Terrorism (2 Viewers)

[Art^]

Thats all a political mastermind game, nobody really knows, but everyone wants to know, but only assumes.


But 1 thing i sure of, if Bush is going to help other nations its only for his own benefits.

UN didnt give them permission, FN didnt give them permission either. Basicly noone could find a valid reason to attack Iraq.

As i said, Bush is a cowboy

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Art^]

++ [ originally posted by Padovano ] ++
Art, as much as I am against the Bush man, and as much I like Michael Moore and Farhenheit 9/11, you must keep in mind that the film was carefully pieced together to present Bush in the worst possible light. Moore's agenda is to do everything he can to have Bush defeated in the next election. Just because we see something in the film does not make it fact.

Anyway, to answer Zlatan's original question - yes, I can see the terrorists winning. I say that because I see such change in the USA. This used to be a country that stood for all things right and proper, defended the weak and all that. Now, just darkness. The country is divided with much hatred, and Bush is what divides this country. The prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the USA look like the evil doers. We have lost our moral center, and that probably makes a terrorist very happy.

Yes bush is presented in the worst possible light in the movie, but Moore is not presenting any kind of controversy. When he tells something, he also prooves it. And thats what makes him so unique.
Overall Moore just showing what nobody wants to admit.

 

[Dragon]

++ [ originally posted by Art^ ] ++
Thats all a political mastermind game, nobody really knows, but everyone wants to know, but only assumes.


But 1 thing i sure of, if Bush is going to help other nations its only for his own benefits.

UN didnt give them permission, FN didnt give them permission either. Basicly noone could find a valid reason to attack Iraq.

As i said, Bush is a cowboy

The UN didnt give them permission, and France kept vetoing every resolution because it didnt benefit them, and still the UN didnt do anything, which proves that the UN is nothing but a joke.

Yes, the USA attacked a place that benefited them and thats wrong, but at least they did helped the people. France, for example, was benefited by Hussein's regime and didnt help the people because that didnt benefit them, so its not only America's fault

 

[Art^]

It might sound like im an Anti-American. But im not, i just dont like how they tackle things after what happened to Afghanistan.
And im offcourse not blaming americans, im only blaming 1 man.

Just a little note

 

[Dragon]

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion

 

[Art^]

Amen

 

[Zlatan]

Well, altho I like and support Michael Moore, I dont think you can use his movies to prove your point. First of all, the facts are somewhat bent to suit him, especially in Bowling for Columbine, and he always says he's just stating his personal opinion. Nonetheless, they are valuabale poeces of both art and political propaganda.

Also, to fabi, I think not even 1% of Bush's decision to invade Iraq was because he wanted to help them. It's all about oil and Middle and Far East influence. Even Bush senior wanted to get rid of Saddam. Also, evidence has been shown that the Bush senior administration had a plan to increase American power and influence in the world as well as getting hold of strategic oil reserves years before 9/11, and one of the documents stated that the only thing neccessary to get it going was "a new Pearl Harbour".

 

[Art^]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
Well, altho I like and support Michael Moore, I dont think you can use his movies to prove your point. First of all, the facts are somewhat bent to suit him, especially in Bowling for Columbine, and he always says he's just stating his personal opinion. Nonetheless, they are valuabale poeces of both art and political propaganda.

Also, to fabi, I think not even 1% of Bush's decision to invade Iraq was because he wanted to help them. It's all about oil and Middle and Far East influence. Even Bush senior wanted to get rid of Saddam. Also, evidence has been shown that the Bush senior administration had a plan to increase American power and influence in the world as well as getting hold of strategic oil reserves years before 9/11, and one of the documents stated that the only thing neccessary to get it going was "a new Pearl Harbour".

My point is exactly what you just wrote in the second part. And thats also mentioned in Fahrenheit.

I was not being critical from Moores point of view, if you somehow think that, then im sorry that i didnt make a good interpretation. I only mentioned Farhenheit as an exampel.

BTW. Have you seen the movie?

 

[Zlatan]

No, since we're very much under american influence and cinemas dont take non-blockbuster hollywood movies, I havent had a chance to. I havent been to the video store in a while tho, I'll have to go and rent it.

 

[Dragon]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++

Also, to fabi, I think not even 1% of Bush's decision to invade Iraq was because he wanted to help them. It's all about oil and Middle and Far East influence. Even Bush senior wanted to get rid of Saddam. Also, evidence has been shown that the Bush senior administration had a plan to increase American power and influence in the world as well as getting hold of strategic oil reserves years before 9/11, and one of the documents stated that the only thing neccessary to get it going was "a new Pearl Harbour".

If he wanted to help the people or not, we'll never know, but fact is that he did help them to revoke Saddam and now they can judge him in their our courts and finally vote and decide who they want to govern them. Maybe Bush didnt give them food or money, but he revoked Saddam and thats way more important than food/money, etc.
Its true and obvious that they wanted to get rid of Saddam and personally Im glad they did. They did it the wrong way because they attacked like if they were the kings of the World.

What I dont like about Bush's (or Americans') plans is that they attack places that have their interests. They have done nothing (and plan to do nothing) against Cuba/Fidel because Cuba doesnt have anything that interests them. But if you look at it the other way, why should they attack places if they wont get anything in return?

 

[Zlatan]

Yeah, it's all about interest. When Bosnia was attacked they let the war go on for 3 years, killing hundreds of thousands of people and making millions refugees. And yet, when Iraq invaded Quwait they responded in days.


Also, America is actting like they are the fvcking kings of the world. They talk about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam destabilizing the region, and yet it is they and their Allies that are doing just that. They are the ones that have Nuclear bombs, that have biological and chemical weapons, their allies Izrael that are destabilizing the entire Middle East region. Who gives them the right to dictate how another nation is going to arm itself when it is they that have the most and most dangerous weapons? First you dissarm yourselves and then others. Also, all this talk about Saddam being a threat to America, working with terrorists and having ready-to-use weapons of mass destruction is all a bunch of bullshit. It all reminds me of Minority Report. Who gave them the right to do preemptive strikes? it's like if you're walking through a bad neighbourhood and see a dangerous looking guy, and you shoot him because you think he would have attacked you, altho you have no evidence. Preemptive strikes arent the answer.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Padovano ] ++
Art, as much as I am against the Bush man, and as much I like Michael Moore and Farhenheit 9/11, you must keep in mind that the film was carefully pieced together to present Bush in the worst possible light. Moore's agenda is to do everything he can to have Bush defeated in the next election. Just because we see something in the film does not make it fact.

Anyway, to answer Zlatan's original question - yes, I can see the terrorists winning. I say that because I see such change in the USA. This used to be a country that stood for all things right and proper, defended the weak and all that. Now, just darkness. The country is divided with much hatred, and Bush is what divides this country. The prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the USA look like the evil doers. We have lost our moral center, and that probably makes a terrorist very happy.

Sadly, I must agree with you there Pado. But IMO, anybody who takes innocent, civilian life is a terrorist, no matter what their cause might be.

Whether it be Palestinian suicide bombers, or the DC Sniper bastards, you are still a terrorist.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by fabiana ] ++


The UN didnt give them permission, and France kept vetoing every resolution because it didnt benefit them, and still the UN didnt do anything, which proves that the UN is nothing but a joke.

Yes, the USA attacked a place that benefited them and thats wrong, but at least they did helped the people. France, for example, was benefited by Hussein's regime and didnt help the people because that didnt benefit them, so its not only America's fault

Yes, good point Fabi. Not many people know that information, and I'm glad you exposed it.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
Yeah, it's all about interest. When Bosnia was attacked they let the war go on for 3 years, killing hundreds of thousands of people and making millions refugees. And yet, when Iraq invaded Quwait they responded in days.


Also, America is actting like they are the fvcking kings of the world. They talk about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam destabilizing the region, and yet it is they and their Allies that are doing just that. They are the ones that have Nuclear bombs, that have biological and chemical weapons, their allies Izrael that are destabilizing the entire Middle East region. Who gives them the right to dictate how another nation is going to arm itself when it is they that have the most and most dangerous weapons? First you dissarm yourselves and then others. Also, all this talk about Saddam being a threat to America, working with terrorists and having ready-to-use weapons of mass destruction is all a bunch of bullshit. It all reminds me of Minority Report. Who gave them the right to do preemptive strikes? it's like if you're walking through a bad neighbourhood and see a dangerous looking guy, and you shoot him because you think he would have attacked you, altho you have no evidence. Preemptive strikes arent the answer.

Of course its not the answer, its the beginning. Using Preemptive strikes is part of the "game" of warfare.

Yes, you are right. We do have those certain types of weapons. We do have biological and chemical weapons, but not for the usage on innocent people or other Military forces. We have those weapons to experiment on them, and to find vacinations or cures for them. My dad is a Scientist at Fort Detrick, where all that research goes on. We can have those weapons because the World doesn't have to worry about us using them anytime soon. But the same could not be said about Iraq. If Iraq did have WMD's, they very well could have used them. Thats the difference. But since Iraq didn't have them in the first place, the whole war was somewhat a waste of time from a Government standpoint. Bush and his team went with instinct and false information (thank you CIA), and it turned out to be a big mistake which is costing us Billions. But at least Saddam is not menacing Iraquis anymore.

But its not like our intentions for other situations are bad. We give support and aid to many troubled regions of the World, and we are obligated to help because of our Economic stature. I wonder how the world would react if our Government pulled the plug on all humanity aid operations throughout the globe, as well as our militaristic presence.

 

[swag]

Question: what's with all this talk about Iraq and its invasion in a "Terrorism" thread? Isn't that the crux of the joke in Bush's justification for war there in the first place?

Just like the We Love The Iraqi Information Minister Web site that sells T-shirts that say things like, "There are no American infidels in Bagdad. Never!," I think the Bush administration should sell "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Queda" T-shirts.

Speaking of which, if you haven't checked this out for your own amusement yet:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

 

[Bjerknes]

That first website is wack :LOL: I like the line "There are only two tanks in the city".

 

[Dragon]

If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he could have given them to Al Qaeda, or to any terrorist group unlike the USA that will keep them without harming the World. Thinking the USA would attack a country with nuclear weapons just because they wanted to is a complete lie. If he didnt have weapons, then why did Iraq refuse to sign those UN resolutions that said that they didnt have those weapons?

Maybe Saddam didnt have those weapons, but Im quite sure he gave money to terrorists groups. All the anti-american governments do that, including the Venezuelan one!

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

++ [ originally posted by fabiana ] ++
Can terrorism be justified in countries like Colombia and Spain? where groups like the FARC (Colombian guerrilla) and ETA are separatist groups and dont support the current government. Why do normal people that have nothing to do with the government have to be scared when they board a train, or they cant go out to the outskirts of Bogota (in Colombia), or even travel by land because the chances the guerrilla will rape you and never return you back are very high? Can terrorism really be justified there? the FARC is screwing up Colombia big time, theyre economically/socially and politically destroying the country and no solution is nowhere near to be found yet they still keep doing those terror acts and refuse to talk with the government to find a solution

no they cannot be justified becoz there are perfectly legal democratic ways to do that. (at least in theory)

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

++ [ originally posted by fabiana ] ++
If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he could have given them to Al Qaeda, or to any terrorist group unlike the USA that will keep them without harming the World.

do you know what the Nazis said.


"there will be peace in the world only when the powerfull countries fully controll the small ones"


is that how you want america to be ?

 

[Dragon]

++ [ originally posted by Don Bes ] ++



no they cannot be justified becoz there are perfectly legal democratic ways to do that. (at least in theory)

Exactly