War on Terror

[JoS]

Death toll on 9/11 2998, war on Terror (Afgan and Iraqi civilians) over 10 000. Does this seem fair? Does Bush think an American life is worth far more than forgien lives, These civilians are equally as innocent as the Americans kille don 9/11. Iraq about 50 protesters have been killed by US forces and allies. IN the US you kill one protester and there is a huge investigation. Looters and robbers are shot dead. almost 3500 have been killed while in hospitals by bombs hitting them, including a childrens hospital and a maternity hospital. Iraq Body Count

[Kenney333]

At 9/8/03 04:29 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

Does this seem fair?

certainly not.

Does Bush think an American life is worth far more than forgien lives?

yes, yes he does, and his way is always right aswell.

The "war on terror" is some class A bullshit, its just a collaboration of buzzwords that sounds all well and good, but fails to address all the killing that is being done.

[mrpopenfresh]

Dude, you can't join the Iraqi war and the 'terror' war together. There 2 different things. It's like your'e blaming the Iraqis as well for the sept. 11 tower crumple. Although I too think that these wars have no basis and serve no other perpose than to waste the american tax payers money, as well as further endetting this gret country, the Afghani war and the other war aren't linked.

"War on terror" what a joke.

[D2Kvirus]

You missed the himarity on Sunday morning in London.

A terrorism simulation, just to see how well prepared our emergency services are for a staged exercise, in this case a gas attack on the Tube (which is so 1997...and Japanese), just like my parents had to do in the 50's to prepare for The Inevitable Nuclear Strike on our country. So, any terrorist with a brain will now be thinking that we'll be prepared for a gas attack on the Tube, so ditchthat plan and aim a 747 at Canary Wharf...wait, something with meaning.

On that subject, hear the 9/11 tapes? Police incompetence at it's finest, and proof once more that they are not effectual in any way during a disaster.

The police way is to restore order, keeping everything controlled. So they said not to evacuate the second tower, and everyone would be fine. Just think, a little lateral thinking could've saved a few hundred lives...

[karasz]

At 9/9/03 11:11 AM, D2KVirus wrote: You missed the himarity on Sunday morning in London.

So, any terrorist with a brain will now be thinking that we'll be prepared for a gas attack on the Tube, so ditchthat plan and aim a 747 at Canary Wharf...wait, something with meaning.

a plane... into a building... i find that a little hard to believe man, seriously... who in their right mind would fly a plane into a building???

Just think, a little lateral thinking could've saved a few hundred lives...

HA... maybe thats why a few months after 9-11 the city of new york cut its police and fire fighter budget...

i love the irony of life...

[Sonic-Youth]

Fuck yeah it does, they started it. America doesn't target civilians, but they target out civilian population.

It's not our fault, they use their own people as human shields.

[JoS]

Didnt Bush say this is another stage of the War on Terror.

They arent (Afganistan and Im not sure about Iraq) purposely using human shields. During all the fighting in the country, the governments usually controlled major cities and rebels held the country side, therefore wouldnt it make sense to put you buildings and bases in the city, where they are safer from rebels and under you control. Its all about territory they control, not using human shields.

[bumcheekcity]

At 9/8/03 04:29 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Death toll on 9/11 1998, war on Terror (Afgan and Iraqi civilians) over 10 000.

Death toll scince 1991 is over 500,000 dead Iraquis, from the bombing campains weekly.

[D2Kvirus]

The War On Terror - wasn't it The War Against Terrorism until they realised what that spelt out?

Anyway, just to show that We, The People will not be overrun, they're making a film about the Bali bombing. Something like Bali - Destruction of Paradise. Dear Lord...

And I thought that programme on how fucking dumb New Yorkers were being about new building on the WTC site was depressing. Screaming and shouting that they must build identical towers, or bigger if possible, and how bin-Laden shouldn't have a zoning permit for South Manhattan. Give them an inch, and they'll whine for an hour. Still, anyone know how Silverburg, the guy that owns the site, sleeps at night? Dremanding the new building has 11,000ft of office space, as that's what the WTC had, and the new design (by Daniel Liebskind) has to be altered as the 1776ft tower shouldn't be symmetrical with the Statue of Liberty as the designs stated, but moved so it is more commercially viable?

It's not political, it's not emotional - commerce has won out in New York after all. A sad statment on the US Condition, really.

[Sonic-Youth]

At 9/10/03 09:21 AM, D2KVirus wrote: And I thought that programme on how fucking dumb New Yorkers were being about new building on the WTC site was depressing. Screaming and shouting that they must build identical towers, or bigger if possible, and how bin-Laden shouldn't have a zoning permit for South Manhattan. Give them an inch, and they'll whine for an hour. Still, anyone know how Silverburg, the guy that owns the site, sleeps at night? Dremanding the new building has 11,000ft of office space, as that's what the WTC had, and the new design (by Daniel Liebskind) has to be altered as the 1776ft tower shouldn't be symmetrical with the Statue of Liberty as the designs stated, but moved so it is more commercially viable?

I thought it was stupid how people wanted to make memorials out of them and not rebuild at all. I think they should just build them better, and bigger if possible (use titanium instead of steel).

That site will become an eye-sore when they rebuild, they are going to make it look crappy.

Maybe build one like 120-150 stories and make a memorial out of the other crater. This sadly has become an amazing opportunity to profit for some greedy asswipe. They are literally drooling witht the possibilities of what they can do with that "prime realestate."

[GENERALFU2000]

Bush has always put the US' interests, and within that group his own interests and the upper class' interests, before the rights and the welfare of others.

Why should this be any different?

[AbstractVagabond]

Hey, Rumsfield. What do you say?
How many children have you killed today?

Everybody now!!!

C'mon. It's a good chant. Has a nice rhythm and you can dance to it. I give it a 92, Dick.

Seriouisly, are you surprised by that New York attitude? These are people who are anxious to sue the airline industry as we speak.

[adrshepard]

At 9/9/03 04:59 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Didnt Bush say this is another stage of the War on Terror.

They arent (Afganistan and Im not sure about Iraq) purposely using human shields. During all the fighting in the country, the governments usually controlled major cities and rebels held the country side, therefore wouldnt it make sense to put you buildings and bases in the city, where they are safer from rebels and under you control. Its all about territory they control, not using human shields.

Oh yes they do. The Iraqi government put AA positions on top of civilian housing and military installations among residences. They live behind human shields. If they didn't, then they would fight our forces directly than just hiding out inside civilian buildings, firing a rocket, then running away. They are playing off our compassion for human life. No matter what statistics you show, the US does not try to kill civilians. I'm sure that the armed forces use whatever precautions that are needed to protect innocent people.

[JoS]

The US isnt attacking AA positions are they, I mean as a main target. They are attacking buildings in the cities, so where else are you gonna put them, you put them where the bombs are falling and the planes are flying to defend you targets. No point in putting them the middle of the desert if the planes are going in the city. That would just be stupid now wouldnt it. Im sure England (I may be wrong) put AA in LOndon during WWII. So what the difference. If the hide say a missle silo under neath a school then your point would be totally valid.

[adrshepard]

At 9/10/03 10:02 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: The US isnt attacking AA positions are they, I mean as a main target. They are attacking buildings in the cities, so where else are you gonna put them, you put them where the bombs are falling and the planes are flying to defend you targets. No point in putting them the middle of the desert if the planes are going in the city. That would just be stupid now wouldnt it. Im sure England (I may be wrong) put AA in LOndon during WWII. So what the difference. If the hide say a missle silo under neath a school then your point would be totally valid.

The difference is that the Iraqi government knew that we could take the AA out easily, but we'd probably destroy the building and kill civilians. Things were more desperate in WWII and they knew that the German people wouldn't care if British civilians were killed.

[TheTio]

At 9/9/03 03:54 PM, your_indignation wrote: Fuck yeah it does, they started it. America doesn't target civilians, but they target out civilian population.

It's not our fault, they use their own people as human shields.

What, your an idiot...America doesnt target civilians???

I dont give a fuck what the 'target' was, I give a fuck what was hit, and theres a fuckload of civilians being hit

How do you know the terrorists werent aiming for the air force base just outta new york but got their communication fucked up just like America claims whenever they fuck up like this

Yeah, you will probably find some way to rationalize this to yourself so you can go on not hating the actions of your own country...as opposed to being truly patriotic

[TheTio]

At 9/10/03 06:50 PM, adrshepard wrote: Oh yes they do. The Iraqi government put AA positions on top of civilian housing and military installations among residences. They live behind human shields. If they didn't, then they would fight our forces directly than just hiding out inside civilian buildings, firing a rocket, then running away. They are playing off our compassion for human life. No matter what statistics you show, the US does not try to kill civilians. I'm sure that the armed forces use whatever precautions that are needed to protect innocent people.

Stop whinging and look at it from the point of view of a heavily outnumbered and heavily outgunned general, are you really going to meet USA in a pitched battle

Your forces will be gone the moment their in formation...I am surprised your not asking the more relevant question, what the fuck were your troops doing in that fucking country for the military to need human shields for in the first place

[capablemachine]

I don't exactly know what you are trying to proove but you're a whining uneducated hippie. Stop talking your nonsense. I don't think your attitude is very objective.

[TheTio]

At 9/11/03 08:51 AM, capablemachine wrote: I don't exactly know what you are trying to proove but you're a whining uneducated hippie. Stop talking your nonsense. I don't think your attitude is very objective.

And yours is?

Look at what you just fucking wrote

[D2Kvirus]

The thing is, the designer of the new site has kept part of one of the holes as a memorial site (although had to fill half of it in so it wouldn't collapse), and is well known for highly emotive buildings - he built the Holocaust Museum in Berlin for starters. However, he nearly didn't get it, according to some circles, as he lived and worked in Germany for ten years - and the winner was to be announced five days after Germany (and France) told the US to kill innocent civilians (and reporters, and British servicemen) on their own.

Silverman is the villain of the piece, certainly, but that's because he can't see past the lease for the site, wheras the people of New York, and all four designers in the nominations, were thinking about public space, memorials, a 9/11 museum (it had to be included), rather than property value. This does add fire to the age old argument that Jews are tight fisted and always trying to bleed extra money out of a situation, but I think he's just a totem for modern capitalistic society. After all, was he concerned for the working conditions in the original towers (which were as close to inhospitable as an office environment can get)? No, and he doesn't seem too moved about their destruction, as long as he makes a profit from the new site anyway. That's why he shot down ideas for a South Manhattan transit hub, among several other plausible ideas. Then again, he was wise to shoot down making it a large cemetary, or leaving it as it is, but that wasn't his call, but the City Council.

Anyway, it was two years ago now. Bin-Laden is still alive and broadcasting, the unity of The People was shattered by Bush's foreign policies on the Middle East (a very loose term, really), people want to move on, and the site is going to be used again. In other words, we shall never forget...since certain people keep bringing it up and sticking with the past. If the TV networks are keeping it low key, as opposed to last year, something hass to be said for this state. Half of it is Galtung & Ruge, of course, but the other half is that it doesn't burn in the memory now as it did then, unless you lost someone in the towers.

So remember - Leaseholders are the devil.

[ZombieLennon]

At 9/8/03 07:44 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Dude, you can't join the Iraqi war and the 'terror' war together. There 2 different things. It's like your'e blaming the Iraqis as well for the sept. 11 tower crumple. Although I too think that these wars have no basis and serve no other perpose than to waste the american tax payers money, as well as further endetting this gret country, the Afghani war and the other war aren't linked.

That's exactly what the Bush Administartion as well as like 50% of America that are idiots. Why don't people realize that you cannot fight a war against an abstract idea?

[JoS]

I am surprised your not asking the more relevant question, what the fuck were your troops doing in that fucking country for the military to need human shields for in the first place

Dude, my troops are no where near Iraq, Im a Canadian, We didnt go to war with Iraq this time around. Also how can somoeone justify hitting a maternity hospital or a childrens hospital, killing hundreds each time. I mean the American people (not all, but some) dont really care how many Iraqies they kill to get revenge on the evil done to them on 9/11. You are in the middle of the city, where else do you put AA, there are only so many government buildings. And of course in no other country in the world are important government buildings in the middle of a populated area.

[adrshepard]

Stop whinging and look at it from the point of view of a heavily outnumbered and heavily outgunned general, are you really going to meet USA in a pitched battle

Your forces will be gone the moment their in formation...I am surprised your not asking the more relevant question, what the fuck were your troops doing in that fucking country for the military to need human shields for in the first place

There is no general coordinating this. There is no way that scattered Iraqi forces could ever be successful in driving away a 150,000 man army using guerilla tactics.
It's pointless. From a logical standpoint, they should have surrendered and joined the Iraqi forces being trained to protect the country.

[D2Kvirus]

At 9/11/03 05:26 PM, adrshepard wrote:
There is no general coordinating this. There is no way that scattered Iraqi forces could ever be successful in driving away a 150,000 man army using guerilla tactics.

Hang on, weren't those the exact tactics used by the Americans in that War of Independence thing a few hundred years back?

Let's see: Paul Revere lied his ass off in print to get some Anti-British propeganda to fire them up, but there was no way they Americans could stand up and fight the British army. They snuck around, blowing up arms depots and so on, or used dirty tricks like attacking on Sundays or, worst of all, Christmas - the British were gentlemen, see, and it isn't manly to fight on those days. Pagentry, dumb or what?

Eventually, the Brits got pissed off with this, and when it became too expensive to ship out thousands more troops, which took weeks, not a few hours, they left. Right now, the US aren't shipping out troops, but want others to come in and help them sweep up some of the shot they left lying around. Arrogance; discuss. If they wanted to go it alone, they should stick to it, not beg the French and the Germans to help them when it gets a bit too difficult.

It's pointless. From a logical standpoint, they should have surrendered and joined the Iraqi forces being trained to protect the country.

Rumsfeld compared this to pockets of German resistance at the end of WWII. Rumsfeld was lying - there wasn't any German resistance at the end of WWII, as soon as the Russians came trampling through the Eastern Front towards Germany at full speed, while the Brits were attacking from the north and the Americans from the south, they were trampling each other to get their own white flag. Japan, maybe, but that doesn't have as many emotive connotations. Besides, the Japanese didn't believe it was over, and was just a US-led trick to dishonour them.

The point of saying that? Fuck it, work it out for yourselves.

[stasmaster]

At 9/11/03 12:57 PM, Pueidist wrote: That's exactly what the Bush Administartion as well as like 50% of America that are idiots. Why don't people realize that you cannot fight a war against an abstract idea?

haha! it's funny cause it's true

[TheTio]

Bahahahahaha, this reminds me of a Billy Connolly quote

"War on Terror eh? Well lets just hope that goes a bit better than their fuckin War on Drugs!"

The war on drugs was the most brilliant waste of tax payers money, to put tax payers in prison I have ever seen in my life

Except for maybe the inquisition, this is #1 in the stupidity scale of supposed 'civilised' nations

War on Terrors quite high up there to, coming close to the fuckin Crusades for pointless bloodshed...it pales next to only the holocaust

[bumcheekcity]

At 9/13/03 02:32 AM, TheTio wrote: "War on Terror eh? Well lets just hope that goes a bit better than their fuckin War on Drugs!"

Why does America have to feel the need for a 'War on something' can't it just be a clampdown?

[D2Kvirus]

The War On Terror claimed another victim last night...actually, several.

A number place-free car was found abandoned near Gatwick airport in the small hours, and the police shut down the area, stranding thousands of passengers for several hours, and arrested the people who were last seen in the car. They were both 14 years old, and a tad drunk. In other words, a bunch of joyriders, but Tony Blair's Culture of Fear (TM) has people so jumpy (OK, the police trying to work out what the hell the Terrorism Laws are), this sort of thing gets blown out of all proportion. Same for Stanstead, wherew a couple of people were detained for having knives in their luggage. not terrorists, just pillocks.

Then again, this isn't new. Back when the IRA were a bunch of murderers, terrorists etc., some guy phoned in hoax bomb threats to the police, who shut down major rail links in London for hours (that's tend of thousands of people stranded), even though it clearly wasn't the IRA, as he didn't use any the codewords and so forth in reporting an upcoming bomb, and there wasn't one anyway.

So, when it's 99.99% sure there isn't a threat, chaos reigns an everything is shut down for no reason. However, when there's a tower full of people thinking they should evacuate in case a plane comes for them, the police say they should stay put. What the fuck is with that???

[mrpopenfresh]

Reminds me o f the time that american soldiers killed Iraqi civillians as well as the police who wer'e chasing them just because they didn't stop at a checkpoint. Police. You don't kill police!!

[JoS]

When Bush first took office didnt he say something about not just going around blowing up countries. How many countries has he bombed or threated to bomb so far? When will Bush learn that diplomacy is not reached with a gun. The thing about the Americans beeting the french, rememeber the Americans had the French helping them, and their weapons were on a fairly equal level. Look at what Iraq has and look at what the US has, I dont think they are equal. For the more desperate times in WWII how is Iraq not desperate, a foriegn army is invading their country looking to kill their leader and take control of the country, that seems kind of a reason to be desperate.