This made me so happy I can finally smile with joy [Archive]

Malignancy

01-21-2004, 11:31 PM

Maybe I am a bit odd, but I can't see why someone would smile with joy because he sees 3 people being shot.

I smile with joy because I despise those thankless people. We have put our men in harms way to do what they couldn't do for themselves - release themselves from the rule of a tyrannical dictator. And what thanks do we get? Nothing!

I smile with joy because they would laugh at the rape and torture of your family or mine.

I smile with joy because one less islamic extremist (or islamic person in general) brings this world closer to peace and NOT war.

I smile with joy because our men are trained and do not hesitate to kill these vermin.

I smile with joy because finally we are bringing to them the nightmare that they truly deserve. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "If your enemy brings war to you, you must bring war back to him beyond his worst nightmare; failure to do so will result in a loss beyond your worst nightmare".

Thank you.

EC

Xondio

01-21-2004, 11:40 PM

Nice post mal, to be honest I really thought that was a cool video.

and btw malignancy, which side on shattered galaxies do you play? I play on mono side

Darwoth

01-22-2004, 12:00 AM

that was a good video albeit short, i found it interesting how the first guys blood/guts sprayed all overe the ground and retained enough heat to light up in the IR still.

i have a bunch of those type of videos, one from afghanistan is an apache doing like a good 45 mins of attacks on various targets its pretty wild.

also have one of some of the big ass tank battle in the first iraq war.

cant remember where i found them, but i stumbled onto them doign searches for shit like "military videos" or "military footage" etc.

Exodus

01-22-2004, 12:15 AM

i found that video last week while browsing this website watching funny vids of stupid shit. pretty brutal, apaches fuckin own. man that first guy just gets torn to shreds -- anyone know what kind of gun that was??

oh, those people probably deserved it as well.

edit: heres the full video, btw: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~raymondw/Apache%20Mission%20in%20Iraq%2012.1.03.avi

Xondio

01-22-2004, 01:47 AM

Yeah, the weap they were holding was a surface to air missle, and then the apache tore them up, what's funny is the second guy who got shot up was trying to take the cover off the missle to fire at the apache... unfortunately for him he was too late lol, his head burst once the apache hit it with about 80 rounds. The guy under the truck was funny too, he crawled out he was injured so bad, and they shot him while he was rolling around lol.

Rabdallas

01-22-2004, 05:40 AM

What I said was not a political statement. I simply don't see why people getting shot can make someone smile with joy.

However... I see the propaganda machine is still working.

I smile with joy because I despise those thankless people. We have put our men in harms way to do what they couldn't do for themselves - release themselves from the rule of a tyrannical dictator. And what thanks do we get? Nothing!
Thankless? You surely don't want me to believe you send your army there to free the poor people of Iraq? Sure you got rid of a dictator but only because of revenge and maybe a bit of fear. Don't get me wrong. I am not against the war in Iraq. I think that some mistakes where made (it always easy to say that afterwards). But don't tell me the US went there out of compassion with the Iraqi's.

I smile with joy because they would laugh at the rape and torture of your family or mine.
And all americans wear cowboy hats, are fat and eat hamburgers all day. All dutch wear woodenshoes, never leave home without a tulip in their hands and ofcourse smoke pot 24 hours / day.

I smile with joy because one less islamic extremist (or islamic person in general) brings this world closer to peace and NOT war.
So why go through all this effort to free those islamic persons from their dictator then? Saddam was far more efficient in killing islamic people then the US is.

Again, I am not against what happened and I see why it is needed to stay there until a new (interim) governement is formed. And although I am not religious, I pray to god that the US will leave very soon after that new governement is installed. Because I think the US is creating far more new extremists then they "get rid of" every day they are staying there.

gr,
Rab

Karsus

01-22-2004, 05:42 AM

I think you are completely wrong malignancy,the US didnt go to iraq to save em from a tyrant,they went there for the irqui oil.

Imagine for a few that the US is not the more powerful country in the world,think tha China is.Then the Chinesse how envy your industries and your resources invade you,but they say "hey Bush is the leader of tha axis of evil now,we will save you".They start to launch bombs and kill innocent US ppl everywhere.Will you thank the Chinesse for killing Bush and thousens of innocent ppl and for destroying your cities? I think you would be thankless and fight back even with stones if thats the only weapons you have.This make you a fanatical also? i dont think so.

Stoffer

01-22-2004, 07:09 AM

I don't enjoy other peoples death/misery. You may think their death is fair and just, but enjoying death should be something we are above.

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 08:14 AM

It was indeed a very sobering video watching 3 or 4 men killed like nothing more then bugs. Was it right? Was it wrong? Did it make me feel bad? I do not know.

Things i DO know:

1. Countries and people who have a national holiday called "Death to America day" have basically declared them our foe. If they declare themselve my enemy I can only assume they mean bad things for us. Thus their demise is necessary.

2. People that try to force their will on other people are inherantly evil and detrimental to world peace. These people traditionally try to force their beliefs on others. Forcing religious zelousness = bad.

3. I have a strong belief that these people killed here would not hesitate to kill my wife or family given the first opporuntiy. They have miserble lives and nothing better to do or expect from life then the praise they get from their fellows for killing one of us. What else can they do? Live in some hut and farm? Work in the oil fields?

Karsus,

Whilst Hussein stole billions of dollars in oil money from Iraq, I can assure you the United States of America does not need to nor will risk such a thing. Do you think the world would not point out that the US or US companies were stealing OIL from IRAQ? That OIL crap story is just that.

It's very simple. These extremeists got WAY out of hand on 911 and pissed us the fuck off. We went after any potential source of these dipshits. The first was Afghanistan. Husein made the second easy by his idiotic takeover of Kuwait. Now other nations that have funded or helped terrorists are thinking twice about it (lIbya, Syria, Iran).

Karsus

01-22-2004, 09:09 AM

Im not supportins saddam in any way,but i also think that US goverment (not the comon US citizen) made a crime invading Iraq for some reasons.

Saddam doesnt have any connection with Osama.while Osama is a religious zealot Saddam when first came to the presidence of Iraq was awarded in many european countries for being the first arabian leader that doesnt supports any religion.

The main reason cause the US invaded Iraq was they might have weapons of mass destruction that havent been discovered yet.While we all know for sure that US has millions of "weapons of massive peace and freedom".
Why the US should have the right to have WOMD while the others countries not? if the US wants no countries to have WOMD they should destroy theirs first.

No one starts a war because they want to make Good to the world.All the wars starts by economical reasons.I feel sad for the US,UK,spanish and other countries soldiers cause they died to make Bush and "his" friends more rich even.

I understand what you feel after 911 because we have an important problem with terrorism since 1960-70 with the armed terrorist band ETA but i dont hate all the ppl that lives in the Pais Vasco,i only hate the terrorists.

In few words,what i want to say is that before the war started the ppl from Iraq were not enemies of the US and if the US thought Saddam was a real menace they could have killed him in a way much less profitable for the US but with no innocent lives costs.

yaarii

01-22-2004, 09:10 AM

It's not possible to put the Iraq war down to just 1 reason. The country that invaded, the US, is a democracy and has many many different views. True oil was probably in the minds of SOME americans, but then other americans supported the war without thinking about oil. Most of the support for the war, in the US, came from average joes who were told that Iraq is threatening the US with WMD's, that they support AL Qaeda, that they are ruled by a tyrannical government that kills its own civilians. Some people didn't support the war at all....and again for many different reasons. It is just too simplistic to say "the war was started to get the oil" or "the war was started so bush could be a hero", and so on.

Another thing to note - if someone doesn't like you, and you punch them in the face and say "be my friend or I'll keep punching you", you'll often have that someone turn into your friend. But as soon as you lack the ability to punch them, they will turn on you. The same thing will likely happen in the middle east - I don't think we are seeing genuine friendship from Libya by their admission and cancellation of weapons programs, just a temporary lessening of the danger until such time as the US doesn't pose a risk to Libya. I believe bridging gaps in a less confrontational manner, in the long term, is a far better strategy for peace.

Karsus

01-22-2004, 09:19 AM

Well,ill stop talking about politics because everyone has his own opinion that isnt going to change cause anothers says the opposit.Lets talk about WoW and other incoming mmorpgs that is more entertaining.

Meter

01-22-2004, 09:21 AM

If i remember correctly the US and GB invaded Iraq because of the threat of nuclear and chemical weapons. Those weapons are still to be found.
Terrorists cannot be fought by invading countries, terrorists do not have one.
And i agree with Yaarii there are a lot of reasons why one would want to invade a country like Iraq but it mostly is not because of the reasons you have been hearing.

Edit: mostly what Karsus said.

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 09:42 AM

Saddam doesnt have any connection with Osama.while Osama is a religious zealot Saddam when first came to the presidence of Iraq was awarded in many european countries for being the first arabian leader that doesnt supports any religion.

Who cares? An enemy of the US and freedom does not have to be butt pals with Osama for us to go after them if you ask me.

The main reason cause the US invaded Iraq was they might have weapons of mass destruction that havent been discovered yet.While we all know for sure that US has millions of "weapons of massive peace and freedom".
Why the US should have the right to have WOMD while the others countries not? if the US wants no countries to have WOMD they should destroy theirs first.

This was just an excuse. It's a shame they played smoke and mirrors when they should have just said Iraq wasa thorn in the side of civilized people. They attacked Kuwait, butchered it's people, raped its woman and stole their stuff. They proved they were a problem upon society when they did this.

No one starts a war because they want to make Good to the world.All the wars starts by economical reasons.I feel sad for the US,UK,spanish and other countries soldiers cause they died to make Bush and "his" friends more rich even.

This is propaganda. U have fallen for it. Congrats. Now open up your mind and think. Do you really believe it had nothing to do with being sick of people having a holiday celebrating "death to america day"? Or that they pay suicide bomber familes several thousand dollars after a suicde bomber blows up jews in Israel? Or that they have paintings all over the place praising those who did 911? Do you believe that our invasion had nothing to do with the 100 of thousands of people Hussein has slaughtered? EVEN OUT OF his country? Do you truly believe we should not have done this RIGHT AFTER he invaded Kuwait? Do you really believe this shit did not need to be cleaned up?

If not, u would have been one of the ones who held a blind eye to the Nazis slaughtering folks during WW2 Grats.

In few words,what i want to say is that before the war started the ppl from Iraq were not enemies of the US and if the US thought Saddam was a real menace they could have killed him in a way much less profitable for the US but with no innocent lives costs.

He had a million man army. We spent 10 years after he invaded and desecrated Kuwait figuring out how to unseat him without invading his country and killing iraqi people. Fact is, there will ALWAYS be liberal people who believe this kind of thing is wrong, but our memories arenot so short. We remember what happened in WW2 when you let a dicator run amok. We now know what happens when you turn a blind eye to a viscious killer with a million man army. And we also will not peacfully be happy about millions of people being taught to kill americans for the simple sake of hated. At some point it becomes time to act and we did that.

I can just hope it does not stop there. These fuckin people need to get with the program or pay the price.

I don't know where you live. But let's just say France as an example. Would you not consider it an act of war if we paid the family of suicide bombers who bombed your resteraunts and killed your families? That reason ALONE is enough reason for what we did. Unless you thin k it's OK that the iraqi leader was rewarding the families of terrorists for their actions.

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 09:53 AM

If i remember correctly the US and GB invaded Iraq because of the threat of nuclear and chemical weapons. Those weapons are still to be found.

The Bush administration made up this kind of thing in an effort at gaining international support. I believe they not only should not have done this, they did not need to. I think the true reasons behind it are good enough:

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait and ally of the US. They butchered it's citizens, looted it's cities, raped it's woman and chiildren. This reason alone is good enough for a regime change IMHO.

2. Iraq used WMDs on it's own citizens and on Iranians. They slaughtered their own citizens in ethnic cleansing frequently. This alone is good enough reason for regime change.

3. Iraq paid the familes of Suicide terrorist bombers rewarding and praising them for killing inocent civilians. This alone is reason enough for regime change.

4. Iraq was a rogue nation out of countrol of the international community and as such was capable of supplying or aiding terrorist organizations.

These reasons alone were good enough for what was done. Why the Bush administration even played the WMD card is beyond me when these alone would have sufficed IMHO.

Karsus,

There is nothing wrong with voicing yer opinion. If folks cannot handle other people disagreeing with them, then fuck them. How else do you see someone else's point of view if you don't get to hear their opinion?

Malignancy

01-22-2004, 10:04 AM

Bah, I didn't want to start a political rhetoric thread here, so I'll only have a few comments:

(1) I don't recall the actual threat of weapons of mass destruction being the sole reason for the United States invading Iraq. I recall that we had intelligence that Iraq had or was developing or wanted to develop weapons of mass destruction. This was just an excuse and very few intelligent Americans who supported the war actually cared whether or not Saddam had these weapons. I certainly did not care. What we all know (and no one can dispute) is that Saddam was SEEKING those weapons and that if he had the opportunity to use them against American interests, he certainly would do so. This intent makes him guilty and justifies the invasion of Iraq by the United States.

(2) America has weapons of mass destruction. We are allowed to do so because we will not use them merely to gain economic power. The other shitbox countries WILL use them for precisely that reason. That is why those shitbox countries can not be allowed to have those weapons. Comprende'?

(3) The dutch all smoke pot 24 hours a day. Its a truthful stereotype. I worked in Amsterdam for a while and I was constantly throwing some hashish in my cigarettes...24 hours a day :P I like the dutch. Some of my favorites people aside from Jamaicans.

EC
P.S. In Shattered Galaxy, I've moved from Planet Relic to Morgana Prime to be with the "l33t". I play in Renaissance faction which is shit because nobody cooperates and everyone blames the next "l33t" fool for his own mistakes. I play as a merc generally.

yaarii

01-22-2004, 10:22 AM

4. Iraq was a rogue nation out of countrol of the international community and as such was capable of supplying or aiding terrorist organizations.

Iraq was never really a "rogue nation". It was friendly with the US during the 80's, and after that whole invading Kuwait thing was pretty much a non-threat to anyone bar it's own citizens, and even then Saddam had virtually no power in the north of his own country anyway, and little in the south. Sanctions and the devastation of Iraq's military and military industries destroyed any semblance of regional power. Look how fast the regime fell over last year, even the US military admitted it was running out of targets to bomb only days in.

Btw, any country with any export potential...which means basically anywhere with a small dock or airstrip, is "capable" of supplying or aiding "terrorists".

yaarii

01-22-2004, 10:23 AM

Also, how exactly were UN inspectors allowed free reign to wander about anywhere they liked in Iraq for years if Iraq was "out of international control"?

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 10:34 AM

that whole invading Kuwait thing was pretty much a non-threat to anyone bar it's own citizens,
You mean like when Germany invaded Poland or Czevakia (however u spell it), Denmark, Netherlands, France, Austria...... Tell this tot he Kuwaiti's who were butchered during this "non-threat". Tell it to the Saudi's who were next if we did nothing about it.

and even then Saddam had virtually no power in the north of his own country anyway, and little in the south.

Tell this to the Kurds who were gased by Saddam.

Sanctions and the devastation of Iraq's military and military industries destroyed any semblance of regional power. Look how fast the regime fell over last year, even the US military admitted it was running out of targets to bomb only days in.

And this means what? We should have sat there for another 10 years?

Btw, any country with any export potential...which means basically anywhere with a small dock or airstrip, is "capable" of supplying or aiding "terrorists".

The problem is when it becomes a real threat to occur.

Also, how exactly were UN inspectors allowed free reign to wander about anywhere they liked in Iraq for years if Iraq was "out of international control"?

You were under the impression that the UN inspectors had some control over Iraqi actions? LOL they did not even know that Syria was still shipping Saddam weapons ;p

yaarii

01-22-2004, 10:57 AM

I was referring to Iraq's power after Gulf War 1. The gassing of civilians at Halabja occurred during 1988. It was alleged to be a part of Operation Anfal (Saddam's Regime vs Militant Kurds inside of Iraq), but did not occur in any of the Anfal operation zones. Halabja is close to the Iran border, who at the time were at war with Iraq. Nobody knows exactly what happened there other than 5000 dead civilians due to a gas attack. There are conflicting reports as to whether the Iranians had occupied the town, whether the town was supporting the Iranians, whether it was Iraq or Iran that actually dropped chemical weapons on the town.

I said that AFTER Gulf War 1 Iraq was a non-threat. Besides, it is even doubtful how far the Iraqi's could have gone in Saudi Arabia without US intervention after the Kuwait invasion. Basically the Kuwaiti invasion went like this.

1. Iraqi forces build up along border with Kuwait.
2. Kuwait shits its pants and doesn't know what to do.
3. Iraqi forces enter Kuwait.
4. Kuwaiti forces surrender almost immediately.
5. Kuwaiti royal family flees.

Iraq scared Kuwait, and in a straight up fight would have trounced Kuwait. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is a different ball game. Iraq would have needed far more advanced military strategies and tactics due to the size of Saudi Arabia and it's military. Saudi Arabia had a smaller military than Iraq, but far far better armed and trained. The Iraqi's lacked basic military knowledge on how to maneuver and supply their vast quantaties of armour and troops. Hell most of their troops weren't even mechanised.

The very notion of Iraq becoming the next Germany is laughable at best. They had neither the intelligence or means to pull off a military invasion bigger than driving around Kuwait in tanks. Grayrage, remember that Iraq fought Iran from 1980-1988 and it ended in a DRAW. That's right. They had the fourth largest military in the world at the time and they couldn't even beat Iran.

The UN inspectors certainly did have an effect on Iraqi actions. How many WMD's did they manage to build during the sanctions? NONE. Not only do none exist today, theres no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything more dangerous than the influenza virus in a test tube since 1994.

As far as Iraq was exporting terror, it amounted to no more than monetary payments to the families of suicide bombers from Palestine. One could list many nations that are exporting far more dangerous things than money to civilian families....North Korea exporting missile technology for example.

I am NOT denying that in the 80's the Ba'ath party regime killed its Iraqi civilians. I am NOT denying that Iraqi forces went on a raping and pillaging rampage in Kuwait for a few months. I am NOT denying they had wmd programs prior to Gulf War 1.

I'm not questioning your opinion on whether or not Iraq should have been invaded. I am merely correcting your mistakes on the threats that Iraq posed, their military ability and regional power.

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 11:29 AM

Iraq scared Kuwait, and in a straight up fight would have trounced Kuwait. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is a different ball game. Iraq would have needed far more advanced military strategies and tactics due to the size of Saudi Arabia and it's military. Saudi Arabia had a smaller military than Iraq, but far far better armed and trained. The Iraqi's lacked basic military knowledge on how to maneuver and supply their vast quantaties of armour and troops. Hell most of their troops weren't even mechanised.

We gave suadi arabia alot of stuff after Kuwait was invaded so that we could use Saudi Arabia as a base. Prior to that they did not have much of the good stuff. If you think Iraq could not have taken out Saudi Arabia, I believe u are mistaken. It's a MOOT point, however, because we acted on it.

The very notion of Iraq becoming the next Germany is laughable at best. They had neither the intelligence or means to pull off a military invasion bigger than driving around Kuwait in tanks. Grayrage, remember that Iraq fought Iran from 1980-1988 and it ended in a DRAW. That's right. They had the fourth largest military in the world at the time and they couldn't even beat Iran.

So they decided to go after the money they needed to upgrade their army. Recall that Germany did the same thing in WW2. Taking Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands and even france without so much as a fight yet robbing from them and making them work for their war machine. If we allowed Iraq to stay in Kuwait....what was their next move? Another country unable to stop them just liek Germany did. Sure, there are differences, but it's the same basic concept....they invaded, they killed, they stole, they raped...they deserved to die for it.

As far as Iraq was exporting terror, it amounted to no more than monetary payments to the families of suicide bombers from Palestine. One could list many nations that are exporting far more dangerous things than money to civilian families....North Korea exporting missile technology for example.

Yep and they should be next ;p

I am merely correcting your mistakes on the threats that Iraq posed, their military ability and regional power.

Terrorism, killing, national criminal acts and more was getitng worse and worse every year. How far do we let it go before we crack down on it? I firmly believe any country who has a "death to anyone" day should be labelled as a foe to society.

Do you think it would be ok for us to have a national holiday "death to austrian's day" where we have parades and pray they all die? TTheir culture is fundamentally flawed when they have a HOLIDAY wanting us to die. WHen they TEACH their KIDS in SCHOOL to HATE us! When they REWARD suicide bombings. And WHY? Because our woman wear bikini's and vote? Because we have McDonald's and are fat? ;p They need to live their fuckin lives the way they want, but quit trying to force it on us and other people.

Jawdog

01-22-2004, 11:50 AM

These things are always more complicated than they seem. I know nothing.

Maybe violence is sometimes the only option, maybe violence creates more violence. Revenge is natural, inevitable and probably pointless.

America and GB are strong enough to withstand criticism because they are relatively free countries. I wish there were more countries like America and GB, but I don't think you can force it on other countries.

I hope that as soon as possible, America and GB leave Iraq, with as few as casualties as possible, and that the Iraqis are left to make their own decisions, whatever they may be.

I think above all we should respect all soldiers, who are willing to sacrifice their lives for ideals. They are the true martyrs.

I do not like watching people kill people. I think it's sick. Those soldiers had a job to do and they did it well. It should never become entertainment.

Karsus

01-22-2004, 12:03 PM

"2) America has weapons of mass destruction. We are allowed to do so because we will not use them merely to gain economic power. The other shitbox countries WILL use them for precisely that reason. That is why those shitbox countries can not be allowed to have those weapons. Comprende'?"

This sentence is very funny.I think you agree 100% the Bush words when he said that you are the "good" and the others (the countries that have enough natural resources to be profitable) are the "evil" and you gotta fight em.

Let me tell you one thing,no country is evil or good per se.America has WMD for the only reason it is the more powerful country atm and no one can obligate america to destroy it.And will use em if they think the should do,no matter what the others countries thinks

I am not anti american,i know you are capable to do the best things and the worst too,like my country and like everyones country.But the thing i can not understand is how you are able to defend even the bad things your country does.

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 12:13 PM

Amen brutha'

Malignancy

01-22-2004, 12:30 PM

This sentence is very funny.I think you agree 100% the Bush words when he said that you are the "good" and the others (the countries that have enough natural resources to be profitable) are the "evil" and you gotta fight em.

Let me tell you one thing,no country is evil or good per se.America has WMD for the only reason it is the more powerful country atm and no one can obligate america to destroy it.And will use em if they think the should do,no matter what the others countries thinks

I do not agree with Bush and I certainly do not agree with the good/evil dichotomy. What I do know is that we are civil and it would be against our collective moral character to use WMD against civilian populations for economic gain.

What I also know is that the leaders of the other "shitbox" countries are NOT against using WMD for economic gain. In our country, we choose our leaders in open elections. Our leaders may have selfish motivations, but they still have to answer to the American people. The leaders of the "shitbox" countries are not elected fairly and therefore do not have to answer to anyone but themselves. That is why the "shitbox" leaders praise the use suicide bombers or crashing planes into buildings to kill civilians. Can you even imagine the United States using these tactics? Can you imagine the "shitbox" leaders giving food and medical care to foreign citizens whom they have just conquered? NO! THEY RAPE PILLAGE AND DESTROY WITH NO MORAL CONCERNS WHATSOEVER. And you dare to equate the shitbox countries with our great American nation?

Hopefully you can understand that I do not think that the citizens of the "shitbox" countries are evil. They are no more evil than the average American is good. Nevertheless, the United States as well as certain other first world countries must main a certain moral standard where the "shitbox" countries merely steal, beg and pillage.

Just out of curiousity Karsus, where are you from?

EC

Malignancy

01-22-2004, 12:37 PM

This sentence is very funny.I think you agree 100% the Bush words when he said that you are the "good" and the others (the countries that have enough natural resources to be profitable) are the "evil" and you gotta fight em.

One last note. I assume that when you refer to "countries that have enough natural resources to be profitable", you are referring to oil in the middle east? Iraq is the 4th biggest oil producing country in the world, producing nearly 25% of the world's oil. IF Saddam was a moral leader, he could have opened his country 10 years ago for United Nation's inspectors and had sanctions lifted against Iraq. He would have then had a fortune to build his country and help the prosperity of his people. He did not. He stole a billion dollars and used the rest for torture and to keep himself in power.

I'm still not calling Iraq evil - but its former leader is indisputably immoral.

EC

Xondio

01-22-2004, 01:39 PM

Karsus, let me clarify a couple of things for you.

1. The United States of America gets 6% oil from Iraq.
2. Was it wrong for America to go into Iraq? Ask yourself this then, was it right for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and use chemical weapons against innocent children and their families?
3. Say 2 people have nukes, one is a ruthless murderer who has ordered the killing of thousands of people, including children. Now lets say the other guy, is very powerful, and has a ton of nukes, but instead he gives trillions of dollars to benefit other countries. Which would you feel safe having them?

Malignancy

01-22-2004, 04:11 PM

Edit: please do not post these kind of links on these boards.
- Meter Methodical.

Meter--

This is a general board and as far as I'm concerned, this was combat footage also identified as public records. Nothing illegal here. If ya don't have the stomach for it bro, then don't watch. Don't censor people. That was never DB's way of things; its one of the reason I like this guild.

EC

yaarii

01-22-2004, 04:14 PM

That is why the "shitbox" leaders praise the use suicide bombers or crashing planes into buildings to kill civilians. Can you even imagine the United States using these tactics?

Well the US helped that particular "shitbox" leader get into power in the first place, and didn't seem to care about that "shitbox" leader killing and gassing civilians, starting wars with other "shitbox" countries until that "shitbox" leader invaded another US-aligned "shitbox" dictatorship.

I don't hear any of you advocating the overthrow of the dictators of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, despite their shitty human rights records.

yaarii

01-22-2004, 04:34 PM

We gave suadi arabia alot of stuff after Kuwait was invaded so that we could use Saudi Arabia as a base. Prior to that they did not have much of the good stuff. If you think Iraq could not have taken out Saudi Arabia, I believe u are mistaken. It's a MOOT point, however, because we acted on it.

Well no, you are wrong. Iraq couldn't take over Saudi Arabia. If Iraq had any formidable combat ability whatsoever it would have absolutely TROUNCED Iran....but it couldn't. If it couldn't conquer Iran....what exactly could it have invaded? Iran wasn't exactly a hard target....I mean their main forces consisted of human waves of martyrs armed with little more than ak47's.

So they decided to go after the money they needed to upgrade their army. Recall that Germany did the same thing in WW2. Taking Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands and even france without so much as a fight yet robbing from them and making them work for their war machine. If we allowed Iraq to stay in Kuwait....what was their next move? Another country unable to stop them just liek Germany did. Sure, there are differences, but it's the same basic concept....they invaded, they killed, they stole, they raped...they deserved to die for it.

Germany at the start of ww2 was one of the most advanced and industrialised nations on the planet, using tactics DECADES ahead of everyone else. Iraq is exactly the opposite....the only reason they had an army the size that they did was oil sales. Unlike Germany, which built almost all of it's weapons from the ground up, Iraq just purchased old Soviet stuff. And then used that old stuff in equally stupid tactics. Trust me the comparison between Germany and Iraq is so far fetched it's not even funny. Even IF Iraq was self-sufficient in minerals, and had factories, universities to support their own developed military, it still only has about 20 million people. And people who aren't exactly known for their industriousness, unlike the Germans.

Don't kid yourself gray.

Yep and they should be next ;p

Yeah I'm not too keen on North Korea either, but they are too heavily armed to touch without it being an absolute bloodbath.

Terrorism, killing, national criminal acts and more was getitng worse and worse every year. How far do we let it go before we crack down on it? I firmly believe any country who has a "death to anyone" day should be labelled as a foe to society.

Well no, terrorism against the US since 9/11 has been almost non-existant. Al Qaeda is running about in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Isn't that who you were fighting to start with? 9/11 was an aberration....it only solely occurred because the US was caught unawares. Nowadays with the vigilance being displayed in all western countries, it is almost impossible for all the doomsday scenarios to come true. I do not subscribe to the mass paranoia about terrorism. 9/11 was shocking yes, but look at what it actually was - hijacked planes crashed into buildings. With boxcutters. This is the technological and tactical high level of the most powerful terrorist enemy of the US. Not nukes. Not chemical weapons. Not 100kiloton fart bombs. Just a bunch of nutcases with boxcutters who threw a surprise punch at the US while it wasn't ready.

Do you think it would be ok for us to have a national holiday "death to austrian's day" where we have parades and pray they all die? TTheir culture is fundamentally flawed when they have a HOLIDAY wanting us to die. WHen they TEACH their KIDS in SCHOOL to HATE us! When they REWARD suicide bombings. And WHY? Because our woman wear bikini's and vote? Because we have McDonald's and are fat? ;p They need to live their fuckin lives the way they want, but quit trying to force it on us and other people.

C'mon now gray, don't get all paranoid. People around the planet have always been taught to hate the US. What the hell do you think a Soviet school was like? We didn't need to absolutely destroy the Soviets with a massive first strike to nullify their hatred. Hell they figured out they had it wrong themselves.

I like the western lifestyle, but look, not everyone is going to agree with us. It doesn't matter how many countries the west bombs, it isn't going to make hatred of the west go away. As has been the case over and over again in history....violence does not solve long-term problems. It merely post-pones them.

Malignancy

01-22-2004, 04:41 PM

I don't hear any of you advocating the overthrow of the dictators of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, despite their shitty human rights records.

Actually, I agree with you. I think we've made our mistakes in the past and should now start anew by cleaning up the messes that we've helped to creat. That includes my advocacy for the overthrow of Saudi Arabia (I for one did NOT forget where all the 911 Hi-jackers came from) and the rest of the "shitbox" middle east. I include Israel in this mix as well - I really don't believe them to be much better than their neighbors (look at Sharon's recent scandals).

EC

Karsus

01-22-2004, 04:42 PM

I am spanish,and "we" are allies of the US in the iraq war (or thats what our president says).

Xondio asks yourself,was right for US to invade a foreing country,kill thousens of innocent iraqui women and chilldren and their family only to caught 1 guy and make profit with the reconstruction of Iraq?

3.Needless to say that US supported most of the southamerican tyranical goberments that appeared in the 70-80s that killed lots of innocents.What is worse,the ruthless murderer or the very powerful guy who put the murderer in the charge?

I want to coment a notice that i saw the other day.US conceded a license to rebuild some zones in Iraq to a spanish enterprise,that is 1.500 millions of euros worth.And know what? the mayor accionist of that enterprise is the family of our Fomento's Minister.
Maybe just a casualitie?

Karsus

01-22-2004, 05:39 PM

I apologise for posting shit about US that are not 100% proved when my country is guiltiest like the most.
We were ruled by 40 years by a tyrant (Franco,a smaller and dumber version of the nazis) that killed thousends of innocent and sent to exile millions of spanishs.Under democraci,our secret service kindaped,interrogated and lastly killed some youngh guys cause they suspected they were terrorists.
Longer in the past we discovered,colonized south america and picked all the silver and gold we could.
And i almost forget our Holly Inkisition.

illmaticz

01-22-2004, 06:03 PM

Yaarii during the Gulf war Iraq had the 4 most powerful army in the world so where do you get the idea they couldn't take over Saudia Arabia?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20030308.shtml

And how can anyone consider this war illegal? Are you forgetting about the 17 resolutions the Saddam violated, the resolutions that stated force will be used if Saddam failed to comply. They gave him over 12 years and 17 resolutions to avoid war, and he did not, so war was inevitable.

And while its fun to play make believe and claim the US invaded Iraq because of the oi,l the laws of economics contradict this charming fairytale. http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1219oil.htm

But your right about Iraq not having weapons of mass destruction. Since Saddam said he destroyed his 100 tons of V-X nerve gas he had during the Gulf War we should believe him, especially since he refuses to show any evidence that it was destroyed.

And in the end who the fuck cares why we went into Iraq. Bottom line is that we saved hundreds of thousands of lifes.

This is reason alone to remove Saddam from power.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 06:29 PM

Well no, you are wrong. Iraq couldn't take over Saudi Arabia. If Iraq had any formidable combat ability whatsoever it would have absolutely TROUNCED Iran....but it couldn't. If it couldn't conquer Iran....what exactly could it have invaded? Iran wasn't exactly a hard target....I mean their main forces consisted of human waves of martyrs armed with little more than ak47's.

Iran was being fully supported by the USSR if i recall. Tanks, aircraft, the entire thing. The USSR needed the cash and Iran got the arms it needed to fight off Iraq. It was kinda funny actually. We sold arms to IRAQ whilst Russia sold them to Iran. BTW...recall that Iran/Contra arms thingy? It seems we were sellin arms to Iran too :) So I think they had more arms then yer saying ;p

Germany at the start of ww2 was one of the most advanced and industrialised nations on the planet, using tactics DECADES ahead of everyone else. Iraq is exactly the opposite....the only reason they had an army the size that they did was oil sales. Unlike Germany, which built almost all of it's weapons from the ground up, Iraq just purchased old Soviet stuff. And then used that old stuff in equally stupid tactics. Trust me the comparison between Germany and Iraq is so far fetched it's not even funny. Even IF Iraq was self-sufficient in minerals, and had factories, universities to support their own developed military, it still only has about 20 million people. And people who aren't exactly known for their industriousness, unlike the Germans.

After Germany LOST WW1 they had all kinds of restrictions placed on them about their military! They were not supposed to have half the crap they did nor do half the things they did. But guess what? The WORLD ignored it and look what happened.

C'mon now gray, don't get all paranoid. People around the planet have always been taught to hate the US. What the hell do you think a Soviet school was like? We didn't need to absolutely destroy the Soviets with a massive first strike to nullify their hatred. Hell they figured out they had it wrong themselves.

I dunno man. I know the russians feared us and stuff. Just like we worried about them. But i never got the idea that they HATED us as individuals and we did not hate them like that either. It always was between our governments it seemed. I mean look how fast we mended the fences. Russians like us...we like them...

These nut extremist arabs tho. They really hate us man. They think of us as the devil or some crap. They are taught that shit...to hate us. I mean to really hate us. That's just wrong. We were never taught to HATE russia. Just FEAr what could happen if our governements fucked up. I don't think the comparason is right. I think the fundamental thinking of these people is WRONG for them to ever relax and join civilization.

About not being to keen on Saudi Arabia...I agree. I think they suck. No elections...forced religion...forced beliefs....that shit blows. Kuwait seems alot better place tho. I dunno tho. It's a shame people don;t just relax and let other people do what they want as long as it does not hurt them. But that's not the way of the world man. These fuckers want us to pray to allah and wear dresses...and if we don't...then we deserve to die. That's just fucked up.

Karsus,

Yer right about some of that stuff. Our givernment are no peaches to be sure. Heck our government put Huseein in power and gave arms and crap to Osama ;p No, our governemnt are not the "good guys" necessarily. But if it's between US and THEM...I am gonna have to go with getting rid of THEM ;p

illmaticz,

Nice post ;p It's nice to find someone who is not to lazy to back shit up with some links and research :)

yaarii

01-22-2004, 07:48 PM

Illmaticz, I have already stated that Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world at the start of Gulf War 1, behind the US, USSR and China. What you are forgetting is the quality of their forces. Numerically, Iraq should have absolutely totally OWNED Iran. They didn't. It ended in a draw. They had lots of tanks.....T-55's mainly (these started production in the 1950's). And they had no idea how to use them....their idea of tank battles was to dig the tank into the sand, totally removing the whole idea of MOBILITY. Technically, given the size of their military.....according to you they should have beaten Iran in under a year, and posed at least some semblance of fight during Gulf War 1.

What Bill O'Reilly lacks in knowledge he makes up for in meaningless rhetoric and irrelevant comparisons. Saddam Hussein was in power from 1979 to 2003. In 1980 he attacked Iran. The war dragged on in a stalemate until a ceasefire was signed in 1988, with the borders almost exactly the same as they were in 1980. After completely fucking up what should have been an easy victory, Saddam then invaded the tiny state of Kuwait. Kuwait didn't even fight, it wasn't even really a military victory. 6 months later, the "fourth most powerful military in the world" was absolutely OWNED in a groundwar that lasted all of like 3 weeks by the US and allies. The majority of Iraq's military machine (which as demonstrated above was more bark than bite) was destroyed. From the end of gulf war 1 to the start of gulf war 2, Iraq could only maintain a far smaller military force. With weapon imports being banned, the regime was only able to acquire very small amounts of modern weapons off the blackmarket. Nevertheless, when Gulf War 2 rolled around, Iraq again got completely owned by a much smaller US force than before....this time completely removing the regime within weeks. They somehow managed to get a few of the latest Russian Kornet anti-tank missiles which took out a few (read: under 5) american abrams tanks. That was about the pinnacle of their military achievements.

Now I don't know how much you know about military leadership....but Saddam was a hopeless wannabe, who's only positive was his ability to sell oil and buy weapons. He had no fucking clue about military operations, and his "powerful" army turned out to be a turkey. Unlike Hitler, Saddam ruled a country that was decades behind the US and USSR in technology, Iraq had little in the way of self-sufficiency, relying on the ability to trade oil for pretty much everything they needed (food, military goods, building materials, scientific equipment, you name it!). The population of Iraq is slightly smaller than that of Australia - we Australians have a modern, developed, successful economy and there is no way in hell we could produce our own entire military machine to rival the US's.

So can you please explain how a country that has 4 time's less population than Germany, even less industry, no natural minerals, no history of effective military conquests, no national traits of efficiency, a general technology level decades behind the rest of the world is supposed to take over the world? I would really like to hear this.

GrayRage

01-22-2004, 08:03 PM

Germany's ability to take over the world was never what the comparison was about. The comparson was mostly re: brutality. Hitler was allowed to brutalize innocent folks to gain power and our of hatred. Saddam did the same thing. We should let him?

Fact is he need to be ousted. Mark my words, in 10 years Iraq is gonna be a decent place. in 20 the people there will be as prosperous as many countries around the world. Hopefully the people of Iraq and it's neighboring countries won;t have to worry about some bully crossing into their country in the middle of hte night, robbing, raping and killing them.

Better yet, now other wanna be bullies in the world know this as well.

It wasn't about WMD (tho it was there). It was about getting a scourge out of there. With Iraq borged, now perhaps the area will have some peace.

yaarii

01-22-2004, 08:06 PM

Iran was being fully supported by the USSR if i recall. Tanks, aircraft, the entire thing. The USSR needed the cash and Iran got the arms it needed to fight off Iraq. It was kinda funny actually. We sold arms to IRAQ whilst Russia sold them to Iran. BTW...recall that Iran/Contra arms thingy? It seems we were sellin arms to Iran too :) So I think they had more arms then yer saying ;p

The Iranians did have arms, but nothing like what was supplied to Iraq. This is why I'm pointing out that the Iran-Iraq war is the first of many proofs of Iraq's total inability to wage any semblance of effective warfare.

After Germany LOST WW1 they had all kinds of restrictions placed on them about their military! They were not supposed to have half the crap they did nor do half the things they did. But guess what? The WORLD ignored it and look what happened.

You are forgetting the Cold War. For some 45 years the US and USSR developed new weaponry at a frightening rate. This has left no country able to bridge the gap that those two countries took out. Unlike Germany, which was pretty much on an even keel compared to it's rival countries through-out the 1920's and 1930's, Iraq has always been MANY decades behind in EVERY single field! Not one sector of their economy or military was anywhere near what western countries have.

I dunno man. I know the russians feared us and stuff. Just like we worried about them. But i never got the idea that they HATED us as individuals and we did not hate them like that either. It always was between our governments it seemed. I mean look how fast we mended the fences. Russians like us...we like them...

Life behind the Iron Curtain was far different to the west. They didn't hate americans per-se, but they were taught to hate "capitalists" and "imperialists".....and which country do you think was considered to be the most capitalistic and imperialist by them?

These nut extremist arabs tho. They really hate us man. They think of us as the devil or some crap. They are taught that shit...to hate us. I mean to really hate us. That's just wrong. We were never taught to HATE russia. Just FEAr what could happen if our governements fucked up. I don't think the comparason is right. I think the fundamental thinking of these people is WRONG for them to ever relax and join civilization.

Depends on who you class as extremist arabs. Some arabic countries have had relative success in courting the west in recent years, ie Egypt. Turkey is mainly muslim and has been allied to the west since the end of WW2.

I'm not keen on nutcase extremists either. I also don't like the shit that kids are taught in fundamentalist schools right across the arab world. I just don't think barging in with guns and bombs is going to curb that extremism.

About not being to keen on Saudi Arabia...I agree. I think they suck. No elections...forced religion...forced beliefs....that shit blows. Kuwait seems alot better place tho. I dunno tho. It's a shame people don;t just relax and let other people do what they want as long as it does not hurt them. But that's not the way of the world man. These fuckers want us to pray to allah and wear dresses...and if we don't...then we deserve to die. That's just fucked up.

Kuwait isn't as bad as Saudi Arabia, but both countries don't have free elections and are monarchic dictatorships (ruling families). Free elections are the first step to modernising and freeing the people of the middle east....but that is a problem because if we depose the Saudi royal family, the only people who are there to replace them are religious fundamentalists that are worse than the royal family themselves. Unlike in the west, where we separated church and state a long time ago (well maybe you americans are a bit behind there....but you are getting there! :) ), most arabic countries still have strong ties between religion and state. It's not like most western countries, where there is usually a 50/50 split between two main parties , conservative and progressive (dems and reps in the US, libs and labor in australia, and so forth).

Bah what a fuckup. I wish I had a definitive answer but I don't. I can say that I don't think bombing the fuck out of ppl who are already pissed off at us is going to help in the long run though. Maybe we need some STASI style subversive action on a large scale to try and subvert entire populations to the joys of westernisation? :)

yaarii

01-22-2004, 08:25 PM

Germany's ability to take over the world was never what the comparison was about. The comparson was mostly re: brutality. Hitler was allowed to brutalize innocent folks to gain power and our of hatred. Saddam did the same thing. We should let him?

Oh yeah I'm not doubting Saddam was a brutal dictator. I was just saying that he couldn't take over the world, or even try to. He was small time for the last 12 years of his regime. For the people living in Iraq who weren't Sunni, life was pretty damn shit though.

Fact is he need to be ousted. Mark my words, in 10 years Iraq is gonna be a decent place. in 20 the people there will be as prosperous as many countries around the world. Hopefully the people of Iraq and it's neighboring countries won;t have to worry about some bully crossing into their country in the middle of hte night, robbing, raping and killing them.

Better yet, now other wanna be bullies in the world know this as well.

It wasn't about WMD (tho it was there). It was about getting a scourge out of there. With Iraq borged, now perhaps the area will have some peace.

It'd be nice to get Iraq going right. Ironically, Saddam's regime was about the least religion oriented of all middle east dictatorships, so they have the best chance of becoming westernised and escaping religious fundamentalism IF the next few years work out right.

StrykerSZ

01-22-2004, 10:29 PM

A canadian-formed international council on The Responsibility to Protect.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report-en.asp

By no means international law, but it presents an interesting point.(note: Iraq met all three requirements for intervention)

Had Iraq been about money or oil we wouldn't have invaded. How much of a sweetheart deal do you think we could have cut had we agreed to lift sanctions? The objections of the three biggest holders of Iraqi debt is interesting. Even more interesting was their refusal to reduce debt...until Baker met with them and informed them Iraq would default on its debt like Russia had done numerous times during the 90's. Certainly these were people guided by purely humanitarian motives. There is no doubt Hussein posed a threat to his people, as mass graves don't make themselves. Did he pose a threat to neighboring countries?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
I'd say he posed a threat to Israel. Funding bombings can certainly be construed as an act of war. More importantly, Iraq serves as a first step in the right direction. Do you think Khadafi gave up his aspirations because of sanctions? What do you think will be our response will be if http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitrib_ts/20040122/ts_chicagotrib/terrortrialwitnesslinksiranto911
turns out to be true. Preemption is an important policy, which we demonstrated a willingness to exercise in Iraq. The big question is not "Is America willing to preempt" it's is Iran or http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074745158639
Syria next.

Immolatus

01-23-2004, 01:52 AM

Bill Clinton's reasons for going into serbia is minute in comparison. Bill Clinton randomly bombed targets for no reason other than to get the camera's off his sexual exploits in the white house. A random bombing per year coutisey of the usa is far more detrimental in terms of being a catalyst for terrorism, than going into a historically unstable region, and attempting to stabilize it. George Bush is hitler, while Bill Clinton is the greatest president.

BTW, i think it was Lybia's president who complied to our terms recently because our words mean something now.

People all the time make absurd claims that now we are in worse danger from terrorist attacks than we were before 9/11. This is the most absurd statement i have ever heard. 60% of al quade leaders are dead, many of its members are dead and in US coustady, and the remaining have all their assets siezed- and are hiding from our soldiers. Furthermore, perhaps the most important thing we have done in Iraq is give the Iraqis information. They now can get on the internet, hear non-propaganda (blatantly false) news, which is the secondary key to preventing the spread of terrorism. The primary being economic stability via oil production, which would never happen under Saddam's rule, but now has a chance.

Krygor

01-23-2004, 06:37 AM

If you want an interesting debate, sit in the middle of our EQEmu TS channel and listen to me, corbon, and Jawdan go on about it. It's quite interesting to get different views from people all around the globe. I actually learned something from the conversation, how many times can you say that about a TS convo?

GrayRage

01-23-2004, 07:15 AM

I personally feel like the world is a much better place with Afganistan and Iraq cleaned up. It will take time, but both of those countries will do alot better being a PART of society then a blemish upon it.

I think the next target should be whoever is supplying the Palestinians explosives for those Suicide bombs. Whoever is doing that is just as bad as them. And let me assure u, if those dipshits were suicide bombing US, we would kill all of THEM and whoever the fuck gave them the materials. So if Iran is still supplying the Palistinians with this crap, I am hopeful their days are numbered.

Those poeple are nothing but pure and simple terrorists who have MISERBLE lives. Their lives suck so damn bad, dying is a MUCH better option and they figure they might as well take some Israeli's with them. Fuck that.

Rabdallas

01-23-2004, 07:33 AM

Bah, I didn't want to start a political rhetoric thread here, so I'll only have a few comments:

Heh, neither did I. And I think I can not add any pro's or con's that haven't been said in this thread before. Except for these...

(2) America has weapons of mass destruction. We are allowed to do so because we will not use them merely to gain economic power. The other shitbox countries WILL use them for precisely that reason. That is why those shitbox countries can not be allowed to have those weapons. Comprende'?
This is uther BS the only reason the western world 'allowed' the US to have WoMD is because of the fear of the Sovjet Union during the cold war. At this moment the WoMD are used to threathen the so called rogue countries. In which the succeed up until this day. But, a lot of people don't trust the US with WoMD either, because presidents like George Bush are not so many steps away of one that WILL use those weapons to gain more (economic) power. It only takes one idiot to start a war.

(3) The dutch all smoke pot 24 hours a day. Its a truthful stereotype. I worked in Amsterdam for a while and I was constantly throwing some hashish in my cigarettes...24 hours a day :P I like the dutch. Some of my favorites people aside from Jamaicans.
But WHO was throwing hashish in those cigarettes? Exactly, YOU not the dutch so the only thrustfull stereotype you are realy talking about is that of a (US) tourist/expat. =)

gr,
Rab

Karsus

01-23-2004, 07:35 AM

Rabdallas

01-23-2004, 07:47 AM

I think the next target should be whoever is supplying the Palestinians explosives for those Suicide bombs. Whoever is doing that is just as bad as them. And let me assure u, if those dipshits were suicide bombing US, we would kill all of THEM and whoever the fuck gave them the materials. So if Iran is still supplying the Palistinians with this crap, I am hopeful their days are numbered.

Those poeple are nothing but pure and simple terrorists who have MISERBLE lives. Their lives suck so damn bad, dying is a MUCH better option and they figure they might as well take some Israeli's with them. Fuck that.

As long as there is money to be made the suicide bombers will have get their bombs no matter which country you will invade next.

I think a solution for the Israelian / Palestinian conflict is more likely to come closer if the western world would finaly openly say that they are against the way Sharon is handling the situation. Sharon is asmuch to blame for the current situation as Arafat is. The problem is that most of the western countries are still afraid to say something bad about or act against the Israelis because they know that they will immediately start crying that everyone is against them because they are jews etc.

gr,
Rab

GrayRage

01-23-2004, 08:18 AM

Rabdallas

01-23-2004, 09:14 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Israel originally inhabited by the Jews in the first place (a la the birth place of Jesus ect ect)? The return of the Jews to Israel (palestine) found it to be a desert with some nomadic tribes roaming around. It was an aweful place that no one wanted nor lived in.

Now, however, it has been irrigated and turned into a rather beautiful place...and guess what? Suddenly the Palestinians want it all back for themselves.

Yeah good plan. Give up the land when it's worthless then cry and whine to get it back after someone turns it into a useful place.

For a detailed history of the Israel/Palestine conflict look here: http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm and scroll a bit down to the "detailed timeline" and then to approx the 1900's you will see that the interest in that region from both sides and even the british and the french was far before when you say. I don't know for sure if mideastweb is biased in anyway. After reading their mission I think they can be considered fairly neutral (will have to look further to know for sure):

MidEast Web was started by people active in Middle East dialog and peace education efforts. Our goal is to weave a world-wide web of Arabs, Jews and others who want to build a new Middle East based on coexistence and neighborly relations. Our members and staff include distinguished educators, engineers, Web designers and other professionals experienced in dialog, peace education projects and in promoting dialog and coexistence using the Internet.

MidEast Web for Coexistence is a registered non-government organization in Israel.

Whatever the case may be regarding that issue, anyone who condones some fucking ASS TARD who BLOWS UP innocent WOMAN, Children and even MEN in fucking RESTARAUNTS should be killed themselves. Are you coming here and telling me it's OK that these fucking lunatics blow up innocent people? Are you fucking insane? So you won't mind if some nut case blows up YOUR MOTHER or SISTER because of some politcal disagreement they have?

That has to be the stupidest thing I have heard yet here. There is NEVER...EVER...EVER a reason to kill innocent people. People who have NOTHING to do with their situation. HELPLESS people who cannot even DEFEND themselves. PEOPLE WHO MIGHT EVEN AGREE WITH THEM. How would THEY KNOW? It'sindescriminate killing?!

How in a million years you complain about some soldiers killing Iraqi insurgents...but then condone some moron who blows up 20 innocent people in a bus is beyond me.

/agree

gr,
Rab

GrayRage

01-23-2004, 09:37 AM

Good info Rabs. Thanx.

some interesting facts:

May 15, 1948 Israel War of Independence (1948 War). Declaration of Israel as the Jewish State; British leave Palestine; Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian invasion began
That had to suck.

May, 1964 PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) founded with the aim of destroying Israel. The Palestinian National Charter (1968) officially called for liquidation of Israel.
Ah great. An organization who's entire objective is the destruction of a country and it's people.

1300? BCE Migration and conquest of Canaan by the Phillistines and Israelite tribes. Map of Canaan.
1000? BCE Jewish conquest of Jerusalem; reign of David (maps); After the death of David's son, Solomon, the kingdom split into two: Israel in the north, Judea in Jerusalem and the south (maps). Brief History of Early Palestine in maps.
721 BCE Fall of Israel (Northern Kingdom) to Assyria
586 BCE Fall of Judea (Southern Kingdom) to Babylon
516 BCE Rebuilding of the Second Temple under Persian rule.
331 BCE Alexander the Great conquers Persia. The land was subject to Egyptian rule after his death, followed by Seleucid Syrian rule.
166 BCE Revolt of Judah Maccabee against Syrian Hellenic dynasty
61 BC Roman conquest of Jerusalem by Pompei. Land is divided into various provinces (maps).
70 AD First Jewish revolt. Fall of the Jewish Second Temple to Romans
133-135 Second Jewish revolt under Bar - Kochba crushed. Judea renamed Palestina.
622 Hijra of Mohammed. Islam is founded.
640 Arab conquest of Jerusalem. (slightly earlier according to some sources). Land was divided into the Jund of filastin, in the south (capital in Al-Lod and later in Ramlah), and the Jund of Urdunn in the north, with capital in Tiberias (Tabariyeh).
So the Jews had Israel for some 2000 years before 640 when the Arabs took it. So i am not so sure the claim that the Jews took the land is valid. Even if they claim that it was their's for 1300 years after that, they had no established givernment or land ownership just roaming tribes of impovershed people. Well either way, it's something that should be figured out POLITICALLY not by killing innocent people who are not even part of the decision making.

Wiqid

01-23-2004, 09:49 AM

Israel should be next if any country is on the agenda to stabilise the mid east.

Israeli tanks kill innocent people in every god damn crackdown they carry out. Women children, even your own god damn peace protestors. Only thing is, these kind of things never get the same air time on CNN or fox that one suicide bomber does. Hell do you even see the background reports on most of these suicide bombers? Half of them have had their family and relatives gunned down or rolled over by tanks, guess whos tanks?

To blatantly label all Palestinians as bad guys, because of a few terrorists who are attacking a nation with inhumane tactics, on a nation which has more WOMD than iraq and carries out crackdowns tearing down houses while a few bullets stray into the paths of innocent women and children who have been forced of their lands one to many times, is ammusing.

I am as repulsed as you by these suicide bombings, but I am equally repulsed at the images I have seen of the horrors that Palestinian people go through on almost a weekly bassis.

I sometimes wonder how these terrorists can believe all these self proclaimed religious zealots who preach such hatred and recruit these retards who are persuaded to be martyrs in this perverse version of Islam. But at the same time I wonder how some people can believe so strongly in these one sidded images that their media potray. One side of terror gets all the headlines; the extreme fanatic suicide bomber , the other side boldly holds the Israeli flag held high, denouncing terrorism and protects the freedom of the israeli people. Both kill women and children, both are unjust and illegal, both are forms of terrorism.

I will not thread on the iraqi conflict issue, i will just leave it that I personally think there was possibly a better way of going about it than war. I just hope pre-emptive measures doesnt become a trend

GrayRage

01-23-2004, 09:59 AM

Wiqid,

Are you seriously comparing a woman accidentally dying during a gun fight in a battle where Israeli soldiers are being fired upon and firing back to some clown strapped with bombs walking into a restaraunt? Do you REALLY believe the Israeli army TRIES to kill woman and children and innocents? As opposed to the suicde bomber who is OBVIOUSLY trying to do just that.

Comparing what the Israeli army does in trying to fight guarilla terrorists hiding in buildings and shotting at them from appartments versus some idiot strapping a bomb on himself and walking into a restaraunt is appalling and downright lame.

If you SERIOUSLY believe the Israeli army is trying to kill woman and children then you have completely lost your ability to be rational especially when a WOMAN just killed 20 innocents people with a bomb strapped to her.

Rabdallas

01-23-2004, 10:25 AM

Wiqid,

Are you seriously comparing a woman accidentally dying during a gun fight in a battle where Israeli soldiers are being fired upon and firing back to some clown strapped with bombs walking into a restaraunt?

No, but unfortunatly that is not the only way innocent palestines die.

Do you REALLY believe the Israeli army TRIES to kill woman and children and innocents?

Yes, an example which shows the intention of the Isreali governement towards the palestines is the fact that a group of Israelian fighter pilots (and later other military aswell) refused to participate in missions against palestine because they believed the intention of those missions is/was to kill innocent palestines including women and children.

edit:
because they believed the intention of those missions is/was to kill innocent palestines
After some reading I would like to correct this, they didn't believe that it was the intention to kill innocents but they did believe that absolutly no efforts where made to prevent innocent casualties while they could/should have. Which IMO is about the same thing.

gr,
Rab

Wiqid

01-23-2004, 10:32 AM

I cannot compare two lives, and try to say which one is worth more. Like i said, both incidents are repulsive, and i disagree with both. If your asking me to more or less say, which deserved to die, I cant choose one. Fact is I DO think that those deaths on both sides could have been avoided.

You honestly believe that the Iraeli tanks do everything in their power to avoid deaths? Maybe they do, but to reason that women and children are only dying on one side is wrong. So its ok for Israeli tanks to accidentally kill women and children with more frequency than suicide bombers? Of course I dont think they do it on purpose man, im pretty sure every time they do it, they think of new ways to avoid it next week. They ran over an american protestor who was sitting in front of a building the israeli tanks were trying to roll down. Its pretty easy for them to accidentaly roll over americans, you honestly think they take take much measure when using tanks and gunfire invading Palestinian lands which are cramped with people who are forced to live in appauling conditions due to having their lands taken from them from ever growing Illegally occupied settlements?

What i disagree with is the policy of crackdowns, the illegal settlements, the guerilla tactics used by terrorists. What i Ultimately disagree with is the bloodshed and hate, the product of a fruitless and senseless war. The route is that both parties need to adhere to the road-map to peace. And Israel is just as much as a culprit as Palestine is, If the mid east is to be stablized, both parties need to meet UN resolutions

Karsus

01-23-2004, 10:36 AM

Lets see,the map in 1947:

http://www.comunidadpalestina.org/historia/mapa_particion.htm

And the map now:

http://www.ub.es/solidaritat/observatori/palestina/dades/mapafr2.htm

Do you see any difference?
Most of the conflict is in the frontier with Gaza,as can be seen that palestinan territory were like 6-7 times greater in 1947.

If you dont know,Israel has many concentration camp where lots of innocent ppl is help by the only fact they are palestinan.After a terrorism action,Israel uses to do what they call "punishment actions" they send a scuadron of helicopters and kills 20-30 civilians from palestina.
I dont support the suicide bombers,but i understand that a man,after his family is killed or sent to a concentration camp can do a horrible crime cause he seeks vengeance.While Israels does horrible crimes because he wants more land.

you said that:If you SERIOUSLY believe the Israeli army is trying to kill woman and children then you have completely lost your ability to be rational especially when a WOMAN just killed 20 innocents people with a bomb strapped to her.

I dont know if you remember this or it might were censored in your news,but in the Yugoslavian war,an US "intelligent" missile destroyed a school bus with 30 childrens inside.

Youll say that was a mistake or accidentally,i say that things like that (the 3 above examples) should never happen.

Karsus

01-23-2004, 10:46 AM

As i said some times ago,my english is very limited and i cannot write exactly what i mean,i gotta put the things with the words and the few grammar i know,so my comments looks more "rude" than they really are.

Btw the right type is "guerrilla".It comes from our word for war that is "guerra"

Immolatus

01-23-2004, 11:04 AM

"Do you see any difference? (between maps)
Most of the conflict is in the frontier with Gaza,as can be seen that palestinan territory were like 6-7 times greater in 1947."

Isreal has given over land before, and met nothing but more hostility. What do you guys not understand about the fact that the PLO wants Israel dead. Not land, they want their people DEAD. And the sad thing is, im sure Isreal would be fine with living in peace with Palestine, but you cant live with people who want your whole race dead (and have a religion that supports suicide bombing with salvation and heavenly reward)- they understand this, but the hypocrits in the west dont. Thus you have crazy people claiming the Israeli retaliation is worse than the terrorism that initiates it.

Seriously, from the second Isreal was founded, you can clearly see that it was the intention of every other nation in the middle east to whipe them out. They got attacked by like 7 differant countries for God sakes... Still people in the west hate isreal and want to support Palastine. Hell the democratic nomination debates clearly indicate a strong resentment toward Isreal among liberals (which will have a interesting affect on the jewish vote, which is typically a monopoly of the democratic party)

The Isreali's have been enslaved by various differant empires over the thousands of years they've been around, had 2 temples destroyed (of which had been descrated a number of times), lost 6 million in the holocost, had a muslim temple built on top of THEIR ancient temple site, IN THEIR ancient captial city, among other things. Its no wonder they dont trust the palestinians to cease hostilities if they give back the disputed territory. It never ceases to amaze me how people can rationaly look at the situation and support the islamic side.

Jawdog

01-23-2004, 11:05 AM

I've lived for over 16 months in Israel, working on various kibbutzim and working in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I've also lived in Egypt, in the Sinai desert, for 3 months with Bedouin Arabs.

I can tell you this much -

Those countries are naturally beautiful countries.

The arab people are the friendliest people I have ever met.

The people on the kibbutz work hard, but no longer have the ideals their parents did. Many people who are born on kibbutz want to leave and live in cities.

The Israelis who live in cities have different views depending where they come from - Russia, Ethiopia, Western Europe, but they are on the whole intelligent well-educated people who want a solution that provides security.

Israel is the size of Wales! For a US comparison, it is one and a half times as large as Conetticut at 20000 square miles.

Jews and Arabs have lived there together since there have been Jews and Arabs - usually under the oppressive rulership of some empire (whether British or Ottoman).

In the first half of this century there were a large number of terrorist attacks on the British Army in that area, by various groups of Zionists. There were the military wing of the Zionist movement. The Zionists were fed up of Jews being pushed around the world, and wanted their own country.

After the second world war, the country was artifically partioned into mostly Jewish and mostly Palestinian areas. At this time, Palestinians were forced to leave their homes and live in refugee camps. They want their homes back.

When the State of Israel was declared it was attacked by 4 seperate countries, and somehow survived! They fought tooth and nail to secure for the very first time a country that Jewish people could call home and never have to worry about podroms or diaspora's again.

Jewish people say a prayer every Sabbath - next year in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is their spritual home. Jerusalem is also the last place on earth that Mohammed walked.

Just remember guys, every time you simplify something you make yourselves look simple. Complicated situations like this require tact, diplomacy, thought and above all patience.

The last thing it needs is interference outside countries who know absolutely fuck all apart from what they hear from lobbies at their various representative bodies.

If I had one message for Americans and British people, who get to vote on whether their governments interfere or not, it would be to either get some facts or mind your own bloody business (America has crime and poverty, the UK has Northern Ireland).

Immolatus

01-23-2004, 11:11 AM

To me this illistates things in a nut shell:

taken from that mideast website

"Palestinians initiated riots after Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, which is also the location of the Haram as Sharif holy to Muslims. Violence was apparently encouraged by Fatah Tanzim, as admitted by Marwan Barghouhi. Violence escalated rapidly from rock throwing to machine gun and mortar fire, suicide bombings and lethal road ambushes, including some incidents instigated by settlers against Palestinians. Israelis killed 15 Israeli Arabs in riots in September/October 2000, and over 2,000 Palestinians in retaliatory raids thereafter. Palestinians kill over 700 Israelis. Violence continues for over a year [to present - March 2003]. "

How did this start? Because Ariel Sharon (a jew) apparently cannot visit the ancient site of their temple in their ancient city, because the muslim's built one of their own damn temples on top of it. Its too bad the isreali's dont show similiar religious tollerance.

Rabdallas

01-23-2004, 11:18 AM

Just remember guys, every time you simplify something you make yourselves look simple. Complicated situations like this require tact, diplomacy, thought and above all patience.

The last thing it needs is interference outside countries who know absolutely fuck all apart from what they hear from lobbies at their various representative bodies.

I agree with you that complicated situations require tact dimplomacy, etc. But the rest of it sounds like you say that if you haven't been there you are not allowed to voice your opinion. That is the worst argument someone can use in any discussion. Surely the so called "outsiders" don't know everything but they could have a less biased opinion then the "insiders" and thus function as mediators in those complicated situations.

gr,
Rab

Jawdog

01-23-2004, 11:37 AM

I agree with you that complicated situations require tact dimplomacy, etc. But the rest of it sounds like you say that if you haven't been there you are not allowed to voice your opinion. That is the worst argument someone can use in any discussion. Surely the so called "outsiders" don't know everything but they could have a less biased opinion then the "insiders" and thus function as mediators in those complicated situations.

gr,
Rab

I'm not saying dont get involved. Egypt and Jordan have done some excellent work and have had successes, mostly because of their links to both peoples and their knowledge and understanding of the situation.

Countries like Norway have also been in a better position to help than America and GB, because they are closer to being neutral outside bodies. America and GB are not as neutral, because they have interests or history in the region that are part of the problem.

I am saying we should not get involved without checking the facts first, and we should avoid over simplifying the issues for the benefit of media (people are clever, but the media in America and GB is, on the whole, dumb).

GrayRage

01-23-2004, 11:49 AM

Altho having been there as long as Jawdog has, it's a pretty good perspective to take seriously. Fact is, I have never been there. As such, Iw ould take what he has SEEN with his own 2 eyes prolly with a bit more thought then what I often read.

One thing seems pretty certain, its not an easy situation to figure out. But some things we ARE sure of is killing someone's wife or 2 year old baby is evil. If someone killed my wife at a resteraunt just to make a political statement he could be damn sure I would never ever have sympathy for his views. Ever. In fact, I would spend my days trying to exact retribution. So is this what they want? Is this their goal?

Jawdog

01-23-2004, 11:51 AM

How did this start? Because Ariel Sharon (a jew) apparently cannot visit the ancient site of their temple in their ancient city, because the muslim's built one of their own damn temples on top of it. Its too bad the isreali's dont show similiar religious tollerance.

The Israelis worship the western (or wailing) wall. This is at the base of Temple Mount, and is the last remaining wall of the temple of King David.

The Muslims worship in the Al-Aqsa mosque. This is the Dome of the Rock, and contains the last place that Mohammed set foot on earth before ascending to heaven.

These two sites have always been accessible from two completely seperate routes. You can reach the western wall through the Jewish quarter of the old city. You reach the Al-Aqsa mosque through the Arab quarter. You don't need to go through one to visit another.

At the time of Mr Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, the peace process was possibly at its most advanced stage ever. The discussion was where to draw the line in Jerusalem.

However, Mr Sharon had been elected by people who believe in Eretz Israel, that is a greater Israel, including all land including the West Bank (hence the settlements). He was also responsible in 1982 for Israel's invasion of South Lebanon.

His unannounced visit to this Muslim holy area had the same affect as if Yasser Arafat had walked into the enclosure at the Western Wall - it started a riot.

GrayRage

01-23-2004, 11:53 AM

Lets see,the map in 1947:

http://www.comunidadpalestina.org/h...a_particion.htm

And the map now:

http://www.ub.es/solidaritat/observ...des/mapafr2.htm

You realize that they were attacked by these people multiple times? Right? So if France was to attack Spain...and Spain kicked there asses...don;t yah think spain would want a buffer between them and the franch in case they got any ideas in the future? Especially after they have attacked them....3...4 times int he past and swear on their lives to kill you everyday? ;p

Jawdog

01-23-2004, 12:14 PM

You realize that they were attacked by these people multiple times? Right? So if France was to attack Spain...and Spain kicked there asses...don;t yah think spain would want a buffer between them and the franch in case they got any ideas in the future? Especially after they have attacked them....3...4 times int he past and swear on their lives to kill you everyday? ;p

I don't think buffers of land are as important as they used to be. Look at the way the American army was able to drive the hundreds of miles from Kuwait to Baghdad in, was it, about 6 days? I think they could have done it faster but the rain stopped them.

I suspect peaceful positive relations (like those between Israel and Egypt, and the developing relationahip between Israel and Jordan) provide the best security for a country.

Israel regards it's major threat as Iran, and there is a significant buffer between Israel and Iran at the moment.

The main security problem faced by Israel is probably not an impending war, but the daily threat of attacks from Palestinians.

I think a buffer zone, a long high wall around the country, is exactly the idea Mr Sharon has in mind. However, he is finding it hard to get the support he needs for this idea, both within his own party and Israel as a whole. I think most people suspect it may be an act of desperation.

Mr Sharon was elected on a platform of security. However, he hasn't brought security. Israel people are more insecure than they have been for a long time. Even if the current scandal goes away (he is currently being accused of illegal financial activities - he owns Israels largest private ranch), I suspect his days are numbered. Benjamin Netanyanu is sniffing around, and may well be the next leader.

Wiqid

01-23-2004, 12:27 PM

You realize that they were attacked by these people multiple times? Right? So if France was to attack Spain...and Spain kicked there asses...don;t yah think spain would want a buffer between them and the franch in case they got any ideas in the future? Especially after they have attacked them....3...4 times int he past and swear on their lives to kill you everyday? ;p

Palestinians could be said to be attacked everyday by Israeli soldiers, it breeds hate from the deaths they suffer. The same way your saying its somewhat right for Israel to feel the way they do. Isnt it double standard to ignore the fact that maybe Palestinians do not have this right to feel the same emotional frustration Israelis do?

How did this start? Because Ariel Sharon (a jew) apparently cannot visit the ancient site of their temple in their ancient city, because the muslim's built one of their own damn temples on top of it. Its too bad the isreali's dont show similiar religious tollerance.

Reading these kind of sentences really pisses me off. For one muslims build mosques, not temples. For someone who preaches about religious tolerance, least get your facts right and know about other religions before you preach. I am a muslim, I have nothing against jews, I know other muslims who are married to jews. Its fucking sad, that the media has painted this picture of muslim hating jews, who are potential terrorists and whose deaths matter little when its in the name of freedom n such. Its sad that some people actually buy these ideas for little more than a Fox or CNN subscription fee, oh wait isnt it free? :eek:

Maybe im taking this to personal, but it seems stereotypes which use religions know no boundaries, so sue me

Karsus

01-23-2004, 12:32 PM

Well,in fact Napoleon invaded Spain around 1800s and kindnaped our king.We had no real army to defend us from frenchs,so the spanish invented the guerrilla tactics and started to kill french soldiers till they left our country and returned our king.(thats a very simplified version)

Malignancy

01-23-2004, 02:26 PM

But WHO was throwing hashish in those cigarettes? Exactly, YOU not the dutch so the only thrustfull stereotype you are realy talking about is that of a (US) tourist/expat. =)

I'm not going to get into the rest of your post...I'm done with the political shit - too many people are way too uninformed. Nevertheless, I will tell you that I lived and worked in Amsterdam. I learned to throw hashish in my cigarettes from the Dutch. They did it every morning through the evening. I don't think I met a single native that didn't. Believe it or not.

EC

Malignancy

01-23-2004, 02:31 PM

Well,i dont know if you know that Israel was unaturally build inside palestina after ww2,the israelis started to continiouly invade and teken more and more terrytory from palestina.In the beginning the 15% of the territory were given to Israel,nowadays Israel controls more then 80% of the territory.

Palestina has no army.You consider that a man with a body full of bombs who runs inside a group of Israel soldiers is terrorism.But how do you call when a israel tank kills a palestinan woman with her 2 girls? a militar action?

I dont consider palestinan as terrorists because they are defending the little piece of his country they stil own,cause they have no army then they have to use tactics that can be considered terrorism,but its not.
In this particular case,the "bad" guys,the axis of evil or whatever u want to call this are the nazi sionists that rule Israel

Karsus--

Congratulations!! You just won the Brenlain award for being the biggest fucking idiot that has crossed these boards in quite some time. I won't even address most of your post, but let me ask you a simple question - when did any palestinian strap bombs on himself and run into a group of israeli soldiers??? You fucking moron. They would get shot on sight!! Instead, these suicide bombers run into restaurants and preschools and synogogues to kill civilians you fucking idiot. I hope you are sterile so you can not polute the rest of the population with your filthy ignorant genetics.

EC

Malignancy

01-23-2004, 02:36 PM

spanish invented the guerrilla tactics and started to kill french soldiers till they left our country and returned our king.(thats a very simplified version)

The Spanish didn't invent guerilla tactics fucknutz. Ever heard of the American Revolution? The only thing the Spanish invented was the "Spanish Fly" ... oh, I forgot about the Spanish Inquisition :D

EC

Rabdallas

01-23-2004, 02:49 PM

I'm not going to get into the rest of your post...I'm done with the political shit - too many people are way too uninformed. Nevertheless, I will tell you that I lived and worked in Amsterdam. I learned to throw hashish in my cigarettes from the Dutch. They did it every morning through the evening. I don't think I met a single native that didn't. Believe it or not.

EC

Sorry, my stereotype must be the most thruthfull because I never met a US tourist/Expat that didn't ask me for a "coffeeshop" within the first two sentences (sp?). =) It is true that in Holland the possesion of softdrugs isn't considered a crime aslong as the amount you carry is below that which is reasonable to believe you have for personal use only. (well, it is technicly but nothing is done against it). That seems to be the main reason why people from the US visit amsterdam. I can assure that if you ask, 9 out of 10 US tourists have hashish on them or are looking to buy some, against about 2-3 out of 10 natives.

So, how many cowboy hats do you have? =P

gr,
Rab

edit: changed is in seems to be

Rabdallas

01-23-2004, 03:04 PM

The Spanish didn't invent guerilla tactics fucknutz. Ever heard of the American Revolution? The only thing the Spanish invented was the "Spanish Fly" ... oh, I forgot about the Spanish Inquisition :D

EC

I hope you aren't implying that this is another thing the US invented =)

"Since the Celts were vulnerable against regular armies on smooth terrain, they often employed guerrilla tactics within their own territory. Such tactics accounted for most of the Celts' successes against Julius Caesar during the Gallic wars... as well as the victories of Hugh O'Neill over the Elizabethan armies of the late 16the century.. The awaited unsuspecting enemy columns behind plashes (wall-like hedges) flanked by deep ditches, attacked savagely, and then disappeared into the safety of forest, or bog. In this manner the Celts were able to use their tactical offensive - the charge - against an enemy, who despite his overall strength, was at a temporary disadvantage."

gr,
Rab

Malignancy

01-23-2004, 04:39 PM

Sorry, my stereotype must be the most thruthfull because I never met a US tourist/Expat that didn't ask me for a "coffeeshop" within the first two sentences (sp?). =) It is true that in Holland the possesion of softdrugs isn't considered a crime aslong as the amount you carry is below that which is reasonable to believe you have for personal use only. (well, it is technicly but nothing is done against it). That seems to be the main reason why people from the US visit amsterdam. I can assure that if you ask, 9 out of 10 US tourists have hashish on them or are looking to buy some, against about 2-3 out of 10 natives.

So, how many cowboy hats do you have? =P

gr,
Rab

edit: changed is in seems to be

LOL, I'm from New York; I'd get my ass kicked if I wore a cowboy hat where I'm from. Perhaps your numbers make sense. I worked in the redlight, so the people I associated with daily were most likely not the typical dutch citizen. I gave tours through the redlight district working for a party company (based out of London) called the "Wicked Travel Company". The name of the party weekend tour was called the "Canni-bus". Good time.

EC

Malignancy

01-23-2004, 04:46 PM

I hope you aren't implying that this is another thing the US invented =)

"Since the Celts were vulnerable against regular armies on smooth terrain, they often employed guerrilla tactics within their own territory. Such tactics accounted for most of the Celts' successes against Julius Caesar during the Gallic wars... as well as the victories of Hugh O'Neill over the Elizabethan armies of the late 16the century.. The awaited unsuspecting enemy columns behind plashes (wall-like hedges) flanked by deep ditches, attacked savagely, and then disappeared into the safety of forest, or bog. In this manner the Celts were able to use their tactical offensive - the charge - against an enemy, who despite his overall strength, was at a temporary disadvantage."

gr,
Rab

Of course not...I was just contradicting Karsus' uninformed statement that the Spanish invented guerilla tactics in the 1800s. We all know the American's used it against the British during the Revolution. In reality, guerilla tactics were the FIRST form of organized combat - probably by the cavemen. The romans (with their Phalynxs) eliminated this sort of combat for quite some time because they were heavily armored and organized and were able to repel barbarian fools who tried to jack them. Organized fighting (big armies on the field) lasted a long time after that, until the advent and commonality of gun powder for the common man. Only then were commoners able to pwn trained soldiers at a distance while hiding behind trees. Thus guerilla tactics became popular once again. Nevertheless, its been used sporadically throughout all of history...

EC

EC

Immolatus

01-23-2004, 06:37 PM

""For one muslims build mosques, not temples. For someone who preaches about religious tolerance"

a mosque is essentially a temple. I was just being general for the sake of simplicity when i called the dome of the rock mosque a temple. Thank you, i appreciate your nick picking.

I think everyone with half a brain understand that the situation in isreal is basically a cycle of destruction between initiated violence and retaliation then retaliation for the retaliation and so on and so on. It no longer is a matter of who was the first to initiate each sequence of violence. And no solution to date has produced lasting peace. Thus lies the problem.

Appeasement from Isreal hasnt worked. Escalation of "retaliation attacks" against Palestine hasnt worked. Peace talks and outside mediation hasnt worked.

People who think the conflict will be solved by force are factually wrong.
And people who suggest that peace talks is what has to happen, and condemn ariel sharone, have no real factual basis either. So while people sit in relative comfort and condemn the actions of ariel sharone for not "trusting to hope peace talks will actually produce a result", why dont you put yourself in his shoes, and imagine having to turn your cheek while your people get killed by suicide bombers.

Karsus

01-23-2004, 06:52 PM

My mistake,we not invented the guerrilla tactics,you are right.what we did we gave a "name" to these kinds of tactics.

We invented some things,Isaac Peral was one of the submarine inventors and the Autogiro (a kind of old helicopter)was built by Juan de la Cierva

What we did not invent was the Inquisition,the Spanish holly inquisition started in 1478.The Inquisition where stablished in 1231 by the pope Gregorio IX with the statutes "Excommunicamus".

yaarii

01-23-2004, 07:50 PM

It's pretty damned clear to me that both the arabs and jews aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

One could give equally good reasons why one group or the other should own the area of modern-day Israel and the occupied territories. But simply, both sides aren't going anywhere.

The jews didn't have a country there for a LONG time, but they still wanted to come back and establish one. If the arabs are kicked out....why wouldn't they want to do the same thing in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

Both sides are going to either blow the shit out of each other day in day out, or live side by side and have peace. It's all a matter of tolerance. I live in a suburb that has plenty of immigrants from SE Asia and southern europe, as well as aborigines and pacific islanders. We don't fucking shoot each other, or run around with bombs blowing each other up.....we've learnt to tolerate each other and our differences, and even celebrate those differences with multicultural days and so-forth. This sort of thing happens all across Australia, and even though I've never been overseas, I suspect it happens right across the US and in Europe.

Thus, I see the solution as the ability to respect your neighbour and their beliefs. That is the only way to peace imo :)

Karsus

01-23-2004, 09:18 PM

Im gonna try to say in a clean way what is my opinion i this matter.

1.The palestinan killed many innocent israel citizen as well as the israel army killed many palestinan citizens.
2.I think in this particuar case of the palestino-israeli conflic,all the deaths are the same crime for me.

If you think the deaths the israel army caused are more justified,ok but thats not my opinion.

I admit i wrote very wrong examples,but i did that cause im not english speaker and i tried to explain why do i think in this way.But i didnt even be capable of writing accurate examples of what i think

GrayRage

01-24-2004, 08:48 AM

People who think the conflict will be solved by force are factually wrong.

Yep, because what is death to people who are taught that dying means they go to a better place where they do not live in a slum? Dying is not such a bad thing if your life sucks and some clown teacher all your life says if you die in the name of Allah you go to heaven.

This is why they build a wall. Then Israel won;t have to go in there with tanks or troops. They can let the Palestinians rule themselves and live there by themselves and keep them fucking OUT of Israel. So what will the Palestinians do? Keep destroying their own areas or take the aid so many internation groups offer to help them fix it up and live better? Fact is the WALL will not just keep the suicide idiots out....it will make it so Israel doe snot have to go into THEIR areas either. Problem solved. The only ones that die will be the ones trying to go into Israel and start shit.

Dannk

01-24-2004, 04:53 PM

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Not sure if all these facts are true that are brought up in this movie...but if they are. I'd be very disappointed in the US gov't.

Malignancy

01-24-2004, 08:42 PM

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Not sure if all these facts are true that are brought up in this movie...but if they are. I'd be very disappointed in the US gov't.

Few of those "facts" are true. This is a classic ploy by liberal propagandists. I'd love to see the source of most of these "facts". Dannk - there is an unseen war going on in America atm. The war is between liberals and conservatives. Both radical sides are constantly using propaganda to try to pursuade the moderates to choose sides. Don't believe anything you read.

EC

Immolatus

01-24-2004, 11:07 PM

It is a fact that the US supported Hussein in Iran. It is ludicrous to suggest that we gave saddam chemical weapons. Furthermore, its pretty crazy to believe the great majority of other "facts" listed in that movie. I just think it is very interesting how so many people are swayed by the "factual evidence" of conspiracy theores in general. People put so much blind faith in undocumented facts, yet are so skeptical of everyday news and historicaly documented accounts. Its quite fascinating.

The truth in almost all cases is extremely simple, and quite evident.

We supported Saddam mistakenly because we had a common enemy at the time of the cold war: Iran

We attacked Saddam the first time because he invaded Kuwait, which threatened the stability in the region economically (oil) and politically (war). As everyone knows, the stability of the region affects the world profoundly. Furthermore, when i bring up economics, i am speaking generally. The US individually had nothing to gain in and of its self. We stoped way short of occupation. And gained no real advantage in oil production. The french i believe predominantly gained from that action as they owned the majority of the production in iraq. (hence their reason for not wanting us to go in the first place)

The second time we went in was of course in retaliation of 9/11 (it is factually documented that Iraq WERE in contact with Al Quada. However, their support was probably quite minimal. Furthermore, It WAS believed that they had WMD's. And they probably did. Or why else would Saddam deny our inspecters FREE rights to his compounds. If he had nothing to hide, he wouldnt go to war over nothing. He may of been bluffing, but in the end he would have folded if he had nothing to hide. If in fact he DID NOT have WMD's, it is Saddam's fault for going to war, as it would have costed him nothing to let us have a look. To me thats pretty self evident.

When people try to look between the lines and under the surface of relativly simple issues, conspiracy theores and rediculous "facts" often emerge.

People often blame presidents and certain diplomacy for the worlds apparent dissatisfaction with the U.S. But not suprisingly the answer is quite simple. I forget who said it, but some smart dude on a news show wrote a book on the matter, which, for me, hits the nail on the obvious head. He basically said that the break down of traditional alliances is the expected result of post cold war alliances. He said, "Nations have permanent interests, but they do not have permanent alliances". Which is so true. During the cold war, the common interest of all european nations was protection against the soviet union. Since that threat is over, the interest of european nations are not surpringly themselves. And since the United States remains the ultimate super power, it is inevitable that the world nations would seek to undermine that status because they all are naturally envious. (by envious i mean the simple fact that countries naturally would want to have the economic and military status of america). Thus, it is europes interest to disagree with the US, and thus they do. Its pretty simple. It has little to do with presidents or diplomacy. Just as the stock market has little to do with presidents or economic policy. Its a pretty simple matter IMO.

But hey, if you need conspiracy theores to fuel your views. By all means, have at it.

Azriel

01-25-2004, 03:32 AM

You are all gonna die of ulcers. Politics=stress and headaches

Wiqid

01-25-2004, 10:42 AM

Its real funny immolatus how you call bluff on other facts and evidence , and use your own facts, as solid evidence. The truth is never as simple as it seems, and you believing your one side of the story with your facts fed to you by controlled channels, is admirable. You have blind faith, and are a noble patriot.

Correct me if im wrong, wasnt the pretext of war, solely to disarm Iraq of its WMD which were a clear threat to the US and UK. So your saying people are sceptical of everyday news and historical events? Its hard to believe everyday news when it changes every week. All the headlines you read, which give you your patriotic faith, have been placed their by the parties in power most probally. Just like the articulately urgent Headlines "Nuclear Attack Within 45 minutes" referring to Iraqs capability to deploy a nuclear or chemical attack on UK or US which a member of the Office persuaded the Press to publish on the front page. The US used the same headlines, and used it as grounds to pressure the UN into allowing the invasion of Iraq on grounds that there was an imminent threat. In fact, from everyday news, referring to a documentary on BBC i just watched, most of the report was outrageously exagerated. Iraq had no nuclear capabilities what so ever, no chemical weapons, there was no purchase of Uranium from Africa ( Reports were FORGED) by parties unknown to provide more "crucial evidence" for that smoking gun. Most of the Dossiers, used by Tony Blairs office, to support the reason for war, are now coming under heavy scrutiny. Most of these "facts" which were used by the UK, were shared with the US, when the US ran out of material. Most of it has been reviewed by Experts of their fields, and found to be wrong or fabricated, some articles within the Dossiers have been "cut-n-pasted" from internet articles.

Iraq has little ties with Al-Qaeda. The only factual evidence ive heard on the everyday news about his links with terrorism, is prior to the war, when your president was waging different reasons to go to war on a weekly basis. For you to try to simplify these issues, I will simplify my comprehension of what I interpreted. WMD was the ultimate reason why you wanted to invade Iraq, as their was an IMMINENT threat to your nation, where by virtue of International Laws, which ironically you dont endorse (Bush declined to Recognize the new International Court of Justice) you used as grounds for invasion. You tried to persuade the UN, the UK lended a hand, and put pressure on UN inspectors to come up with evidence, who were being fed information and coordinates of WMD sites by the CIA (this was on a BBC news programme) which bore no fruit. Through further pressure and embarassment, more urgent reports were brought up, with exagerated claims to sway the public in favour of this urgency to disarm this threat. While claiming that peace was prayed for, troops already had been deployed. While waiting for UN support, the next move was already obvious. So after WMD was all worn out, the liberty of the iraqi people, and the evil regime needed to be addressed. That became the MAIN reason to go to war. Iraq needed liberty and freedom, and Iraq needed to be free of its Tyranical Dictator. So your dictator, delivered freedom and liberty with bombs and bullets, which will eventually reach the people of Iraq, as soon as they warm up to the Ideals of Liberty while soldiers stabilise the region. There still is no evidence of WMD, even though well before going into the war there was already evidence to support the fact that Iraqs military capabilities that threatened world safety were laughable. Iraq had almost nothing to do with September 11, so how can you retaliate when their is no connection? Are there some facts you know for sure which hasnt been airred around the rest of the world which only your livingroom has had the privelege of?

Im not into bashing America, the coolest friends I have met are from your country, the best music, the bestmovies, best games , best beer. But I do have a thing against stupidity, and the reasons for this war were questionable. The facts used for this war are questionable, and are already being questioned and ridiculed. I dont belive everything I read, but I do place a certain ammount of faith in world leaders, and I do believe pictures say a thousand words. Leaders gave reasons as to why we have to look at pictures of mutilated bodies, bloodshed, dead solidiers, dead children, on both