BF2S Forums These Australians got it right.

ATG wrote:

So, are you saying the IRA is/was a terrorist organization?

I never felt that way.

I guess it depends on your perspective and if you feel they were justified.  However car bombs blowing up civilians outside shopping centers would lead me to say yes they were a terrorist organisation.

No. Terrorism is caused by many causes, but it is mostly a result of something, a reaction to something. E.g. Hezbollah and Hamas are mostly the result of the way Israel is behaving.

Israel has been behaving as they should, doing their best not to wipe the palestinians from the face of the earth despite nearly daily attacks (before the wall was build) and speaches preaching how the Jews need to be wiped out.  To be honest, Israel is conducting that situation too leniantly as it is, they need to get more aggressive

ATG wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

The claim that the USA is creating more terrorists is beyond ridiculous.  Your accusation is unresearched, undocumented, and nonsensical.  Consider how many terrorists the USA has killed since the start of the war in Afghanistan...you're telling me that there's still a net gain of terrorists?

I need documentation before you go spouting horse manure like that.

I don't need books or documentation. The first 26 years of my 30 were spent in a country were atrocities were committed on both sides. Atrocities which drove young men on both sides (friends & family of mine) to join terrorist organisations and go out and kill their neighbours. Whats your experience? Fox News?

So, are you saying the IRA is/was a terrorist organization?

I never felt that way.

The IRB and then the IRA were freedom fighters when they were killing military personnel IMO during the fight for independence from Britain, which they won in the early 1900s.
The IRA at the beginning of modern 'The Troubles'  still were freedom fighters for a time IMO, they were fighting for the basic Human rights of catholics/nationalists, ie proportional representation, internment without trial etc.
What they grew into towards the end, when the ballot box was quite obviously the way forward to a united Ireland, was an out and out terrorist organisation, killing civilians tit for tat with the loyalist organisations.

...but the terrorists already have won....

Last edited by Elamdri (2007-02-24 12:55:16)

jonsimon wrote:

Nice troll thread ATG, absolutely no content aside from "Liberals are terrorists" and a bit of personal baiting.

Many threads are created to make a point and inspire debate, not just to pontificate.

The larger point I'm trying to make, and IMO it's a life and death one is that American political hacks are doing an unprecedented thing, and that is publicly talking shit about a sitting commander in chief during a time of war.

There is no sense or logic whatsoever to the way democrats on one hand fund a war then on the other accuse the president of lying every step of the way.

There has been multiple chances for the Dems to cut funding and pass resolutions long before now. They are ratcheting up the rhetoric in preparation for the election. This rhetoric does not and will not effect American policy at all, and any sane person can see this is not how our  government works.

This rhetoric is empty of meaning and value to anyone but the people stupid enough to vote for them and the terrorist who use their words against us.

Osama Bin Laden wrote:

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.

Really, I expected the non-Americans that inhabit these forums to accuse me of as much. I frankly don't care what you think, I expected shallow one liner insults from some of you. Europe has an opportunity right now to prove themselves and the U.N. to be a real player by dealing with Iran. We'll see what happens.

I do not advocate attacking Iran.
I advocate that American war policy is NOT decided by Bush and Cheney.  If you think so, then the laugh is on you, just like it is on every American who see's the Iranian president as the evil problem.

I am a independent voter, and believe the two party system is a quasi-dictatorship.

I view miss-management of foreign policy as a grave mistake. The eagerness to elect Democrats may turn out to be a disaster. Who got us started in the big shooting wars of the last century?

Liberal democrats.


link Osamas declaration of war against the U.S.;
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/ … frame=true

ATG wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Nice troll thread ATG, absolutely no content aside from "Liberals are terrorists" and a bit of personal baiting.

Many threads are created to make a point and inspire debate, not just to pontificate.

The larger point I'm trying to make, and IMO it's a life and death one is that American political hacks are doing an unprecedented thing, and that is publicly talking shit about a sitting commander in chief during a time of war.

Oh really, what were they saying about Clinton during Bosnia?  Wag the dog?

ATG wrote:

There is no sense or logic whatsoever to the way democrats on one hand fund a war then on the other accuse the president of lying every step of the way.

There has been multiple chances for the Dems to cut funding and pass resolutions long before now. They are ratcheting up the rhetoric in preparation for the election. This rhetoric does not and will not effect American policy at all, and any sane person can see this is not how our  government works.

We agree here.  The Democrats are largely just a watered down version of Republicans.  This is why our political system sucks.

ATG wrote:

This rhetoric is empty of meaning and value to anyone but the people stupid enough to vote for them and the terrorist who use their words against us.

I agree...  oh wait...  You're not talking about neocons, are you?

ATG wrote:

I do not advocate attacking Iran.
I advocate that American war policy is NOT decided by Bush and Cheney.  If you think so, then the laugh is on you, just like it is on every American who see's the Iranian president as the evil problem.

I am a independent voter, and believe the two party system is a quasi-dictatorship.

I view miss-management of foreign policy as a grave mistake. The eagerness to elect Democrats may turn out to be a disaster. Who got us started in the big shooting wars of the last century?

Liberal democrats.

Yep, but now, it's mostly the fault of neocons.

We've yet to see what the Democrats will do, but honestly, it would be very difficult for them to do WORSE than the Republicans have.

And yes, our system is largely a plutocratic facade of a democracy.  Revolution is one of the few ways we can change that, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon....

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-24 13:13:32)

ATG, I see were you are coming from and I respect your views laid out at the end of your post.
My opinion is that the USA's continued presence in the middle east is breeding way more terrorists than any propaganda Osama can spew out..... A with drawl will give Osama Co. some propaganda to spew out yes. But weigh that up against the constant proliferation of death and the breeding of terrorism and the lose of Collation lives. Saving face at the cost of lives is a no brainer.
I read somewhere that OSama said that the 9/11 attacks would be the catalyst for the collapse of 'America's new world order' and he was right, the USA's stubbornness to get the hell outta there now is furthering that collapse......

oug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I'm sure if you asked American's (or most of the rest of the world for that matter) right after 9/11 if they thought that the attacks would continue they would have told you yes. For the most part people do not feel safer since the attacks but they feel the government is doing a better job of protecting them.

I don't see how this is relevant...? More like taking advantage of the peoples' insecurity, considering that the government's actions had little to do with protecting its citizens.

It's not about taking advantages it's called a heightened awareness. The unawareness of the threat, or not taking it seriously is what allowed the attacks to happen. I am not talking about being "Islamophobic", but rather understanding now that there are some out there that would like to kill Americans just for being American. I can agree that there has been situation where the government has indeed taken advantage of the insecurities, but unfortunately that does not change the fact that radicals would like to see the death of Western ideologies. For the extremes it is a war of religion and principles. Their misinterpretations of Islam does not allow for our civilization.

oug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

To help you understand the present policy of preventing attacks on our home soil you must understand that the US is operating under the premise of taking the fight to them.

I'm aware of that, as I'm also aware of how wrong this is, apart from being unsuccessful (given the nature of this "war"). But my opinion doesn't really matter at this point. What I was trying to point out is that this kind of "news" only make it to the ears of Americans, them being the most liable to be affected... the easy targets so to speak. And of course they aim to cloud the peoples' thinking by creating a division where there really isn't one, between the Democrats and Republicans. The point here is not whether or not the Democrats are willing to go along with the course that the current administration has drawn, but whether that course is the right one to follow. With that in mind, quotes like this:

You think only non-Americans are incapable of deciphering the truth? Americans have proved themselves very capable of understanding the media and the slant it places on us. We are aware of the failures. If your idea of mindless media control were so true you must explain to me why Rumsfeld was thrown out and our Congress replaced. You give Americans too little credit to be able to find the truth and understand adaptation and change. This is no surprise to me though, that attitude towards us has been prevalent throughout our entire short history, despite our rapid rise to the top. Your pretentious understanding as to what we Americans are subjected to boogles my mind. How can you have such a complex grasp on a system you are not involved in? It disappoints me when I think that there are people who still think they have an understanding of people and their culture just by the actions of a few. It is nothing short of prejudice. Do you think in our vast Capitalistic market we are incapable of getting our news from a variety of sources? Think bigger.

TeamZephyr wrote:

Strange that ATG didn't mention the violent protests that have happened with Dick Cheney's visit............

Violent?

Pierre wrote:

ATG wrote:

Hmmn...I doubt the Ozonians are praising him for anything domestic.

Some recognize that these are troubled times and that there has been some bold ( if ineffective ) world leadership from Bush and Cheney.

Hmm..., let me see...

Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, there hasn't been another attack since 9/11, as there has not been an attack before 9/11 either.

O how easily we forget the 93 bombings of the WTC during the clinton administration.

Cougar wrote:

Hey ATG, you forgot about the Anthrax attacks on the U.S. Postal Service and the on Federal Buildings.

So there hasn't been a terrorist attack since those anthrax attack....thingy's.


Also, I don't remember Britain and Spain getting bombed to often until after we went to war.  We haven't made anyone safer.

As far as I'm concerned, those, and the plane crash over new York after 9-11 were all part of the series of attacks related to 9-11.

I concede the general nature of your point.

PureFodder wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

I remember all those. Even if you count the ones that were stopped, it maybe comes to ten. This fodder guy is saying there were at least 10 every week.

I think he was being a typical smart ass douchebag as usual.

Lets drop the personal attacks now. Bad usmarine!

Anyway lets try this for size. Has the number of terrorist attacks on US CITIZENS increased or decreased since 9-11?

The terrorists don't need to find US soil to find US citizens to blow up these days.

Exactly....

oug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You think only non-Americans are incapable of deciphering the truth? Americans have proved themselves very capable of understanding the media and the slant it places on us. We are aware of the failures. If your idea of mindless media control were so true you must explain to me why Rumsfeld was thrown out and our Congress replaced. You give Americans too little credit to be able to find the truth and understand adaptation and change.

On the contrary. Most of the information that have formed my opinion are products of American thought. It's just that your media is quite different than ours (I'm referring more or less to the rest of the western world) when it comes to the amount of propaganda they allow on the air. For example, FOX News has no equivalent in Europe, and from what I've heard in this forum, you consider CNN to be a "liberal" news source. Ask anyone outside the US and you will see that the latter is quite untrue.

So don't take this the wrong way. I hate generalizations more than anyone, and I'm well aware of the fact that there are plenty of Americans who are capable of cutting through the bullshit their tv serves on a daily basis. Like you said, the message was made clear by the replacement of the Congress. On a side note though, I doubt that Rumsfeld's removal was significant in the same sense that the Congress change was.

You wouldn't have seen the latter without the former.