish captive told about his experiences of this kind of event. He was hold there about 4 months and he told in the book that he was amazed how religious some of the terrorists were. They truly believed that its was Gods will what they were doing. At the same time these religious ones were the most "caring" ones. Some middle-eastern oil millionare paid one million dollars for each of the western captive to get them free. At the time of this event Indonesian army was surrounding the where captives were hold but still terrorists and captives were able to break trough this "siege". How can that be? Well because corruption some of the military was in that event. Writer told in that book that at the time of the siege some of the terrorist went to buy cigarrettes from soldiers. Because they were family. Another brother was terrorist another soldier.

well i see you are a dreamer. Sure, we'd all love for it to be that way in a perfect world, but its never going to be.

You do, however, fail to make the biggest distinction between terrorists and the US - we (the USA) do not plan to kill civilians - they are casualties of conflict - this happens in every war, regardless of who's fighting. Terrorists, on the other hand, go out of their way to target innocent civilians to make a point. And thats all they do.

a slight difference there

___________________
Peace.

Yes I'm dreamer. I understand your point. The thing is I'm not sure will USA politics solve problems. If it doesn't those victims are for vain. From victim's point of view, strike made by US may look like terrorist strike. With victim I mean one who has lost relatives in a strike.

I'm an ateist and don't see any point in killing/dying for God. That pisses me off. Thats why this thing is so hard to solve. Those terrorists just want to die for their cause...try to negotiate with them...its pointless.

Last edited by Tuikkari on Nov-11-2002 at 18:03

quote:

Originally posted by Verona^My ah, there's a nice bit of propaganda for you... you fell for the medical plant line scripted by terrorists hook, line & sinker. It was a weapons factory, not a medical plant. If you want to believe it's a medical plant, you can join Al-Queda, I hear they're looking for new recruits.

i honestly can't believe some of the comments i'm reading in this thread... like the above post... there is so much misinformation, half truths, and propaganda coming from the "pro-USA" side in this thread that it renders the whole discussion pointless... literally pointless because it accomplishes absolutely nothing... granted, the "anti-US" side in this discussion is not perfect, but at least there is some genuine information coming out of that side...

to the "pro-USA" side in this discussion, specifically the ones who think (and have said) that the sudan pharmaceutical plant was producing weapons - not medicine, you are wrong. i don't know where you're getting your (mis)information, but you need to open your mind, and be objective when looking at your own country.

back to the sudan issue, the US government has as good as admitted that they were wrong... they acted on incorrect intelligence information, so continuing to deny this truth is ridiculous... if you don't believe me, do about 5 minutes of research on the BBC news website to see for yourself...

but sudan is a good example to use when discussing the imbalance in power and justice that exists on a global scale... there is no question that the united states is the most powerful country in the world, which is not a problem in itself, but the way they use this power - for their protection and gain - is a problem... in a truly just and equal world there would be one set of rules to apply to every nation, but that is certainly not the case today... the US blows up a pharmaceutical plant in a foreign country, a plant that produced the majority of medications for the ENTIRE COUNTRY, as well as veterinary medications which were extremely important for the countries food supply... and as a result thousands died due to the lack of medication... and what consequences does the united states face? nothing... well there is something significantly wrong with this... accountability must exist for each and every country on this planet...

the problems with the US run deeply into their ideology and culture... it's an extremely complicated web that spreads into many different areas - both foreign and domestic... it's no coincidence that the US ideology (built on capitalism, nationalism, right wing ideas and christianity) has produced a hugely rich & powerful elite that exists in society that has the highest violent crime rate in the western world, lowest literacy rate in the west, worst child poverty rate in the west, widest gap between rich and poor in the west, etc. and this is the same society that is using it's global power for it's own gain and protection...

the US is an empire, and is acting as every empire does - to protect itself... but this is an antiquated notion, especially when the rest of the developed world (europe, canada, etc) is trying to move towards a combined global conscience (i.e. Kyoto, ICC, etc)... and this is the way we need to go if we ever hope to solve the REAL problems in the world (poverty, human rights issues, environment etc.)... but the US is hindering the progress of this, and it's obvious why - any movement in this direction will reduce their hold on power... no empire wants to give up any of its power, and fights to protect its hold... it’s an old story that has been repeated throughout history... unfortunately the stakes are a lot higher this time around...

quote:

Originally posted by Jazz the US is an empire, and is acting as every empire does - to protect itself... but this is an antiquated notion, especially when the rest of the developed world (europe, canada, etc) is trying to move towards a combined global conscience (i.e. Kyoto, ICC, etc)... and this is the way we need to go if we ever hope to solve the REAL problems in the world (poverty, human rights issues, environment etc.)... but the US is hindering the progress of this, and it's obvious why - any movement in this direction will reduce their hold on power... no empire wants to give up any of its power, and fights to protect its hold... it?s an old story that has been repeated throughout history... unfortunately the stakes are a lot higher this time around...

I agree with the bulk of what you're saying here, and indeed, I've often equated the States of today with the Roman Empire of yesteryear in many regards, from military policy to it's eventual collapse sometime in the future.

I have to consider your last statement though...because I think the only way the stakes end up being higher this time around, are if, say, some mass destructive power like nuclear weapons, are used. Because, if you're talking about, say, the US moves in the middle east and so forth, even though I abhor a lot of the policy, I don't see how it's fundamentally different than the actions of the empires of yesteryear.

I completely agree that the US is hurting the move toward globalisation in the social sense, but, as you said, it's to be expected. Countries rarely give up power voluntarily, and there'd certainly need to be a *very* compelling reason for the government (or any government in a similar position for that matter) to accept limitations on what it can and can't do when right now it's enjoying carte blanche for anything short of outright, unprovoked, large scale military manoeuvres.

quote:

Originally posted by Jazz especially when the rest of the developed world (europe, canada, etc) is trying to move towards a combined global conscience (i.e. Kyoto, ICC, etc)... and this is the way we need to go if we ever hope to solve the REAL problems in the world (poverty, human rights issues, environment etc.)...

And how, precisely, is this the way we need to go, to solve the real problems of the world?

Will a piece of paper signed by pacifists without the guts to back it up stop terrorists from carrying out their plots? Will it stop the tyrant from arming his country to the teeth and waging war on nearby nations? Will it stop the deep-rooted tribal hatred and persistant civil war in Africa? Will it stop the strong and influential from stealing from the weak and impoverished in countries run by those strong and influential?

The answer is, of course, no, it will not stop any of these things. Countries that do not show a willingness to resort to force, such as most of Europe, will simply be ignored by the leaders of countries where these problems are most severe. If they send aid, it will be intercepted and used for the benefit of the elite, not the people. If they place sanctions to try to force compliance, it is only the masses who will suffer.

These kinds of problems are exactly the kind that cannot be solved by a "combined global conscience", for so long as there are nations that do not wish to be a part of this conscience, and right now there are hundreds, it is simply a pipe dream. A false hope of a perfect solution where the price of progress is paid in negotiation and not in blood.

If you want to criticize the United States for protecting its interests by force, so be it. But I can tell you that the United States isn't really interested in the opinion of people who are all talk and no action. Actions solve problems; war, as much as you may dislike it, solves problems. Talk is cheap, and will only solve problems when both sides agree there is a problem - which is not the case for most global problems at the moment. Say what you will about the US, but at least they have the will to do what it really takes to solve problems rather than just crying about them.

Cheers,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by Tuikkari Problems how I see it: 1. Religion named ISLAM and fundamentalist sections of it!!!

I don't really think it's right to blame Islam. Islamic fundamentalists are a problem - a human rights problem - but the real problem is the lack of education in predominantly Islamic regions, even about their own religion. Terrorists aren't real Muslims, they aren't even close to doing anything that is even remotely related to Islam. They're just being used by people who know how to use religion to manipulate people.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter And how, precisely, is this the way we need to go, to solve the real problems of the world? Will a piece of paper signed by pacifists without the guts to back it up stop terrorists from carrying out their plots? Will it stop the tyrant from arming his country to the teeth and waging war on nearby nations? Will it stop the deep-rooted tribal hatred and persistant civil war in Africa? Will it stop the strong and influential from stealing from the weak and impoverished in countries run by those strong and influential?

thanks you, thats the problem i see facing the liberal left, they are to nieve to see that it is human nature to have evil in its society and something must be done to protect society from that evil. it applies to many issues

quote:

Originally posted by Jazz it's no coincidence that the US ideology (built on capitalism, nationalism, right wing ideas and christianity) has produced a hugely rich & powerful elite that exists in society that has the highest violent crime rate in the western world, lowest literacy rate in the west, worst child poverty rate in the west, widest gap between rich and poor in the west, etc.

why is that no coincidence? how does being a nationalist, right wing country have anything to do with poverty, crime rate, and low literacy rate? (im not even going to get into america being christian, cause that is BS, the constitution specifies seperation of church and state). i think what you said has no validy what so ever and is just more liberal anti-america spewage.
let me prove you wrong, let me compare US to Australia, Canada, and UK. all data was collected from http://www.odci.gov/cia/publication...book/index.html

GDP per capita
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publication...ields/2004.html
USA - $36,300 (2001 est.)
Canada - $27,700 (2001 est.)
Australia - $24,000 (2001 est.)
UK - $24,700 (2001 est.)
world average - $7,600

Population below poverty line http://www.odci.gov/cia/publication...ields/2046.html
US - 12.7%
UK - 17%
Canada - NA
Australia - NA

Literacy rate
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publication...ields/2103.html
Australia - total population: 100% (hard to belive, but nice nonetheless)
UK - total population: 99%
US - total population: 97%
Canada - total population: 97%
world average - total population: 77%

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Juricimo so i see that almost one third of all the threads in here some way end up about America. Many of those America threads end up being "bashing America" threads. I personally stopped posting in here trying to defend what this country and it's political leaders are doing. One of the most reasonable anti-America or anti-war threads have originated from members from the USA itself. That's probably cos these people have formed their opinions on plethora of available information (from the US). What i'm trying to say is that all you non-Americans usually have very little clue what you are arguing, and i believe are arguing, well just for the sake of arguing against America. I dont know what anti-USA bullshit your government feeds you, but along with what seems like ignorance and (immature) maturity level, you end up typing much nonesense and clear bias with no backed up proofs other than your own, or government instilled opinions. I still see people like ABT posting in here in favor of America, only to realize no matter how good of an argument he might stirr up, there will be always people arguing back with simple-minded, biased, anti-America arguments. I guess what I'm trying to say, your arguments have no credibility what-so-ever with me, unless you have been negatively affected by US's actions, or back up your arguments with valid facts. thanks for reading opinions? >JM< PS. why hasn't anybody started a thread called "Iraqi Politics" and argued about Saddam and his socialist more than anything governmental policy?

U.S. Media = Propaganda = BRAIN WASHING + Arrogance

___________________