Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on June 26, 2004, 02:28:49 PM
-
Just curious about how you guys see Al-Jazeera.
I don't get it here in the US of A and I think it's only in the middle east.
To me, they seem to be almost in bed with Al-Qaeda.
I mean, they get all these tapes and letters and cassettes and they can't wait to play them to give the terrorists the attention they crave.
With the recent rash of beheadings in Iraq (3 turks were abducted today and appear to be next), I'm wondering if news outlets like Al-Jazeera add fuel to the fire by airing these videos.
Then another side of me says they must report legitimate news.
Does anyone have any insight here?
SHould we bomb them or syndicate them?
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-
The constitution does not apply to a foreign media outlet.
That being said, is Al-Jaz a legitimate NEws outlet, or a propaganda tool of terrorism?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
The constitution does not apply to a foreign media outlet.
That being said, is Al-Jaz a legitimate NEws outlet, or a propaganda tool of terrorism?
That said, Al-Jaz is definately a legitimate one, since it isn't closed down by the local officials due to breaking the local laws :D
However it's not like Al-Jaz isn't dividing minds also in the middle east, it is.
-
Here's a thinker:
I think it's possible for a news source to be both legit AND a propaganda mouthpiece. As long as the information being presented is factual, the bias with which it is being presented should be inconsequential.
This is why I don't trust any single news source, or I try to apply the fine art of 'how to read an article' as presented by Phil Hendrie, a radio host who occasionally will dissect an AP or Reuters article and point out common techniques for imparting 'spin' on a fact being reported.
-
Decide for yourselves:
Al Jaz (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage)
-
Last year I said we should take them out (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99197&highlight=AlJazeera)
of course they inspire the terrorists and keep the hatred stirring
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Last year I said we should take them out (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99197&highlight=AlJazeera)
of course they inspire the terrorists and keep the hatred stirring
And your posts doesnt stirr the hatred towards muslims and people that doesnt think like you? :p ;)
-
Al Jazeera to me doesnt feel any more like propaganda than Fox does.
In fact, less so. A better comparison to Fox would be Pravda.
-
only the ones that want to kill me and mine for which i wish the same to them
the peaceful ones could be my neighbor like the family 4 doors down the street
-
Originally posted by Eagler
only the ones that want to kill me and mine for which i wish the same to them
the peaceful ones could be my neighbor like the family 4 doors down the street
Don't think anyone has the urge to kill you or your family. Why would they?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
The constitution does not apply to a foreign media outlet.
There is nothing in the Constitution limiting it to citizens of the U.S.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Don't think anyone has the urge to kill you or your family. Why would they?
I know, right?
How paranoid of him!
What was he thinking?
(http://www.mohicanpress.com/images/wtc_steve_12.jpg)
Well, yeah, there's that.....
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There is nothing in the Constitution limiting it to citizens of the U.S.
Except for the fact that it's the U.S. constitution.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Except for the fact that it's the U.S. constitution.
Doesn't matter... Freedom of speech is the right to freely say what you please, as well as the related right to hear what others have stated (regardless of the source).
-
sorry muckmaw but that is just as low as if i posted a picture of a burnt iraqi child to protest against the american occupation of Iraq.
Try something else if you really wanna go down that road.
-
What difference does it make? News is entirely subjective anyway. I'd be surprised to see any form of reporting these days that doesn't have some kind of agenda behind it. And don't thing that the American press are innocent of printing false news. In my local area, the Boston globe had to appologize after putting graphic images of US soldiers raping iraqi women on the front page of the Sunday paper. Turns out the pictures came from a pornographic website. Even the New York Times had to fess up last year for printing articles written by a guy in Iraq who totally made everything up.
As long as you take any single source of news with a grain of sand and sample a wide variety, chances are, you'll learn the truth.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
sorry muckmaw but that is just as low as if i posted a picture of a burnt iraqi child to protest against the american occupation of Iraq.
Try something else if you really wanna go down that road.
3000 people went to work that day, not realizing someone wanted to kill them.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
3000 people went to work that day, not realizing someone wanted to kill them.
listen... neither of us really want to go down that road cause we both know that 911 was awful and none of us support that kind of thing. Even if you think im a euro nut you know that!.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Don't think anyone has the urge to kill you or your family. Why would they?
Where on Earth could he have gonnen that idea?
(http://www.micrographicsolutions.com/wtc-twin.jpg)
-
BS Nilsen,
You asked for an example of who wanted to kill Americans, we gave it to you...
Now that fcat that you dont like it and that you are trying hard to forget... Well thats your problem...
And I'm sick of you comparing 911 to the american war in Iraq.
911 WAS A DELIBERATE ATTACK MEANT TO DELIIBERATLY KILL INNOCENT CIVILANS
The same is not trie of the Iraq war...
-
Or let me ask yoiu this Nilsen..
If 911 attacxk was intended to kill thousands of american family members then who was it targeting?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Doesn't matter... Freedom of speech is the right to freely say what you please, as well as the related right to hear what others have stated (regardless of the source).
Unless of course I stand up in the middle of a theatre and....
Repeating the hatred of Al-Queda and possibly becoming a conduit of the groups communication network is the moral equivalent of yelling fire in a theatre or the incitement of a riot.
Both the latter forms are well established as restricted forms of speech.
Responsible outlets of journalism at least somewhat police themselves. Many domestic TV journalists have found themselves in a hostage negotiation situation and had to make the choice of giving the criminal access to the airwaves. While it is on some level news, it is also stepping over the line of reporting the story and becoming the story.
-
Nilsen
many would just given the fact I and mine are "westerners"
but as the family down the road from the middle east demonstrates, they can live in peace in my neighborhood but the opposite is not true if I lived other there
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
BS Nilsen,
You asked for an example of who wanted to kill Americans, we gave it to you...
Now that fcat that you dont like it and that you are trying hard to forget... Well thats your problem...
And I'm sick of you comparing 911 to the american war in Iraq.
911 WAS A DELIBERATE ATTACK MEANT TO DELIIBERATLY KILL INNOCENT CIVILANS
The same is not trie of the Iraq war...
i doubt 9/11 was all about killing as many americans as possible. It was an attack on the american way of life. Why do you think they attacked the world trade center when they could have attacked a shopping mall or a football stadium or any other place were large crowds are gathered.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And I'm sick of you comparing 911 to the american war in Iraq.
Never done it before or now so stop foaming kid.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
i doubt 9/11 was all about killing as many americans as possible. It was an attack on the american way of life. Why do you think they attacked the world trade center when they could have attacked a shopping mall or a football stadium or any other place were large crowds are gathered.
Sweet Jesus, you are deluded.
Nilson...
Just shut up now.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Sweet Jesus, you are deluded.
Nilson...
Just shut up now.
Dont care if you agree or not but thats the way it is. You are allowed your personal opinion.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
i doubt 9/11 was all about killing as many americans as possible. It was an attack on the american way of life. Why do you think they attacked the world trade center when they could have attacked a shopping mall or a football stadium or any other place were large crowds are gathered.
There were some 20,000 - 40,000 people in the WTC on a working day and coutless other vistiors andoccupants of surrounding buildings...
Im just hoping for hope's sake that you just did not know that figure...
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
sorry muckmaw but that is just as low as if i posted a picture of a burnt iraqi child to protest against the american occupation of Iraq.
Try something else if you really wanna go down that road.
You just said its comporable here Nilsen....
By saying that using 911 is coporable to using iraq war for some example, you are equating them..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You just said its comporable here Nilsen....
By saying that using 911 is coporable to using iraq war for some example, you are equating them..
The twin towers was a symbol of american business and that is why it was targeted, not because it held alot of civilians. When american/coaliton attack planes bomb possible saddam sites its an attack on the saddam regime even if alot of civilans are killed. The fact that the US forces killed alot less civilians are due to the advanced weapons you have. The pentagon was also a target, and do you think it was targeted to kill as many civilians as possible? No, it was also a political target.
-edit- why do you think they put peole from so many differetn counties up as "hostages" in these beheading vids. They are not made to discust as many counties as possible, they are targeted directly towards the specific counties to acheive thir goals.
-
So again you are saying that 911 and iraq war are comporable - just that the weapons are different...
WOW...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So again you are saying that 911 and iraq war are comporable - just that the weapons are different...
WOW...
Yes, in a way they are. Both are there to acheive a political goal. One is more crude than the other tho.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes, in a way they are. Both are there to acheive a political goal. One is more crude than the other tho.
WOW...
Moral relativism... There we have a perfect example...
So if its just about achieving political obejcives can we ever make a moral distinction between any acts?
For example nazis germnay political objective was to dominate the world and destroy jewish and slavic people on earth. They killed and invaded to achve those gouals.
The western allies objectives were to libererate people from the nazis. They killed and invaded to achive those goals.
According to your thinking, they are comporable.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
WOW...
Why? did you think they just attacked the twin towers to be "evil"?
-
Nilsen ask yer Grandparents about the Nazi occupation of Norway... Get F**Kin real man or just STFU.
:D
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Nilsen ask yer Grandparents about the Nazi occupation of Norway... Get F**Kin real man or just STFU.
:D
I have several times why? Are you claiming that the US liberated norway directly?
-
Move your lips like this.."Coalition" .... Lets just say it wasn't the Norwegian Army that saved your Country...cuddlinghunks:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Move your lips like this.."Coalition" .... Lets just say it wasn't the Norwegian Army that saved your Country...cuddlinghunks:rolleyes:
what is your point besides revealing your own lack of knowledge?
-
LOL are you for real ?
-
Originally posted by AWMac
LOL are you for real ?
Yes i am, but you have yet to make a valid point that everyone can see so please try to be more precise.
-
LOL Guess the old saying is true..."You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Keep jumping Nilsen....
:rofl
-
Originally posted by AWMac
LOL Guess the old saying is true..."You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Keep jumping Nilsen....
:rofl
You still cant come up with anything? Better than this i mean?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Last year I said we should take them out (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99197&highlight=AlJazeera)
of course they inspire the terrorists and keep the hatred stirring
I disagree. I think we should infiltrate them instead, especially
their shipping dept. SOMEONE is giving these tapes to AJ..let's
find out who:lol
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The twin towers was a symbol of american business and that is why it was targeted, not because it held alot of civilians. When american/coaliton attack planes bomb possible saddam sites its an attack on the saddam regime even if alot of civilans are killed. The fact that the US forces killed alot less civilians are due to the advanced weapons you have. The pentagon was also a target, and do you think it was targeted to kill as many civilians as possible? No, it was also a political target.
-edit- why do you think they put peole from so many differetn counties up as "hostages" in these beheading vids. They are not made to discust as many counties as possible, they are targeted directly towards the specific counties to acheive thir goals.
Yeah, I guess hitting them between 0800 and 0900 on a
weekday was just a happy coincidence? I mean who would
expect alot of civvies to be in a building full of civilian businesses
at that time of day?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rino
Yeah, I guess hitting them between 0800 and 0900 on a
weekday was just a happy coincidence? I mean who would
expect alot of civvies to be in a building full of civilian businesses
at that time of day?:rolleyes:
Dont try to argue with him Rino, he is beyond help in this matter... The man actually considers 911 terrorists and US soldiers morally comporable - to him they are only different in the weapons they use..
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
i doubt 9/11 was all about killing as many americans as possible. It was an attack on the american way of life. Why do you think they attacked the world trade center when they could have attacked a shopping mall or a football stadium or any other place were large crowds are gathered.
Heh ask an assshole a question, expect an assshole reply.
Nilsen is on a roll tonight...
:aok
*insert Twin Towers pic here*
Should we draw you a f**kin picture?... or would it be different if this was Oslo?
:rolleyes:
-
Congrats, Nilson. Your the first person I've ever put on my ignore list. Though I like reading opposing opinions, your either a kid or a troll, and I can't be bothered with either.
Do me a favor, when you visit the US again, Nilson...
Don't.
-
for not being in NY on 9/11/01 or Iraq today, mr norway sure knows everything about both
please continue oh enlightened one...tell us how we are just like the terrorists who murder innocents at every turn
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
i doubt 9/11 was all about killing as many americans as possible. It was an attack on the american way of life. Why do you think they attacked the world trade center when they could have attacked a shopping mall or a football stadium or any other place were large crowds are gathered.
Bingo. The targets were largely symbolic. There are much better ways to kill thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. Just goes to show how short-sighted the Al Qaeda are.
Let's just hope that the DHS has been wargaming the worst-case scenarios... and don't delude yourselves. It could have been MUCH worse.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Repeating the hatred of Al-Queda ... is the moral equivalent of yelling fire in a theatre or the incitement of a riot.
It all depends on the context.
-
Hmmm where did AlQuaida got the idea to attack civilian buildings?
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/bldg.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The sad part is that Nilsen is right and you all don't get it. The WTC and Pentagon were fitting symbolic targets for what Al Quada considers powers that meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, and people from 80 different countries were killed in the terrorist attacks. The WTC was a major centre of international commerce, including oil trade. A coincidence? I think not. The buildings themselves and what they represent was the target ... the people were just a bonus.
And I suppose Al Qaeda's plans to down doizens of airliners over the pacific were ment to bankrupt the airline industry?
-
yeah.
Think abou this for a minute.. IF the western world for some reason wanted to attack the muslims were it hurt them most... Would "we" hit a market in large town to kill the most muslims? or would we hit muslim symbols like mosques and other religius symbols?
-
I think Al-Jazeera is the Islamic version of The National Enquirer...journalisticly speaking.
Sorry to jump in this late and hijack the thread.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And I suppose Al Qaeda's plans to down doizens of airliners over the pacific were ment to bankrupt the airline industry?
No, but we al saw what happened after 911 and what happens when airplanes are targeted. Its spreads fear, and i bet you know what happens to the economy when these things happen. Remember the airlines that went bancrupt and what hapended with stocks?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
yeah.
Think abou this for a minute.. IF the western world for some reason wanted to attack the muslims were it hurt them most... Would "we" hit a market in large town to kill the most muslims? or would we hit muslim symbols like mosques and other religius symbols?
We would kill all of them if it ever came to that, take out the largest population centers.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We would kill all of them if it ever came to that, take out the largest population centers.
No.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We would kill all of them if it ever came to that, take out the largest population centers.
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/misc/badidea.jpg)
-
So if the west was in some some sort of bizzare religious fanatic war aginst the muslim world we wouldnt take out their biggest population centers?
My understanding of your qestion was what would the west do if they were al qaeda.
My answer was, we would wipe out their biggest population centers ( I suppose implying use of our nukes)
Al qaeda and succesors would do and will try to do the same when they succeed in getting a nuke...
Does anyone seriously disagree with this hypothetical assesement?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Congrats, Nilson. Your the first person I've ever put on my ignore list. Though I like reading opposing opinions, your either a kid or a troll, and I can't be bothered with either.
Do me a favor, when you visit the US again, Nilson...
Don't.
I guess its hard to face reality.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
My understanding of your qestion was what would the west do if they were al qaeda.
Then you got it wrong. If the "western" world wanted to attack the muslim way of life and culture the "west" would attack symbolic targets.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Then you got it wrong. If the "western" world wanted to attack the muslim way of life and culture the "west" would attack symbolic targets.
So you are saying they attacked us because of our love of freedom, democrcay and markets?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are saying they attacked us because of our love of freedom, democrcay and markets?
Why do you think they targeted the pentagon, the worlds financial center and possibly the white house?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That part you got wrong Nilsen. Al Quada is not attacking the western "way of life", they probably couldn't care less how we live. Al Quada wants to stop the western influence in the Middle East, particularly the foreign troops in Saudi Arabia and support of Israel.
What some describe as envy of western wealth and freedom is a fallacy. The masterminds of Al Quada are men who until recently lived in such luxury, wealth and freedom you and me can only dream of. If anything they are trying to protect their freedoms from western influence ... freedoms like oppressing women, family run governments etc. Al Quada's goals are far more selfish and far less "noble" or religious that what they may seem like to their followers and enemies alike.
Yes, and how would they best acheive those goals? By killing the most americans or destroying the symbols of that wastern culture that they want remove?. The symbols themselves are prolly not that important to Al Q, but the effect of targeting them is what they are after. You can call it a very powerful message.
-
double post
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Why do you think they targeted the pentagon, the worlds financial center and possibly the white house?
The Pentagon (symbol of US militry evil) was an easier target than white house (symbol of US democracy - "the people's house"). Thats why pentagon was hit - according to 911 report.
The pensylvania plane was aimed at Congress, a big sign of freedom and democracy.
Basically you are parroting the Bush line, that they hit us because of our love of democracy and freedom....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thats why pentagon was hit - according to 911 report.
If the 911 report concluded with this then how come its all over this thread that killing the most people was the goal?
-
Youre the only one who came up with the idea of killing the most people as the main goal... Its a strawn man argument...
The main thing I have been arguing is the fact that Al Qeada clearly intended to kill thousands of innocent Americans on 911. There were tens of thousands in those buildings...
For some reason you seem to be very uncomfortable with admitting that.
As for symbolism, even on 911 everyone on TV was saying how WTC and the other targets were symbolic. Thats obvious, do you want some nobel prize for that discovery?
What I'm more concerned with is your need to downplay the deliberate murders of innocent civilans as some some sort of bonus or even collateral.
Is it a part of you trying to equate the 911 attacks and the US military operation in Iraq?
"When american/coaliton attack planes bomb possible saddam sites its an attack on the saddam regime even if alot of civilans are killed. The fact that the US forces killed alot less civilians are due to the advanced weapons you have. The pentagon was also a target, and do you think it was targeted to kill as many civilians as possible? No, it was also a political target."
Up in that quote you seem to be saying that the target buldings were the main targets and that the civilans were merely uinitended accidental victims of crude al qaeda weapons.
That really disturbs me Nilsen...
In your eyes it seems the USA is only different from Al Qaeda in the weapns they use...
Very sad Nilsen, I'm very dissapinted...
-
Oh my...
-
Did I misread what you wrote?
"When american/coaliton attack planes bomb possible saddam sites its an attack on the saddam regime even if alot of civilans are killed. The fact that the US forces killed alot less civilians are due to the advanced weapons you have. The pentagon was also a target, and do you think it was targeted to kill as many civilians as possible? No, it was also a political target."
Tell me how to interpret this stement correctly?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Staga, please remove that picture before Skuzzy does it for you ... and bans you.
>>>
The sad part is that Nilsen is right and you all don't get it. The WTC and Pentagon were fitting symbolic targets for what Al Quada considers powers that meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, and people from 80 different countries were killed in the terrorist attacks. The WTC was a major centre of international commerce, including oil trade. A coincidence? I think not. The buildings themselves and what they represent was the target ... the people were just a bonus.
You too Gszolz... How on earth should one interpret that?
"the people were just a bonus"
Maybe you should tell those families that...
-
I can't help it if you see red when i say blue grun.
-
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
Three guesses as to who issued this fatwa?
But yes Nilisen I agree this is largely a matter of perspective, I take this 911 attack very personally. In part because it showed me how impermenant the things we take for granted, in part because I feel very strongly for the opportunities and gifts this nation gave me - including citizenship and freedom - and perhaps very personally because I was almost there on 911 myself. On september 9th I had an opportunity to fly to new york and I know that the WTC was a place I would have visited fore sure and probably in the morning. Thankfully i did not go.
Take that as dramatics or not but I will telly you that I did not think on Spetember 10 that somebody might want to kill me, that changed on 911, bigtime.
Maybe you dont feel that personally for whatevewr reason but I do and I'm very sensitive to this issue. I take it personally, just as imagine you take certain things personally.
So thats why I really object vto this idea of "bonus" victims, its clear from Bin Laden's fatwa above that he wants to kill americans. Obviously the targets were symbolic but the people were very real.
-
Im a nostalgic type so I appreciate the symbolism of buildings as much as anyone.. But my perspective is this, those guys deliberatly planned to kill tens of thousands of innocent people.
I'm not finding it as easy as you to say they were merely targeting a bulding.
When you were in Bosnia did you just think the refugees were merely victims of serb hunger for land, for a "greater serbia", or did you see it as something more, as that they were victims of a deliberate genocide attempt?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The refugees were victims of civil war. Nastiest form of war ever.
Why not just victims from serb hunger for land?
-
No point in discussing a subject when we both see it differntly and there is no chanse that any of us is gonna back down (and maybe we shouldt either).
Some think the goal was killing americans and some think killing them was not the main goal but a way to acheive a higher one.
I usually enjoy discussing these things but you grun, awmac and muckmaw cant seem to do so without resorting to namecalling and personal attacks. I dont take offence by it but trying to have a reasonable debate using them takes alot of the ejoyment out of it. I never do it even when im drunk so i don't understand why others has to either.
-
I havent called you names, have I? In fact just readings over my posts I havent even attaxked you personally..
The closest I came was to say that I'm disturbed by some of your reasoning.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Because it wasn't just a Serb hunger for land. It was civil war.
Are the victims of 911 victims of a religious war? Or were they merely victims of rational political policy?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nope. They are victims of a crime.
So to you 911 is only a crime?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I havent called you names, have I? In fact just readings over my posts I havent even attaxked you personally..
The closest I came was to say that I'm disturbed by some of your reasoning.
True, i jumped the gun abit there and im sorry. :) You are far from the worst and i i have no problem understanding that this topic stirrs up emotions.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So to you 911 is only a crime?
The border between crime and religion are often verry fuzzy and often both are used to serve the others agenda.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A heinous crime, but yes, just a crime ... is it more to you?
Yes. I see it as part of a much bigger struggle between opposing world views. I think its dangerous to dismiss this radical extemist islamic movent as a bunch of criminals swatting flies in caves.. Maybe this lack of caution contributed to the success of 911 attacks... Obviously in hindsight it seems to me that we did not take this threat seriously enough across during the Clinton and early part of Bush #2 admistrations.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A bigger struggle between whom? Who do these terrorists represent except for themselves?
As yourself what are they trying to achieve?
Who does any enemy represent beyond themselves and their supporters?
Its kind of a nonsensical question, are you trying to say that they are not legitimate opponent because they are not the standing army or political structure of a single nation state or coalition of states?
-
Do you ever sleep grun? Are you really awake or do you "sleeptype" :)
-
Whats your definition of a criminal?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Do you ever sleep grun? Are you really awake or do you "sleeptype" :)
LOL I just graduated from college and have not started working my "real" job yet. Time and schedules have no meaning just now. :)
-
Why dont we send the police after Osama?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL I just graduated from college and have not started working my "real" job yet. Time and schedules have no meaning just now. :)
Oh that explains it. I think i have win98 code in my dna....i need to reboot from time to time or ill get very unstable.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why dont we send the police after Osama?
Isnt america supposed to be the world police?
-
trolling?........me?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
trolling?........me?
Ignore him Nil he's a know nothing Nor..... er nevermind :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Your hook is as big as a CV anchor.
I use a net and sort out the goodies when i get it onboard. Unfortionaltly most of whats left are dead before i can release them again.
-
So basically to you GS it seems therehas to be a nation state involved for it to be more than a crime...
-
Then I suppose we must disagree on this point.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Then I suppose we must disagree on this point.
To me that sounds like a perfect ending to the thread!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I suppose we must, but I still don't understand what you think they are if not criminals. Elevating murdering criminals to the status of warriors of some kind is wrong IMHO.
As for the actual word "criminals" sure they are, I have no problem saying that, they are scum. I just think it goes beyond that Beyond simply them being a group bent on breaking some federal laws. It's a worldwide ideological and political movement dedicated, essentialy, to the destruction of our way of life in, as they say, every country possible. I dont think it takes for them to set up a legislature or a border drawn on some piece of paper to make this group more than just a criminal or law enforcement nuisance.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I do not think that is the stated goal of Al Quada. I think you give these people far too much credit.
I wouldnt underestimate them. Plus blowing up our big symbolic buildings and killing us wherever possible is pretty much that. Didnt you say they were trying to destroy our normal lives by for example blowing up airliners, so people would not travel and not be free conduct business or move about freely?
Maybe I should ask you, what do you see their goals to be?
-
So what do we do to stop them from winning?
Also, arent they are some ambitious criminals? Trying to take over one of the world's most strategically importanat resource areas... Is any of that really illegal?
Jokes aside, your explaination is exactly a part of the reason I consider them to be much more than criminlas. Any group dedicated to rearanging the global power blanance on that scale is much more than criminals to me...
I largely agree with your response, but it again surprise me to see that even with that knowlege of their geopolitical goals you still think they are just criminals.
Basically to me the mere term "criminal" downplays the far ranging threat that Al Qaeda poses.
-
so eagler says people on this BBS want to kill his family. someone says who. and then others start posting pictures of 9/11.
Are they saying that these people on this BBS that want to kill eaglers family also where involved in 9/11?
Greenhurtz if your just about finished school, why not take 3 years off to join the infantry and take the war to the terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
so eagler says people on this BBS want to kill his family. someone says who. and then others start posting pictures of 9/11.
Are they saying that these people on this BBS that want to kill eaglers family also where involved in 9/11?
Greenhurtz if your just about finished school, why not take 3 years off to join the infantry and take the war to the terrorists?
After I dropped out of high school I considered joining the army or trying, somehow, to gain my education. I decided on the education. If I'm being honest I'm way to fat now to be of any use to any army..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Arg! Will you stop adding to your posts after I've read them! ;)
LOL I do that a lot, just think of new things to add. :)
Its funny how you say that we shouldnt equate Al Qaeda and the battle against them with "islam."
Obviously you dont speak for the left, but many Bush bashing leftits criticize and ridicule Bush for his "War On Terruh" for being too vague and not focused clearly on Islamics.
What do you think about that?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Obviously you dont speak for the left, but many Bush bashing leftits criticize and ridicule Bush for his "War On Terruh" for being too vague and not focused clearly on Islamics.
What do you think about that?
Ahem... the term is "militant Islamist".
:)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... the term is "militant Islamist".
:)
Thank You! :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
After I dropped out of high school I considered joining the army or trying, somehow, to gain my education. I decided on the education. If I'm being honest I'm way to fat now to be of any use to any army..
They can fix that. Is anyone too fat to defend their country against a threat they feel so strongly about?
-
It's more complicated than that now, but I dont want to get into it any further if you dont mind. :(
-
The attack on the WTC was merely symbolic? I'm sure there are 3000 families that will be relieved to hear that. Anyone that feels that attack was justified or deserved is an enemy of the US. We can tolerate enemies so long as they control their animosity. Strike out at us though and expect to be struck back, only much harder. Most in the US feel this way, not just us "neocons".
-
Al Qaeda will win only if we lose our resolve to eliminate the hotbed of fanaticism that has so permeated the middle east. Can't, or won't kill 'em all so we'll just have to install democracies. Certainly a daunting task.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
See what I mean Grun? I fear this will end very badly indeed.
Nothing great is ever accomplished without risk.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
See what I mean Grun? I fear this will end very badly indeed.
Maybe. I never thought this would be very clean, but what are you afraid of in the end? That Al Qaeda will "rule" the mid east when its all over?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The attack on the WTC was merely symbolic? I'm sure there are 3000 families that will be relieved to hear that. Anyone that feels that attack was justified or deserved is an enemy of the US. We can tolerate enemies so long as they control their animosity. Strike out at us though and expect to be struck back, only much harder. Most in the US feel this way, not just us "neocons".
Are you saying that the family of those 3000 feels better if the attack was intended just to kill americans and nothing else?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Are you saying that the family of those 3000 feels better if the attack was intended just to kill americans and nothing else?
I'm saying that it wasn't a symbolic attack. It was a real attack in which a lot of people were murdered. That it was upon "symbols" of American pride further illustrated the hatred of the attackers towards all Americans.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm saying that it wasn't a symbolic attack. It was a real attack in which a lot of people were murdered. That it was upon "symbols" of American pride further illustrated the hatred of the attackers towards all Americans.
Aha, nobody claims the attack was symbolic. Its an attack on the symbols. Huge difference.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Aha, nobody claims the attack was symbolic. Its an attack on the symbols. Huge difference.
I'm glad you acknowledge that. I believe there are many that would try to imply they are the same.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm glad you acknowledge that. I believe there are many that would try to imply they are the same.
Of course i do. Hope noone has gotten the impression that i have said that it was a sybolic and not a real attack. :eek:
-
Why are those buildings symbols?
Are two big grey rectangles a symbol of US financial power because they are big or because they are rectangular or because they are grey?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why are those buildings symbols?
Are two big grey rectangles a symbol of US financial power because they are big or because they are rectangular or because they are grey?
none of the above and now you just beeing difficult. maybe you should reboot soon :D
-
I'm sure you know what a wedge is GScholz. Work a little democracy in gradually, give things time to stretch and adapt, and everything won't explode apart.
-
I'm not being difficult Nilsen. What factor is missing up there?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, the only problem with that is that you're using an armored wedge of M1A2s. And on top of that Al Quada will do their damnedest to make sure everything blows apart, like they are doing now in Iraq.
Of course they recognize our aim and are violently resisting it. But they were already fanatics and they did force our hand. I've said it before, I don't especially like Bush but I very much support him in this attempt to infiltrate the middle east with democracy. Great leaders attempt great things even if they sometimes fail. Poor leaders sit on their tulips and admire the scenery.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Anyways, I'm out for now. You Gentlemen have a nice day.
have a nice day and a nice week. Im going on vacaition again on monday for a week :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
have a nice day and a nice week. Im going on vacaition again on monday for a week :)
Nilsen...hope you have a wonderful vacation friend. With any luck the weather will warm up a little bit...it appears to be on the cool side most places for this time of year.
Once agian, if you get a chance to take any interesting photos on your travels, plz post 'em. I'd enjoy seeing some!
Cheers Nilsen...see you soon.:)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Nilsen...hope you have a wonderful vacation friend. With any luck the weather will warm up a little bit...it appears to be on the cool side most places for this time of year.
Once agian, if you get a chance to take any interesting photos on your travels, plz post 'em. I'd enjoy seeing some!
Cheers Nilsen...see you soon.:)
thx toronto!
yeah it has been abit chilly here latley, and the forecast for next week is not good but its too late to change our plans now.
hmm the pictures :D guess i promised that after the last trip too. better get my act together and get some photos of mia while she is still young.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
BUT its A-OK for the President and his men to tell the media what to say
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Just curious about how you guys see Al-Jazeera.
How do I see Al-Jazeera ? = "MouthpeiceBastardsTerroristPr omoters " !
CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by dvlspwn
BUT its A-OK for the President and his men to tell the media what to say
How do they do that?