A bit off topic but since you seem to wonder. Yes i haven't had a TV for two years. You have no idea how much other things that get done without it. And i still get news from the net and daily papers.usmarine2007 wrote:
Dude! What?klassekock wrote:
( I'm a bit in the shadow here since my TV has been broken for two years)
Last edited by klassekock (2007-03-02 11:17:03)
Saddam was executed. Basically the people fighting the Americans and the government see the Americans as occupiers up to no good. When Saddam was removed a new government was put into place and many of the people who lost power are now causing the violence. There are also different sect's of the religion Islam (Sunni, Shiite) who disagree and are attacking each other. The country is on the verge of civil war. Very basic breakdown of course, I'm sure more people will add. My personal opinion is Iran is promoting some of the violence, but that is just an opinion.klassekock wrote:
Ok Kmarion. Thank you for the info.
Can you then tell me what the people fighting against the american forces actually want. Do they want Saddam or one of his look a likes back in power, or are they simply fighting to get you americans out of their country. At present day, are USA the cause to the war or the solution?
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-02 11:22:06)
I completely agree.Stingray24 wrote:
I thought it should be abundantly obvious from my post that the terror attacks in the US have not increased, but the terror attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc have because that is where the conflict is occuring. It's not rocket science folks . . .
Of course it has. I think advocating retreat is inspiring as well. So whats the answer?apollo_fi wrote:
Should some conclusions be drawn from the fact that the War on Terror, fought to eliminate terrorism, has actually provided the opportunity and inspiration to a six-fold increase in terrorist activity?
No clue.Kmarion wrote:
Of course it has. I think advocating retreat is inspiring as well. So whats the answer?apollo_fi wrote:
Should some conclusions be drawn from the fact that the War on Terror, fought to eliminate terrorism, has actually provided the opportunity and inspiration to a six-fold increase in terrorist activity?
lol.. you and me both, cheers.apollo_fi wrote:
No clue.Kmarion wrote:
Of course it has. I think advocating retreat is inspiring as well. So whats the answer?apollo_fi wrote:
Should some conclusions be drawn from the fact that the War on Terror, fought to eliminate terrorism, has actually provided the opportunity and inspiration to a six-fold increase in terrorist activity?
They can't say it outright. They use words like liberation, freedom, democracy and really get in the heart of every American. And they are laughing behind our backs because you bought the shit. Hook line and sinker. Roll out.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The answer is to let them (the Iraqi people in Iraq) fight it out.
We all know that we will continue to back the Iraqi Government as long as they enact change and policy favorable to the US. That is what we (US) do. That is what we have been doing for the last 100+ years.
We go in, forcibly remove unfriendly regimes (who we used to support), install our own puppets, wait for them to go against the US, then invade.
This isn't about supporting their (Iraqi) government. Honestly, the US Administration and the people who actually make policy couldn't give two shits about the Iraqi people. History has shown that. Why now should we believe that policy-makers suddenly got an altruistic bone in their body.
Yes, it would be great if the people who made the decisions actually did care about the Iraqi people. 100+ years of history shows that they don't.
We understand that but the question is do you think that once we leave it will be seen as a weakness priming us for more attacks? We are talking about the mentality of the extremist here. Will terrorism follow us home? (Genuine questions BTW)KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The answer is to let them (the Iraqi people in Iraq) fight it out.
We all know that we will continue to back the Iraqi Government as long as they enact change and policy favorable to the US. That is what we (US) do. That is what we have been doing for the last 100+ years.
We go in, forcibly remove unfriendly regimes (who we used to support), install our own puppets, wait for them to go against the US, then invade.
This isn't about supporting their (Iraqi) government. Honestly, the US Administration and the people who actually make policy couldn't give two shits about the Iraqi people. History has shown that. Why now should we believe that policy-makers suddenly got an altruistic bone in their body.
Yes, it would be great if the people who made the decisions actually did care about the Iraqi people. 100+ years of history shows that they don't.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-02 11:39:12)
Only a negligible occurrence; of outside (not home-grown); terrorist attacks in the US before 9/11...Stingray24 wrote:
I thought it should be abundantly obvious from my post that the terror attacks in the US have not increased, but the terror attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc have because that is where the conflict is occurring. It's not rocket science folks . . .
It is overstated as a threat - THAT IS FACT - and that is how you promote irrational fear.North America has had the lowest concentration of international terrorist attacks. Only 15 were recorded from 1995 to 2000
In the years 1990-1994 and 1996-2000 only 8 people in the US were killed by terrorists.
Deaths per year (averaged-out for 10 years):Heart disease
699,697
Cancer
553,251
Diabetes
71,252
Alzheimer's
53,679
Suicide
29,423
Homicide (not counting terrorism)
16,774
Terrorism (..9/11..)
2,953
Consider the reality of the real risk in life vs cost - as a ratio...Auto accidents
42,000
Homicide
16,000
Weather-related
611
Fall from a ladder
317
Fall/drown in bathtub
312
Terrorism
287
Even including attacks on US citizens / military personal / embassies; outside of the US; the average RISK does not RISE significantly as a statistic.usmarine2007 wrote:
Include embassies and ships in port?topal63 wrote:
It is overstated as threat - THAT IS FACT - and that is how you promote irrational fear.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-02 12:17:20)
Include embassies and ships in port?topal63 wrote:
It is overstated as threat - THAT IS FACT - and that is how you promote irrational fear.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-03-02 11:49:05)
In that case, why didn't they use Saudi Air?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why didn't they use Continental? Delta?
Probably because Saudi Air doesn't fly across the US? Maybe? You think?usmarine2007 wrote:
In that case, why didn't they use Saudi Air?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why didn't they use Continental? Delta?
What statement would that be? Are you trying to tell me that people that gain support from the Taliban are criticizing America for being "harshly oppressive"? If it isn't about terrorizing Americans then why all the threats in the videos? It is a religious war for the extremist not so much as political.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't think so. I think there will always be a risk of terrorists attacking, albeit a small one. I do not think it is conducive for the American public to have a fear of terrorists constantly in the back of their mind. I honestly have never felt threatened by terrorists. Ever. Why should I start being scared now?
Never once have I felt like terrorists were out to kill me, my family, or my livelihood. Terrorists are looking to make a statement. Attacks on the WTC (a symbol of western wealth) using United and American Airlines. Why didn't they use Continental? Delta? It is obvious to me that they are attacking symbols of American (and Western) power. Why? Because they don't like the policy of American (and Western) powers. Now, that is not to say that the terrorism is valid, or that innocent civilians weren't killed, but look at the big picture.
If I were a terrorist and I truly wanted to inflict the most terror possible, I would attack a McDonald's or Wal-Mart in the most suburban area I could find. Then the average American would truly be terrified. This isn't about terrorizing the American public. This is about making a statement against an institution that they see as harshly oppressive and imperialistic.
I believe that leaving Iraq would be the best thing for American and Coalition forces to do. Let them fight for their freedom, and if they want our (Western) help, let them ask instead of just assuming and blowing the shit out of their country.
No shit sherlock. They fly from JFK with a shitload of fuel, more than what a 757 carries. Just making an observation they could have used that also. But since you want to be a dick about it. Piss off.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Probably because Saudi Air doesn't fly across the US? Maybe? You think?usmarine2007 wrote:
In that case, why didn't they use Saudi Air?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why didn't they use Continental? Delta?
Keep those intelligent questions coming sir.
Yeah. And I made the observation that they could have used other airlines. So you were basically reinforcing what I said? You agree with me? OK, fair enough.usmarine2007 wrote:
No shit sherlock. They fly from JFK with a shitload of fuel, more than what a 757 carries. Just making an observation they could have used that also. But since you want to be a dick about it. Piss off.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Probably because Saudi Air doesn't fly across the US? Maybe? You think?usmarine2007 wrote:
In that case, why didn't they use Saudi Air?
Keep those intelligent questions coming sir.
That is maybe the worst post I have ever read...ATG wrote:
The desperation democrats feel to disparage Bush and the clueless anti-war protesters who are against war always no matter what are fueling this fire, leading to more deaths on both sides.
The people who say ' who cares if they kill each other, lets bail now " are heartless. The rivers of blood that will be spilt when we go will be their fault as much as Bush.
War is hell. The division in this country will only lead to more, larger and more violent conflicts.
If you want to end the war, support our President and the men putting their lives on the line.
Last edited by LawJik (2007-03-02 12:10:32)
See, I take a threat at face value. I prefer to go off action, not words. The actions that they (the terrorists) have taken against the United States has been symbolic.Kmarion wrote:
What statement would that be? Are you trying to tell me that people that gain support from the Taliban are criticizing America for being "harshly oppressive"? If it isn't about terrorizing Americans then why all the threats in the videos? It is a religious war for the extremist not so much as political.
I do believe the threat to be exaggerated also. You are still more likely to drown in the bathtub.
Here is a site just for you to gauge the absurdity of your rhetoric against.ATG wrote:
You anti-war types claim to support the troops but not support the mission. I call you cowards.
If America and the gutless politicians would simply let these men do their jobs and stop supporting the enemy it would be over that much faster will less lives lost.
The desperation democrats feel to disparage Bush and the clueless anti-war protesters who are against war always no matter what are fueling this fire, leading to more deaths on both sides.
The people who say ' who cares if they kill each other, lets bail now " are heartless. The rivers of blood that will be spilt when we go will be their fault as much as Bush.
War is hell. The division in this country will only lead to more, larger and more violent conflicts.
If you want to end the war, support our President and the men putting their lives on the line.
A flame is deserved that F*#@ing _ _ _ _ _ _ comment below.As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-08 13:31:30)
Such intuitive thoughts. Can you form a sentence of more than 10 words?theelviscerator wrote:
Yep and prison is a the major cause of crime.
Grow up.
Why? I saw no need for him to write a wall of text. He has a point and made it clear.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Such intuitive thoughts. Can you form a sentence of more than 10 words?theelviscerator wrote:
Yep and prison is a the major cause of crime.
Grow up.
I must have been lost on the point. Can you state it again Elvis?usmarine2007 wrote:
Why? I saw no need for him to write a wall of text. He has a point and made it clear.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Such intuitive thoughts. Can you form a sentence of more than 10 words?theelviscerator wrote:
Yep and prison is a the major cause of crime.
Grow up.
Erm...what HE thinks is a point. Let me clear that up. Sure thing Beavis.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I must have been lost on the point. Can you state it again Elvis?