We're Number...NINE?!?

[D2Kvirus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,998042,00.html

Now, when have we heard Putin, who's country is at least Number Eight on the list, whining for easy votes because of some terrorist threat or other? Here's a hint - HE HASN'T!!! And the main threat there is Chechen Rebels, who have the nasty habit of being local (same for Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Afghanistan and, guess what - the UK, c/o the Real and Continuity IRA groups), while India and Pakistan are busy nipping across their borders and taking aim at each other, and I don't hear much crowing from either of their leaders, either.

Perhaps Tony could do us a favour and admit that, well, this nation is small time and the only reason we're so high is the latest generation of those guys he's been busy placating for the past six years, and allowing into Whitehall, rather than those Big Bad Arabs, who wouldn't waste their time on us as target practice, when they have bigger fish to aim planes at.

But he's too busy trying to score points off the BBC to note this, or bring home a couple of his own citizens who were illegally convicted and shunted off to Guantanamo Bay for a swift hearing and execution.

[Ninja-Scientist]

When a foreign country attacks the US with no good reason: Terrorism

When the US attacks a foreign country with no good reason: Heroism

I'm done here.

[Ninja-Scientist]

I guess not a lot of other people feel that way. ^_-

I want to know where the US is on the list of the most threatened now. lol. Good job, Bush.

Sorry we dragged you down with us, Britain.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/15/03 07:34 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Sorry we dragged you down with us, Britain.

I dunno if that's a fair statement...cause when you think about it...this is the best thing to happen to the super powers since the "Communist Menace". Terroism is a great scapegoat now to go after people you don't like, and/or want something from. I mean, there are some nice things in those Arab nations that the super powers of the world would love to get their hands on, but there wasn't a way to try and go after it without admitting it before...now you can just go "shit, they harbor terroists! Gotta drop them bombs on them!"

I dunno, I've always wondered how huge a threat terroism really is to America, even post 9/11 here...I mean, how much terroism were we seeing? I don't think I can even boil it down to a "x amount of terroist acts occur every y amount of years", I can think of two really major headline grabbers before 9/11...and we weren't out there kicking ass and taking names at that point...but suddenly now we are? What? You trying to say that the deaths and injuries of the first WTC bombing just weren't as important as the attacks on 9/11? Sure it was bigger, sure they hit more targets. But again, couldn't we just tighten up our security, work WITH the established governments of the world to hand these extremists over? Isn't that the best thing, the most right thing to do?

Oh but than we don't get to blow shit up and take resources we want...fuckin forgot that one...got off on a bit of a tangent didn't I? That happens when I'm really tired...just dunno when to shut the fuck up.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/15/03 07:29 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: When a foreign country attacks the US with no good reason: Terrorism

When the US attacks a foreign country with no good reason: Heroism

I'm done here.

When some supports America: Idiocy

When someone hates America: Genius

I think I get it now.

Couldn't counter her argument, huh?.

Imagine that the cold war is still going on, and the Soviet Union, citing some very minor pretext, filled the skies with bombers over, say, Greece, bombing the civilian population, killing hundreds or thousands, making thousands more homeless ... without having been first attacked by Greece, or threatened in any way by Greece. If this, at the time, had been called an act of terrorism, who would have objected? Well, the scenario I just described is exactly what the United States did to Panama in 1989 .

The difference between an individual terrorist and a government in some cases may be simply that the former has a bomb but doesn't have an air force. And many more examples of acts of terrorism by the U.S. government can be cited, even the more classic kind -- in 1985, in an attempt to assassinate a certain Muslim leader in Lebanon, the CIA arranged for a car bomb to go off. The bomb went off, and killed 80 people, but not including the Muslim leader.

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/propagandhi/blum2.shtml ^_^

[misterx2000]

Waging war isn't gonna help the terror prob...education and changing of people's perceptions over time is the way to go. War just makes things worse.

[D2Kvirus]

Alongside the fact the main terrorist threat are members of the British Isles (oops, sorry Osama, didn't mean to leave you out or anything), another main reason is our imperialist past.

Great, that means terrorist groups in India, when they're done blowing up Pakistan, will probably "want to have a word" with us, as well as the Jamaicans, as well as, well, here's a helpful map:
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/maproom.htm
(Better hope the Canadians are as stoic and boring as the Yanks constantly protray them as, or we're fucked...)

But the fact is, it explicitly states that Canary Wharf won't be an ugly, half full eyesore that haemmorages cash at a rate that is thankfully demolished so investors can rest easy like...what was the name of that building called again? Anyway, we're more likely to have IRA-related (as in not the IRA that are related to Sinn Fein, but the current hydra groups), and be little more than a car bomb, which is hardly the image painted by Blair, who's been making out we're going to have an 11/9 on our doorstep for the past couple of years - among other heaps of superhuman bullshitting. Just ask Hans Blix...

The basis of change? Intellect, not re-elect.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/16/03 01:34 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Couldn't counter her argument, huh?.

What argument?

She made a simple statement without support, so I gave another one along the same lines of thinking. Do you not agree with it? It seems to describe many arguments on this forum quite well.

*shrugs* you could've proven her theory/claim/post wrong in one way or another.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/18/03 12:40 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: *shrugs* you could've proven her theory/claim/post wrong in one way or another.

You can't argue with a statement based solely on bias.

For example, a person says "I hate ice cream". How should you disprove that? By arguing that this person somehow likes ice cream?

At 7/18/03 12:50 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

For example, a person says "I hate ice cream". How should you disprove that? By arguing that this person somehow likes ice cream?

Well that's an opinion, what she did was make
claims about the US military and terrorism. It's as if she said "Ice cream is horrible and repugnant" you can counter that claim with some sort of ice-cream survey in which 90% of the nation's citizens agree that ice cream is yumalicious, proving her claims about ice cream being wrong. Too many details, she didn't post her opnion, she made claims. Prove her claims about the US military/terrorism wrong.

[Ted-Easton]

And a person saying "i hate ice cream", isn't arguing. They're rambling off topic and saying what they like, not statistical facts.

[JMHX]

At 7/18/03 09:10 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: And a person saying "i hate ice cream", isn't arguing. They're rambling off topic and saying what they like, not statistical facts.

About half of this thread is a rant about not liking ice cream while sprinkling the remainder with tasty chocolate nuggets of wisdom. I, for one, liked Ninja's quote on Terrorism and Heroism.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/18/03 12:19 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: About half of this thread is a rant about not liking ice cream while sprinkling the remainder with tasty chocolate nuggets of wisdom. I, for one, liked Ninja's quote on Terrorism and Heroism.

Because you agree with it, not because a good argument was made.

[JMHX]

At 7/18/03 11:32 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/18/03 12:19 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: About half of this thread is a rant about not liking ice cream while sprinkling the remainder with tasty chocolate nuggets of wisdom. I, for one, liked Ninja's quote on Terrorism and Heroism.

Because you agree with it, not because a good argument was made.

I agree with Ninja that the United States holds a double standard for things like this, but I can also agree with some of the points you have made.

[TheTio]

At 7/15/03 07:29 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: When a foreign country attacks the US with no good reason: Terrorism

When the US attacks a foreign country with no good reason: Heroism

I'm done here.

Or how about

When a foreign country attacks US WITH good reason: Terrorism

When the US attacks a foreign country with no reason: Heroism

Pisses me off how the US govt acts like the world started on sept11th and they could suddenly hide everything they have done wrong to the 3rd world and arab countries into the shadow of that day

As far as I can see with my eyes that see beyond sept 11th, america had it coming, im not glad those people died, but america had been throwing its weight around for decades

[TheTio]

At 7/16/03 01:17 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/15/03 07:29 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: When a foreign country attacks the US with no good reason: Terrorism

When the US attacks a foreign country with no good reason: Heroism

I'm done here.

When some supports America: Idiocy

When someone hates America: Genius

I think I get it now.

You know i have never once seen you make an intelligent statement on these forums, you come in, you some sarcastic shit, tell everyone who doesnt agree with you their wrong, then leave

I think its about time you went to hang out with your real peers in General

[JMHX]

Tio, allow me to be the very first to say you have no place to be judging Commander at all. He is one of the brightest members of the Politics Crew and this forum. Simply because he says something you do not agree on is not grounds to ask him to go to general. If anything, you should be hauling some ass out of here. It's a rule of thumb that if they have the Yin-Yang, they're not to be screwed with, because they know their shit.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/19/03 03:32 AM, TheTio wrote:

okay, I'm awful sick of everybody ripping Ninja's analogy to make their opinion...try to be original folks...now let's get to the nit picking!

When a foreign country attacks the US with no good reason: Terrorism

Um, no? I don't think America has really been attacked by a foreign country and called it terroism, usually, we declare that an act of war (as it should be). America only seems to scream terroism when it's a small group of extremists attacking innocent people because the group percieves them to be guilty of some heinous crime because of where they live (I also agree this to be a fair definition of terroism).

When the US attacks a foreign country with no good reason: Heroism

Not everybody thinks that way, I sure as hell don't...and I have serious issues with anybody who does think that way.

I'm done here.

Okay than, guess I'm a little late with my song and dance than but...whatever =)

Pisses me off how the US govt acts like the world started on sept11th and they could suddenly hide everything they have done wrong to the 3rd world and arab countries into the shadow of that day.

It is quite sad I admit...America really should stand up and be big enough to accept the wrong doings which may have contributed to Sept. 11

As far as I can see with my eyes that see beyond sept 11th, america had it coming, im not glad those people died, but america had been throwing its weight around for decades

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! Need I say more? Yes, I believe I do.

DO NOT confuse Osama Bin Laden and his groups actions with some sort of Muslim ordained act...Osama is a nut in my eyes, nothing more than a rich madman who uses violence and death to try and force the world to see his views (and yeah, GW is pretty much doing the same...but two wrongs don't make a right, and one does not justify the other). Osama didn't declare war on America, he didn't attack people responsible for the things he was pissed off about (cept maybe the Pentagon)...he went after an office building full of people...he was hopeing to shut down this country in one fail swoop with one set of attacks. You people love to cry about Bush running sneak attacks on people who aren't prepared...what in the FUCK do you call how we got hit on 9/11? No, I'm not a supporter of Bush, I'm not a supporter of the "war on terror" as I've seen it operate thus far. But I'm getting sick of people who sit here and think that because america has made mistakes, and stuck it's nose in business it probably shouldn't have that we somehow deserve some self-righteous asshole to run a sneak attack, and call it the will of the Arab world. Get real! People died on 9/11, innocent people, and I am just as sick as every one else that their deaths are being used as a means to cover up the governments domestic mistakes, and international greed. I guess my overall point here is that you don't have to like terroism to hate Bush...some people seem to think that if the GOVERNMENT is fucking up, that it's fine for the rest of us to pay the price. I don't believe that, I believe in the guilty being punished, not the innocent.

[Silvern]

Just saying the USA is evil/awful/a terrorist and then leaving has never helped anyone.

I don't think the US is much different from any normal person. Everyone has their own issues to work out and so does a country like the US. The larger the country, the more issues it's going to raise and the more it's going to offend others. Simply put, the more prominent a country is the more people blow up it's flaws. The US likes to meddle in countries other affairs. Not usually because it particularly cares about them but because it hopes to gain something from it. I do not know of a country that doesn't act this way on some level. I think the USA gets a bad rep just because it has so much influence and uses it. I am not at all confident that the US is a more aggressive or warlike nation than most other nations. It simply has not been shown because you can site example after example of bombs being dropped or people killed by the US but that's the case for so many other countries. Considering the USA's military power and spending, the US has been relatively constrained in its use of force.

Why are there so many topics that seem to echo similar conversations?

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/20/03 06:01 AM, Silvern wrote: Just saying the USA is evil/awful/a terrorist and then leaving has never helped anyone.

Very true. Saying the US is crap, and giving reasons carries on the debate.

Everyone has their own issues to work out and so does a country like the US.

True.

The larger the country, the more issues it's going to raise and the more it's going to offend others.

Not necessary. Britains been offencing a few people at the monent, and we're tiny, in comparison to the US.

Simply put, the more prominent a country is the more people blow up it's flaws. The US likes to meddle in countries other affairs. Not usually because it particularly cares about them but because it hopes to gain something from it. I do not know of a country that doesn't act this way on some level.

Most (if not all) countries do this, the US just doesn't use any tact when it does and it really offends people with its "Bite Me" foreign policy.

I think the USA gets a bad rep just because it has so much influence and uses it. I am not at all confident that the US is a more aggressive or warlike nation than most other nations.

I am, it's spent $17,000,000,000,000 ($17TRILLION) on war equipment, bombs, soldiors etc. scince 1945.

It simply has not been shown because you can site example after example of bombs being dropped or people killed by the US but that's the case for so many other countries.

Like who? How many countries has Brazil attacked in the last 50 years, as compared to America. How about France, Germany, the UK, Argentinia, Mexico, Canada? How many have they attacked?

[TheTio]

At 7/19/03 10:48 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Tio, allow me to be the very first to say you have no place to be judging Commander at all. He is one of the brightest members of the Politics Crew and this forum.

Yeah, it was bullshit to say hes only sarcastic and doesnt contribute anything important, he does, but he is sarcastic far to often

Simply because he says something you do not agree on is not grounds to ask him to go to general. If anything, you should be hauling some ass out of here. It's a rule of thumb that if they have the Yin-Yang, they're not to be screwed with, because they know their shit.

Yeah, I will respect intelligence and wisdom where i see it, not some hory ass logo, I really couldnt give 2 shits about a yinyang, and if you expect me to respect it i dont give a fuck, oh and i dont see commander having a yinyang so what are you talking about?

[TheTio]

.....fuck, he does have one, damn .gif's

But still, its just a logo

[Silvern]

At 7/20/03 10:40 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 7/20/03 06:01 AM, Silvern wrote:

The larger the country, the more issues it's going to raise and the more it's going to offend others.

Not necessary. Britains been offencing a few people at the monent, and we're tiny, in comparison to the US.

...I was talking about in terms of power, not about geographic size. Britain is a powerful nation.

I think the USA gets a bad rep just because it has so much influence and uses it. I am not at all confident that the US is a more aggressive or warlike nation than most other nations.

I am, it's spent $17,000,000,000,000 ($17TRILLION) on war equipment, bombs, soldiors etc. scince 1945.

Has it used all 17 trillion dollars to attack people? I'm saying that a very small amount of its military power and money has been used to actually attack/destroy things, people, places.

It simply has not been shown because you can site example after example of bombs being dropped or people killed by the US but that's the case for so many other countries.

Like who? How many countries has Brazil attacked in the last 50 years, as compared to America. How about France, Germany, the UK, Argentinia, Mexico, Canada? How many have they attacked?

Umm...does brazil even have the technology or organization to bomb someone? France won't even defend it's own borders when attacked...they're going to attack someone else? Okay, We all know germany was a major force in WWI and THE force in WWII. Now they're pretty impotent and they couldn't attack anyone if they wanted to. Britain has been the most imperialistic nation that I can even think of. It's probably attacked more countries in the past then anyone else. But...Britain has assisted us with most of the USAs bombing campaigns and attacks. So they've attacked many of the same people we have. Umm, I don't know anything about Argentina but I'd imagine it would be similar to Brazil in that respect. Disorganized and unable to launch a campaign. Mexico eh? I dunno...I'm not aware of anyone that Mexico has ever attacked except possibly the US and then it's generally considered the US attacked them or something. Canada...isn't that part of the US yet? My point wasn't that there aren't countries that are less aggressive but that it's not more aggressive than most countries. The USA decides to police the world (which isn't necessarily right) and considering we do, we get in surprisingly few conflicts. If other countries were in the same position with as large a military, would they show as much restraint? I guess that's just a matter of opinion but I think few countries would. I also am of the opinion that the USA has averted larger scale war and death that might've occurred in the future without its interference.

At 7/18/03 11:32 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Because you agree with it, not because a good argument was made.

And if you don't agree with it, it's no longer an argument? wow.

At 7/20/03 02:45 PM, Silvern wrote:

Has it used all 17 trillion dollars to attack people? I'm saying that a very small amount of its military power and money has been used to actually attack/destroy things, people, places.

Ok, but you have no proof of that. By the way, soldiers and bombs aren't made to bake cookies, they're made to kill. $17 trillion has been spent to find better ways of killing.

::

Umm...does brazil even have the technology or organization to bomb someone?

Yes.

France won't even defend it's own borders when attacked...they're going to attack someone else?

Napoleon.

Okay, We all know germany was a major force in WWI and THE force in WWII. Now they're pretty impotent and they couldn't attack anyone if they wanted to.

No, they're as powerful as the next european country.

Britain has been the most imperialistic nation that I can even think of.

Actually it's China.

It's probably attacked more countries in the past then anyone else.

No.

But...Britain has assisted us with most of the USAs bombing campaigns and attacks. So they've attacked many of the same people we have.

"you're either with us or against us" Maybe they were scared shitless of these threats?

Umm, I don't know anything about Argentina but I'd imagine it would be similar to Brazil in that respect. Disorganized and unable to launch a campaign.

Indeed, you don't know anything about Argentina or Brazil.

Mexico eh? I dunno...I'm not aware of anyone that Mexico has ever attacked except possibly the US and then it's generally considered the US attacked them or something.

No.

Canada...isn't that part of the US yet? My point wasn't that there aren't countries that are less aggressive but that it's not more aggressive than most countries.

A point which has no proof nor examples.

The USA decides to police the world (which isn't necessarily right) and considering we do, we get in surprisingly few conflicts.

Please don't make me list the conflicts that America has gotten sucked into. It would suck up Newground's bandwith.

If other countries were in the same position with as large a military, would they show as much restraint? I guess that's just a matter of opinion but I think few countries would.

Other countries don't have such a huge military force precisely because of restraint. They are able to go through a year without bombing a few countries.

I also am of the opinion that the USA has averted larger scale war and death that might've occurred in the future without its interference.

That is true for WWII. Nothing else.

[TheTio]

At 7/20/03 06:01 AM, Silvern wrote: I don't think the US is much different from any normal person. Everyone has their own issues to work out and so does a country like the US. The larger the country, the more issues it's going to raise and the more it's going to offend others.

If we were reducing countries actions into terms of normal people, America would be the school bully trying to take peoples lunch money, with a few lackeys that dont even like him, Britain, Australia etc
And sure, so this bully gives back a little to the up and comings in the schoolyard, for personal gain everytime

:I do not know of a country that doesn't act this way on some level. I think the USA gets a bad rep just because it has so much influence and uses it.

No I would say that it is the way that they use it, to their own gain, fuck the rest of the world, Bush seriously tried to push war toward countries that openly opposed his Iraq thrust, pretty adolescent use of influence if you ask me

:Considering the USA's military power and spending, the US has been relatively constrained in its use of force.

Pfft, so you think that because america could do a whole lot more oppressing than its current amount that its exempt from the amount of oppressing it does right now as insignificant or something???

No amount of dictatiting and oppression is acceptable, no matter how much your nation is capable of
Also, no america isnt my only target for this anger its just the most common topic

Im also pretty damn pissed off with the way that France treats its pacific colonies, the way China treats tibet, and the way Israel provoked a war so that it could bulldoze over massive amounts of land and claim away, shitting on the rightful owners of the land, fuck their bible, fuck what god supposedly said

[TheTio]

Fuck, should be pretty obvious which parts of that are quote and which are reply, but how do you properly break a quote up while replying to it in sections???