Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on October 06, 2005, 07:53:42 PM
-
Terror suspects 'targeted Paris metro' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/27/europe.raids.ap/index.html)
PARIS, France (AP) -- Authorities fear that a suspected Islamic terror cell broken up in France was plotting attacks on the Paris subway, an airport and an intelligence agency's headquarters, newspapers said Tuesday.
Well, I guess that's what Chirac gets for being Bush's poodle. You can't openly support the US invasion of Iraq, supply troops for the effort and continue to occupy sacred Islamic soil without getting on an Islamic shirt list.
.... oh.. wait...
-
Still, its better to be over there fighting them in Iraq than some where else.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
See Rule #5
That isd why peaceful Islam only targets the evil Iraq-invading USA for terror attacks and not peceful nations like France.
Did you know the word "Islam" means peace in Arabic? I bet you didnt.
-
Wheehoo... another "fighting them over there" line.
"Over there" is a very big place Toad. The place you're specifically referring to when you say "the US invasion of Iraq" is not the same place that hosted this article's "al Qaeda."
Get it? Iraq is not al Qaeda. France participated in the coalition against Afghanistan.
-
the islamo militants want to create a islamic nation in what is currently referred to as france....
that would be almost funny
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wheehoo... another "fighting them over there" line.
"Over there" is a very big place Toad. The place you're specifically referring to when you say "the US invasion of Iraq" is not the same place that hosted this article's "al Qaeda."
Get it? Iraq is not al Qaeda. France participated in the coalition against Afghanistan.
You mean we aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq? Those guys that are blowing up civilians and lobbing off heads must be freedom fighters.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the islamo militants want to create a islamic nation in what is currently referred to as france....
that would be almost funny
Frankly, it's a riot.
-
Yes, Grun, I knew that Islam means "peace" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/map/wilders.html) in Arabic.
And I know that "over there" is a big place and countries that supported the US openly (http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/laden/7.html) must be punished as well.
Because, after all, these are reasonable people (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/20/turkey.blast/) that are simply misunderstood (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html).
-
Huh Toad?
Again, Al Qaeda isn't Iraq. The folks involved in the France plot have nothing to do with Iraq. Hussein couldn't stand these guys.
France cooperated in kicking Al Qaeda's arses. France didn't participate in an invasion of a country who hated Al Qaeda.
And now yer trying to tie France's uninvolvement in Iraq with Al Qaeda's plot against them?
What am I missing?
-
Well, in Paris you are missing (http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/9-held-as-paris-raids-foil-metro-attack/2005/09/28/1127804547817.html) the A-Q link.
In Iraq, you are certainly missing the A-Q link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/9-held-as-paris-raids-foil-metro-attack/2005/09/28/1127804547817.html) to the fighting there as well as the link (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2052682005) between terrorism plans here and Iraq.
And you're missing the obvious inference that any nation can be the target of these peaceful people; all that's necessary is that you speak out (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005095.php) against them.
-
Toad, Nash seems to keep a very narrow field of view. He seems to only bemoan the US and things the US are involved in.
Nevermind that the rest of the world is full of wars, hatred terrosists, dictatorships, natural disasters, potential pandemics coming from Asia ( who doesn't seem to manage them very effectivly), and general corruption and misery. It's everywhere.
But Nash seems to keep his focus almost exlusivley on how the US is screwing everything up and how much of a complete failure Iraq has become. I find it annoying.
We are not being slaughtered in Iraq and our troops are not demoralized. It's not a disaster We are going to get the job done in Iraq and the world is going to better off for our sacrifices. History will view it as a major turning pointn in the early years of the war on terror.
And it is correct to say that we are fighting terrorists over there. They are flooding into Iraq and they are killing Iraqis. They are terrorists.
Some people need to look bigger picture and stop focusing on the latest, bieased news they receive.
-
Godzilla = Nuke.
Why the shades? I dunno. just sayin'.....
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, in Paris you are missing (http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/9-held-as-paris-raids-foil-metro-attack/2005/09/28/1127804547817.html) the A-Q link.
In Iraq, you are certainly missing the A-Q link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/9-held-as-paris-raids-foil-metro-attack/2005/09/28/1127804547817.html) to the fighting there as well as the link (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2052682005) between terrorism plans here and Iraq.
And you're missing the obvious inference that any nation can be the target of these peaceful people; all that's necessary is that you speak out (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005095.php) against them.
In Paris I'm missing the AQ link? And to back that up you link to the article you originally linked? Sure there's a link.... because 9 people today have been arrested in an Al Q terrorist plot. You told us so yourself.
But where oh where is the Iraq link?
Oh wait - you attempt to provide it.... by linking to not one but two articles - neither of which say anything about Iraq.
Yer really hittin' for the fences by bringin' Dutch art into this (your fourth link).
Do you think people are too lazy to click on links these days? Because surely they don't do a thing for your argument.
-
I created this account while traveling and didn't know my password. "Shades" is a funny description though, since every name on this BB is a disguised version of who we really are. Or maybe it's closer to the opposite, we may be more who we are here than in RL.
I let the powers that be know who I am in an email weeks ago.
Sorry for the Hijack Toad.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Sorry for the Hijack Toad.
Sorry? How can you be? It's what you do.
-
These are just a few of the articles that claim A-Q links to terrorism in France, Iraq, NYC, Bali and numerous other places. I realize nothing would satisfy you that the links are real unless you personally caught OBL in the act of lighting the fuse in one of these places though.
Anyway it would seem that one organization... A-Q.. is actively pursuing terrorist acts in many places and not all of them are linked to the US, or the US in Afghanistan or the US in Iraq.
The link to Van Gogh's murder shows that you don't have to support US military action or even support the US in any way shape or form.
All you have to do is speak ill of Islam and you've added yourself to the list.
Sorry if I was too cryptic for you.
-
Some people need to look bigger picture and stop focusing on the latest, bieased news they receive.
Humm biased news like about WMD's? No I think you miss the point .....
The reason for going to Iraq wasn't "to fight the terrorists over there"
How convienaint that the 'latest biased news' paints it that way for you.
==============
So do you honestly think that if we didn't goto Iraq a major attack would have happend in the US agin?
How did attacking Iraq help make the US safer?
All the data shows more terrorist activity....
Did saddam have terrorist troubles?
and even if attacking Iraq somehow made us safer..... is it moral to put our percieved safety over the estimated 100,000 dead civilians....
It's not for me..... I'll take my chances
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sorry? How can you be? It's what you do.
Pot, Kettle.
It's what we all do at one time or another.
Go ahead... tell us you never hijack a thread.
-
Originally posted by Toad
These are just a few of the articles that claim A-Q links to terrorism in France, Iraq, NYC, Bali and numerous other places. I realize nothing would satisfy you ....
Wot?
These are indeed "articles that claim A-Q links to terrorism."
No disagreement there.
Problem is..... your whole entire post was not meant to enlighten evereyone on al Q's terrorist activities.
You were trying to shove it in France's face that, because they didn't support the invasion of Iraq, they still got burned by al Q.
Iraq has nothing to do with al Q. We both know that, and your links don't point to anything different. Quit trying. France supported routing al Q.
Maybe you were trying to make a joke?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Pot, Kettle.
It's what we all do at one time or another.
Go ahead... tell us you never hijack a thread.
I respond to what interests me. 99% of the time it's the subject of the post. Sometimes, what somebody says interests me and I'll ask about it. I try not to make it a habit.... unlike Nuke.
Here we go - hijacked.
-
Hi Guys,
Islamic terror cells continue to operate in France, because from their point of view, their job is nowhere near finished.
Al-Qaeda, and most of the modern Sunni terror organizations, from the Chechen Rebels to Abu-Sayyaf are all affiliated with the Pan-Islamic "Muslim Brotherhood." The founder of that particular organization, Hasan Al-Bana, wrote long before the current conflict and even before the creation of the modern state of Israel:
"Our task in general is to stand against the flood of modernist civilization overflowing from the swamp of materialistic and sinful desires. This flood has swept the Muslim nation away from the Prophet’s leadership and Koranic guidance and deprived the world of its guiding light. Western secularism moved into a Muslim world already estranged from its Koranic roots, and delayed its advancement for centuries, and will continue to do so until we drive it from our lands. Moreover, we will not stop at this point, but will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world. Only then will Muslims achieve their fundamental goal, and there will be no more ‘persecution’ and all religion will be exclusively for Allah….”
That particular quote from Al-Banna was taken from an English language tract entitled "To Be a Muslim" which was published in 1996 by the Saudis and distributed to Mosques throughout the Western World, including England and the United States.
Step one in Al-Banna's vision, as far as France is concerned, has been completed. The French infidels have been effectively removed from the middle-east. Step 2, "invading the Western heartland" and "struggling to overcome it" is well underway. That struggle will not cease no matter how far the West chooses to withdraw, appease, or disengage. Hence, France can choose to fight them, or "surrender" which is the actual meaning of the Arabic Islam and implies conversion by submission to the word of the Prophet. In Islam, true "peace" can only come via that submission, as Al-Banna's quote rightly implies.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Humm biased news like about WMD's? No I think you miss the point .....
The reason for going to Iraq wasn't "to fight the terrorists over there"
How convienaint that the 'latest biased news' paints it that way for you.
==============
So do you honestly think that if we didn't goto Iraq a major attack would have happend in the US agin?
How did attacking Iraq help make the US safer?
All the data shows more terrorist activity....
Did saddam have terrorist troubles?
BlueKitty, I could explain it all for you, but you won't listen.
I believe what we did in Iraq was our only option based on a number of factors. The war on Iraq was not as simple as you see it. It was a logical move based on all the cirumstances at the time. But you wont listen, so I won't bother.
-
It was a logical move baseed on all the cirumstances at the time. But you wont listen, so I won't bother.
Oh I remember the circumstances
I remember the protests
I remember people like Ambassador Wilson
What exactly do you remember?
===============
I guess your just a fan of "the plan for a new american century"
or do you remember that?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I respond to what interests me. 99% of the time it's the subject of the post. Sometimes, what somebody says interests me and I'll ask about it. I try not to make it a habit.... unlike Nuke.
Here we go - hijacked.
Nash, I reply to things that interest me. You are interested in some of the same things, but are on the opposite side of the fence. I state my views and opinions.
Are you saying I post just random BS and hijack threads for the hell os it? Why not give some examples off the top of your head? Or look up some of my most famous hijacks.
-
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Oh I remember the circumstances
I remember the protests
I remember people like Amassador Wilson
What exactly do you remember?
===============
I guess your just a fan for the 'plan for a new american century'
or do you remember that?
in other words, you don't remember anything important or anything specific regarding the history, begining with the first gulf war, Iraqs refusal to obey UN sanctions, fireing at US planes on patrol, kicking the UN inspectors out, or anything like that?
Do you know why Saddam let the UN inspectors back in? Could it possibly be because Bush sent a large force to his door? You can begin with that if you want, but I've got much more.
The reasons are many and justified.
You remember protests, I remember the facts and the logic behind taking Saddam out.
-
The reason for going to Iraq wasn't "to fight the terrorists over there"
====
correct! lets fight them in New York, London, Madrid.....
Oh I forgot.....9/11 happened after Iraq was invaded.....silly me.
Just wait until the arab nations have a stockpile of nuclear weapons.
bluekitty is who? schafenfrude?
-
Originally posted by Nash
You were trying to shove it in France's face that, because they didn't support the invasion of Iraq, they still got burned by al Q.
An incorrect assumption on your part; my point goes way beyond France and focuses on A-Q.
It's all laid out; you choose not to see it.
I think others will see it, but perhaps not.
-
Originally posted by Nash
99% of the time it's the subject of the post.
Yah.. shure. 99%. Heh.
Well... it's your memory; remember it the way you like.
-
The fact is that terrorists don't really care what views you take or what country you are from. If you have a different view than they do, they want you dead. The free world needs to fight them, not sit on the bench and hope they will magoically go away or spare you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
An incorrect assumption on your part; my point goes way beyond France and focuses on A-Q.
It's all laid out; you choose not to see it.
I think others will see it, but perhaps not.
"Others will see it?" lol okay.
Here's your post again:
Well, I guess that's what Chirac gets for being Bush's poodle. You can't openly support the US invasion of Iraq, supply troops for the effort and continue to occupy sacred Islamic soil without getting on an Islamic shirt list.
.... oh.. wait...
No sarcasm there.
Go ahead and play to the folks who would swallow anything you say just so long as it agrees with their stomachs. Tough crowd that is. I on the otherhand want nothing to do with them.
-
You can begin with that if you want, but I've got much more.
That's circumstances...... yes I remember them and much more.... I remember the BS... I remember the 'selling' of the war
After the fact but I remember the dowing street memo which is just MORE proof it was fixed and now they are trying to sell a diffrant line ... like Iraq is the battle ground of Al-Quada? well it is.... but only BECAUSE we invaded them.....
and it's moral to kill 100,000 over the 2,000 we lost from a terror attack?
well it's not moral for me and have been aginst it for many many reasons....
Give me a reason that's worth the outcome that your still standing solidly by?
100,000 is the price...
-
Originally posted by Nash
"Go ahead and play to the folks who would swallow anything you say just so long as it agrees with their stomachs. Tough crowd that is. I on the otherhand want nothing to do with them.
Whoops, this must be one of those 1% times....
In other words, people who agree with people like Toad are idiots, but people who have your views are enlightened.
Nash, maybe it's just that a majority of people on this BB and in the US, hold views more in line with Toad and others.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"Others will see it?" lol okay.
Here's your post again:
"Well, I guess that's what Chirac gets for being Bush's poodle. You can't openly support the US invasion of Iraq, supply troops for the effort and continue to occupy sacred Islamic soil without getting on an Islamic shirt list."
No sarcasm there.
Are you having a bad night?
Chirac as Bush's poodle?
France supporting the US invasion of Iraq?
France supply troops for the invasion?
French troops occupying sacred Islamic soil?
Maybe you just don't WANT to get it. But I do think others can figure out this oh-so-cryptic post, especially with all the supporting posts you generated.
Again, study Van Gogh.... see if you can figure out what it takes to get A-Q on your case. Hint: you don't need a single soldier.
-
See Rule #5
-
Where'd you get your 100K number?
And what account are you shading? I just like to know who I'm continuing to discuss things with.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
and it's moral to kill 100,000 over the 2,000 we lost from a terror attack?
well it's not moral for me and have been aginst it for many many reasons....
Give me a reason that's worth the outcome that your still standing solidly by?
100,000 is the price...
we didn't go over there in response to a terror attack. I'm not going to take you 100k figure for face value either, and that isn't even the point, but how many people did Saddam kill?
I thought you wanted to argue about the reasons for going to war? So far you listed protests you remebered, a discredited memo and some nut job as your argument. Not looking good.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe you just don't WANT to get it. But I do think others can figure out this oh-so-cryptic post....
Well gee... maybe what you said isn't really what you said...
So go ahead, throw me a bone.
What did you really mean to say in your initial post?
I'll try and match it up with your original post, and we'll see if I haven't been talkin' out my arse all night on account of something I misunderstood.
-
Hell, I'll take a stab Toad.
Tony Blair is called Bushs poodle? The UK supplied troops and openly supported the invastion of Iraq, ect.? Look what it got them! TERROR!
Now the other approach, that of Chiraq's has resulted in TERROR!
The point being that it doesn't matter what stance anyone takes on terror, they are gonna come after you regardless. TERROR!
-
^
These are your friends, Toad. Your "others."
Nice.
-
I'm not going to take you 100k figure for face value either, and that isn't even the point, but how many people did Saddam kill?
Or how many people did Stalin kill? :rofl
Now THERE's a great goal for you if you want to be the biggest and baddest.
-
I thought you wanted to argue about the reasons for going to war? So far you listed protests you remebered, a discredited memo and some nut job as your argument. Not looking good.
Actually .. you need to make the arguement to goto war. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you who wish to be so violent in the name of safety.
ya, some crackpot.... only an Ambassador
and no, the memo hasn't been discredited....
The study by US and Iraqi researchers, led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, surveyed 1,000 households in 33 randomly chosen areas in Iraq. It found that the risk of violent death was 58 times higher in the period since the invasion, and that most of the victims were women and children.
"Making conservative assumptions, about 100,000 excess deaths have happened ... Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths, and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths," said Les Roberts of the Baltimore institution. The researchers excluded Fallujah, the most violent area of Iraq, from their results, which would have made the toll higher. But the finding that air strikes caused the highest casualties casts doubt on US claims that air attacks allow pinpoint precision.
Oct-2004
it's a year later ....even if they overestimated then, by now it's alot of people that died for this cause your so fervently supporting.
==========
The point being that it doesn't matter what stance anyone takes on terror, they are gonna come after you regardless. TERROR!
Well I'm saying the same thing .... however makeing Iraq the place for a 'War on Terror' is immoral.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Oh I forgot.....9/11 happened after Iraq was invaded.....silly me.
Don't go there, cause if you use 911 as the reason to invade Iraq, we invaded the wrong country, it should have been Saudi Arabia
-
Originally posted by Nash
^
These are your friends, Toad. Your "others."
Nice.
I have my own opinion on everything. Toad has his. I have argued with Toad to the point that he put me on ignore. I like you Nash and I like Toad. I don't agree with your views on the Iraq war and some other stuff.
I know it must seem like people are ganging up on you Nash. I'm not targeting you personally. Afterall, I've got the little Bluekitty to deal with.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Actually .. you need to make the arguement to goto war. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you who wish to be so violent in the name of safety.
ya, some crackpot.... only an Ambassador
and no, the memo hasn't been discredited....
Oct-2004
it's a year later ....even if they overestimated then, by now it's alot of people that died for this cause your so fervently supporting.
==========
Well I'm saying the same thing .... however makeing Iraq the place for a 'War on Terror' is immoral.
Good to see theres still good support out their for genocidal dictators. I'm sorry that Iraq's gone - but you might find a new home in North Korea, some Eastern European States, and Africans states. I hear robert mugabe is looking for supports and he's hold a spot for you ;)
BTW the actual tracked civilian body count is in the 30000's, the 100,000 figure is just some antiwar researchers figure he pulled out of his butt and is regurgitated by the fanatical antiwar mob who would prefer those deaths stayed on the hands of Saddam and his sons (even if its 5 x as much).
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by OttoJespersen
More the other way around. The French have been targeted by terrorists for ages. Even 9/11 almost happened in Paris first in the late '90s, but the GIGN stopped the hijackers (the famous one where the co-pilot jumps out the window).
The French don't target terrorists, they filter them out of their own country. That's a little different than taking a stand against terrorism and terrorist states.
-
Originally posted by OttoJespersen
Oh on that day they did target the terrorists. Shot them all dead with no civilian casualties.
So they enforced the laws of France? Okay, way to enforce French law
Guess what, Saudi Arabia targets terrorists too! A few months ago, the Saudis shot a group of terrorists that tried to shoot up the place. Is Saudi Arabia tough on terror? lol.
-
France is looking out for France and nobody else.
November 10, 2004
Saudi Forces Kill Terrorists in Gun Battle
More evidence that nations will only fight terrorism if they believe it is in their national security interests to do so. In the case of the House of Saud, it is because the jihadis wish to replace that regime with one that is even more harsh. Get it? The Saudi's Wahhabism doesn't go far enough. In the case of Pakistan, they help us because the alternative is a US invasion or harsh sanctions. In the case of the French....oh, sorry, my bad. Arab News:
Saudi security forces clashed with four suspected terrorists in the Al-Jamia district early yesterday morning. One terrorist was killed, and three were captured during the two-hour long siege. One of the three was a foreign national, the Interior Ministry said.
According to Brig. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki, a ministry spokesman, two security officers were injured in the operation that resulted in the confiscation of eight Kalashnikovs, 100 locally made bombs, machine guns, hand-grenades and live ammunition.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Hell, I'll take a stab Toad.
Tony Blair is called Bushs poodle? The UK supplied troops and openly supported the invastion of Iraq, ect.? Look what it got them! TERROR!
Now the other approach, that of Chiraq's has resulted in TERROR!
The point being that it doesn't matter what stance anyone takes on terror, they are gonna come after you regardless. TERROR!
take your med an stfu.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
The French don't target terrorists, they filter them out of their own country. That's a little different than taking a stand against terrorism and terrorist states.
et mon cul c'est du poulet ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
take your med an stfu.
why don't you relax? I'm not bashing France.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
why don't you relax? I'm not bashing France.
I disagree , see :
Originally posted by Godzilla
The French don't target terrorists, they filter them out of their own country. That's a little different than taking a stand against terrorism and terrorist states.
That's pretty offensive don't you think ?
At least we don't finance them like the Saoud.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I disagree , see :
That's pretty offensive don't you think ?
At least we don't finance them like the Saoud.
I'm not against France and was not comparing France to Saudi Arabia.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Yeah, the French really did a swell job in Africa.
Up to you to take our place in Ivory coast.
Kind of like the job they pullled off in Vietnam. [/B]
:rofl
And, who was trying to help in Somalia again? [/B]
You really don't have a good memory don't you ?
Who donates more money, food and medicine to Africa? [/B]
Dunno and don't care.
-
Sorry straffo.... couldn't resist...
(http://bulgaria.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/2/rainbow_warrior.jpg)
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by OttoJespersen
See? The French DO fight terrorists! :D
somthing we can agree on Sky.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
North Korea has always been soOoo compliant just like Iraq... and Oh ..... they never invaded a country to the south ethier:huh
Why don't we start a war with North Korea? or any of the other countries that are soooo bad
well they are bad .... Millions have died in the Congo since 2000
OR are you focusing on WMD's.... well woohoo we maganged to push North Korea and Iran right along.... good job!
I often wonder if Bush is arrogant and stupid ... or just lacks morals ...then i realize it's a mixture of all three :D
Very good points, I think because we can't deal with all dicatators and evil countries simultaneously we should just leave them alone. I mean Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, they weren't really that bad you know...
-
Originally posted by OttoJespersen
See? The French DO fight terrorists! :D
They only took them on because they're unarmed ;)
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Africa: I've got news for you. Before France and Europe decided to draw boundaries in Africa, I was a peacful continent of tribes who didn't have set borders.
Some words on wich you can do some research : bamileke, bantoo,foulbé , kotoko,kirdi ...
and it's just for Cameroon ...
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
HAHAHAHAH! One of the reasons Africa is so screwed up is because of France to begin with, along with a few other European meddlers.
You can believe this but if it was the only reason it would be pretty simple to handle
see this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_of_Africa
and half of the ethnies are missing ...
-
So now a miltary presence is a good thing? I'm glad to hear it. Now you can get onboard with the US military presense in Iraq.
Hey, the French occupied most of Africa for more than 50 years, and look how well Africa is now.
The US occupied Germany and Japan for a few years. I wonder who has a better track record, lol. And I could go on.
-
Originally posted by straffo
You can believe this but if it was the only reason it would be pretty simple to handle
see this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_of_Africa
and half of the ethnies are missing ...
Europe screwd up Africa. Before Europeans decided to perform the European style remodeling of Africa, it was a pretty peacefull continent with only two countries. The rest was no boundaries and free love.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Europe screwd up Africa. Before Europeans decided to perform the European style remodeling of Africa, it was a pretty peacefull continent with only two countries. The rest was no boundaries and free love.
actually the problem is the euros gave em guns, they killed each other quite merrily before that with clubs and spears.
-
Guess I went to bed to early last night! This thread got pretty interesting. Is it too late to say I was being facetious with my "fighting them over there" comment? I guess the implied satire wasn't strong enough. I hear that line all the time; its almost achieved mantra-like qualities for its believers.
As we have seen, our struggle with terrorists is not limited to Iraq's borders, despite our large military presence there and our President's exhortations to the bad guys to "bring 'em on!". Why won't they do what our President wants?!
It may be a smart strategy for A-Q to tie down a large US military effort in Iraq while also conducting attacks elsewhere in the world. The money we spend creating an Islamic republic allied with Iran can't be spent on homeland security measures here.
I hope Nuke is right though. I hope Iraq becomes a rich, free and successful democracy. I also hope they prove willing to buy our debt instruments, in case China grows weary of financing our continuing deficit.