Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Terrorism

  1. #1
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    37

    Terrorism

    Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do?

    The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism.

    Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK
    Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do?

    The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism.

    Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?
    Good post, Joe. I'm glad that someone understands what I (and many, many, many, many others) have been screaming about for the last year and 2 months.

    We were not attacked by Iraq -
    Iraq was not the homeland of those that DID attack us -
    invading Iraq was not the appropriate response to our being attacked -

    This is the message that has so far escaped the notice of all of the Bush-faithful - here and elsewhere, who keep on insisting that Dubya "did the right thing" and that "freeing the Iraqi people was a noble and worthwhile enterprise" - to which I must say ...

    So what? How is this noble effort working out for us? From where I sit - not very damned well!

    Someone should send your post to Dubya and Co. ... although I doubrt that it would have much (if any) effect on the chimp ... he can't even speak his native language! How can he be expected to make intelligent decisions regarding foreign affairs?

    Again, congrats on a most intelligent post!
    woodman

    I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
    Steven Wright

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    JOEBIALEK, a comment, please on your...

    ...excellent post. Some time ago, I had a sharp spat with someone over at Audiokarma on this very subject. He reacted to what he thought I said, and I backpedaled but got to thinking. I have put myself in the other guy's shoes. A lot of folks picture a terrorist as an Arab with a bomb. I don't think an Arab would see it that way. It's easy to see the terrorist as wild-eyed, crazed, full of hate, but that's all media window-dressing. I submit that a terrorist is anyone whose actions produce terror in others, or in a target group. Cop to criminal, secret police to political opposition, riot police to demonstators, and all too often, soldier to civilian. We should remember that the people being killed over there are not "sand******s" (I hate that term, but I'm trying to make a point here), but ordinary people who are being shot up for not slowing down fast enough at a checkpoint, or their wedding gets strafed because they fired guns in the air (a tradition). I have read the accounts and seen the pictures - I have not looked away. I know this happens in war, but since it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony, it is that much more vile. A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.

    Laz

  4. #4
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    We were not attacked by Iraq
    And it's downright stupid to think that we need to wait until they attack for us to make a move. Clearly, Woodman, your senility has got the best of you. Iraq may NEVER have launched an attack on us, but they did have the capability and desire to manufacture and distribute WMD to those who would carry out such attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    Iraq was not the homeland of those that DID attack us
    This is just another simpleminded association game you're playing. By your faulty logic, we should have attacked America because the OK City bombers were Americans. Jeez. Alheimer's must have taken quite a toll on you!

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    invading Iraq was not the appropriate response to our being attacked
    Plain and simple, the invasion of Iraq was not a direct response to the 9/11 attack. When will you get that through your thick skull?? How many times do we have to repeat the same things? You will never understand, so why should we even try?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    This is the message that has so far escaped the notice of all of the Bush-faithful - here and elsewhere, who keep on insisting that Dubya "did the right thing"
    Oh, we hear your message. We just know that it has little base in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    ...and that "freeing the Iraqi people was a noble and worthwhile enterprise" - to which I must say ...So what? How is this noble effort working out for us? From where I sit - not very damned well!
    Spoken by someone who clearly cannot grasp the fact that transitions take time. You would have given up on Russia's independence efforts as they experienced the power struggles with their Mafia. You obviously have no understanding of the forces at work and that democracy and peace don't come at the flick of the switch. You are so totally clueless that I wonder how you misspent your younger years. Surely a man of some 70-some years should possess more wisdom than you are barely able to muster.

    Good things take time. We heard the same crybaby crap out of you about the Bush economic plan. We endured it and said the EXACT SAME WORDS....GIVE IT TIME TO WORK! Now that it's worked, all you can do is redirect your complaints to some other area that you're not happy with. That leaves us to gloat...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? You were wrong then. You are wrong NOW! Get used to being wrong! That's the nice thing about being right....time eventually proves that you were right, then you get to gloat...like.......you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    Someone should send your post to Dubya and Co. ... although I doubrt that it would have much (if any) effect on the chimp ... he can't even speak his native language!
    Fortunately, someone would filter out your crapola and it would end up in the White House dumpster. GWB doesn't need to be distracted by people who are still stewing over losing an election 3.5 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    How can he be expected to make intelligent decisions regarding foreign affairs?
    He's doing a FINE job in that regard, with some of the finest people in his cabinet. He's taken on a tough challenge, and those are usually the ones that politicians like to avoid. It's nice to have a true leader again, rather than that poor excuse we had from 1993 to 2000.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    Again, congrats on a most intelligent post!
    What??? Where??? Surely, you can't be referring to that post full of talking points straight out of DumbocraticUnderground, can you???
    Last edited by jeskibuff; 06-01-2004 at 08:08 PM.
    Click here to see my system.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    Jeskibuff, you were a bit hard on Woodman...

    ...about the whole thing, but I have to comment on the "We were not attacked by Iraq" line. After we kicked their collective ass in 1991, Iraq had over ten years to take revenge for their losses. They never did, so what makes you think they ever would? Militarily, Iraq seems to have been, then and recently, a paper tiger, maybe even a tissue paper tiger. ****, it's all about oil anyway...9/11 was just an excuse, duh...

    Laz

  6. #6
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Congrats Laz!

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    ...excellent post. Some time ago, I had a sharp spat with someone over at Audiokarma on this very subject. He reacted to what he thought I said, and I backpedaled but got to thinking. I have put myself in the other guy's shoes. A lot of folks picture a terrorist as an Arab with a bomb. I don't think an Arab would see it that way. It's easy to see the terrorist as wild-eyed, crazed, full of hate, but that's all media window-dressing. I submit that a terrorist is anyone whose actions produce terror in others, or in a target group. Cop to criminal, secret police to political opposition, riot police to demonstators, and all too often, soldier to civilian. We should remember that the people being killed over there are not "sand******s" (I hate that term, but I'm trying to make a point here), but ordinary people who are being shot up for not slowing down fast enough at a checkpoint, or their wedding gets strafed because they fired guns in the air (a tradition). I have read the accounts and seen the pictures - I have not looked away. I know this happens in war, but since it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony, it is that much more vile. A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.

    Laz
    As I said here months ago,(to the short sightedness of some others) it's all a matter of whose eye's your looking through. It's always good to take a step back and walk in someone elses shoes for a step or two as you make your decissions reguarding others.

    "A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too."

    When you get down to it, anymore, persuasion(sp?) and force are one in the same. It doesn't matter if it is physical or manipulitive. Either way, we influence others here and abroad(in our own interest) when they aren't willingly giving their support. I fear pretty soon, we will stop asking "why" and start saying "so what".

    Walk on.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    Jeskibuff, you were a bit hard on Woodman
    And well I should have been. His comments are the same old ignorant chants we've heard out of liberals for quite some time now, despite all the information and counter arguments available. Enough has been written that any REASONABLE person using the science of logic and patterns of human nature should be able to put the pieces together and draw a decent conclusion. But when blind hatred for a person clouds your judgment, you end up like Woodman...a bitter old ignorant man. I've grown downright intolerant of ignorance, especially when it is based on such shallow, superficial evaluations like "he can't even form a proper sentence, so how can he make good decisions?" That's just plain idiocy in my book, and no one (including Woodman himself) would want to be judged according to the same standard he holds others to.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    Iraq had over ten years to take revenge for their losses. They never did, so what makes you think they ever would?
    It seems you (and others) believe that the ONLY way that Iraq could pose a threat to us is militarily. That's just ignoring the whole lesson we learned from 9/11. Al-Qaeda is no threat to us in military terms, either. Terrorism doesn't work by forming a standing army before it strikes. It would be nice if it worked that way, then we could have hard targets to attack with our own forces. 9/11 should have opened EVERYONE'S eyes to the fact that terrorists are a threat to our freedom and prosperity and they DON'T NEED to form a standard military force to do their damage. Libya didn't need an army to bring down Pan Am 103. Who knows whether or not that artillery shell containing Sarin was rigged to explode with the knowledge that it was a chemical weapon? Are there others in a stash somewhere? Will the terrorists learn from their mistakes and find a way to mix the binary elements so that the next explosion has the intended deadly effect? Will they even TRY to explode the next one? Will they dismantle the shells and use suicidal maniacs to mix the chemicals manually, then use other means to disperse the deadly potion? Will that happen in Iraq or in America? If it happens in YOUR city, Laz, and thousands of people die as a result, WHO WILL YOU BLAME? Bush??? Probably!

    We know that Saddam supported terrorism. We know he had the desire and the means to produce such deadly weapons and didn't really care who did the dirty work for him. Fortunately, he now is incarcerated and no longer can channel the wealth of an entire nation into building deadly toys for others to use. Iraq might have been a "paper tiger" militarily, but thinking that we are only threatened by standard military force is ignoring every single lesson that you should have learned when 4 planes killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    it's all about oil anyway...9/11 was just an excuse, duh...
    Going back to that lame reason, are you? I thought that you liberals were switching to a different excuse, seeing's how the "all about oil" doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. Well, keep trying to come up with screwy ulterior motives. The motive that makes entire sense under intense scrutiny is the pursuit of terrorism.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.
    Get all weepy-eyed for all I care. We are not terrorists because we pursue terrorists. Pursuing criminals does not make criminals out of policemen, despite their use of "naked force".

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony
    Good grief!

    I'm certainly glad that you or like-minded people (Gore, Dean, Kerry, etc.) are not running this nation!
    Click here to see my system.

  8. #8
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    ...excellent post. Some time ago, I had a sharp spat with someone over at Audiokarma on this very subject. He reacted to what he thought I said, and I backpedaled but got to thinking. I have put myself in the other guy's shoes. A lot of folks picture a terrorist as an Arab with a bomb. I don't think an Arab would see it that way. It's easy to see the terrorist as wild-eyed, crazed, full of hate, but that's all media window-dressing. I submit that a terrorist is anyone whose actions produce terror in others, or in a target group. Cop to criminal, secret police to political opposition, riot police to demonstators, and all too often, soldier to civilian. We should remember that the people being killed over there are not "sand******s" (I hate that term, but I'm trying to make a point here), but ordinary people who are being shot up for not slowing down fast enough at a checkpoint, or their wedding gets strafed because they fired guns in the air (a tradition). I have read the accounts and seen the pictures - I have not looked away. I know this happens in war, but since it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony, it is that much more vile. A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.

    Laz
    Laz,

    By your definition ALL gov'ts for all time (and in all wars) have actually been terrorist organisations. Was WW2 terrorism by Allied troops? Is there no difference between flying planes into civilian buildings & dropping food, then warnings, then bombs onto legitimate military targets?

    And just how could we have pulled the foreign devils out of the Holy Land (US troops out of Saudi Arabia) without dismissing Saddam?

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    Oooooh, warm fuzzies, then a slap in the face...

    Just the way I like it!

    jeskibuff:

    I still think you're unfair to Woodman. You write about him like you know all about his political philosophy. I'm reasonably sure you really know little about him. I get a whiff that he is smeared as ignorant for simply disagreeing with you. Do we all have to be Neocons for our views to be respectable? For that matter, you call me a liberal - what a laugh!! Yes, I'd blame Bush for further incidents, having studied 9/11 in some depth. It looks like a black ops job to me, or as the bumper sticker says: "The truth is out there / infowars.com". Check it out. I have also studied the strategic situation in the middle east and the Caspian area, and I still stick to my guns - it's OIL OIL OIL. You said, "We know that Saddam supported terrorism." Remember, we used to support Saddam. The rest of the world is not stupid, and they see us set up one CIA asset/puppet after another, deposing them when they become unprofitable. The rest of the world, thus, does not hate us without cause.

    pete:

    It's a matter of point-of-view. If you look thru some eyes the government is a terrorist org. How about the eyes of an Amerindian as the U.S. calvary rides up? How about Armenians in Turkey, Serbs in Kosovo, Tutsis in Rwanda, the list of state-sponsored terrorism goes on and on. Only the Commies were honest in making this clear, and they surely practiced what they preached, making the twentieth century the bloodiest in history. In answer to your question, yes the allied troops in WWII were terrorists to the civilians who felt terror as their homes and cities were strafed and bombed. Allied civilains, ditto. War is terror and destruction (General Hawley Smoot said that war is a racket!). Bush's claptrap about liberation is just window dressing.


    Laz

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    And it's downright stupid to think that we need to wait until they attack for us to make a move. Clearly, Woodman, your senility has got the best of you. Iraq may NEVER have launched an attack on us, but they did have the capability and desire to manufacture and distribute WMD to those who would carry out such attacks.

    This is just another simpleminded association game you're playing. By your faulty logic, we should have attacked America because the OK City bombers were Americans. Jeez. Alheimer's must have taken quite a toll on you!

    Plain and simple, the invasion of Iraq was not a direct response to the 9/11 attack. When will you get that through your thick skull?? How many times do we have to repeat the same things? You will never understand, so why should we even try?

    Oh, we hear your message. We just know that it has little base in reality.

    Spoken by someone who clearly cannot grasp the fact that transitions take time. You would have given up on Russia's independence efforts as they experienced the power struggles with their Mafia. You obviously have no understanding of the forces at work and that democracy and peace don't come at the flick of the switch. You are so totally clueless that I wonder how you misspent your younger years. Surely a man of some 70-some years should possess more wisdom than you are barely able to muster.

    Good things take time. We heard the same crybaby crap out of you about the Bush economic plan. We endured it and said the EXACT SAME WORDS....GIVE IT TIME TO WORK! Now that it's worked, all you can do is redirect your complaints to some other area that you're not happy with. That leaves us to gloat...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? You were wrong then. You are wrong NOW! Get used to being wrong! That's the nice thing about being right....time eventually proves that you were right, then you get to gloat...like.......you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman?

    Fortunately, someone would filter out your crapola and it would end up in the White House dumpster. GWB doesn't need to be distracted by people who are still stewing over losing an election 3.5 years ago.

    He's doing a FINE job in that regard, with some of the finest people in his cabinet. He's taken on a tough challenge, and those are usually the ones that politicians like to avoid. It's nice to have a true leader again, rather than that poor excuse we had from 1993 to 2000.

    What??? Where??? Surely, you can't be referring to that post full of talking points straight out of DumbocraticUnderground, can you???
    Enough already jeskibuff!! Or should I call you Ed Gillespie!! Ahah!! Your secret identity has been revealed!! jeskibuff is Ed Gillespie! World renowned leader of the new third reich, otherwise known as the Republican National Committee Chairman, or just The Fuhrer!

  11. #11
    Kursun
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Izmir, Turkey
    Posts
    145

    Jeskibuff, you were a bit hard on Woodman... ???

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    ...about the whole thing, but I have to comment on the "We were not attacked by Iraq" line. After we kicked their collective ass in 1991, Iraq had over ten years to take revenge for their losses. They never did, so what makes you think they ever would? Militarily, Iraq seems to have been, then and recently, a paper tiger, maybe even a tissue paper tiger. ****, it's all about oil anyway...9/11 was just an excuse, duh...

    Laz
    I don't think Jeskibuff is a bit hard on Woodman.
    Actually Jeskibuff is a bit hard on himself.
    Woodman's comments show that he is an intelligent and rational person.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    553

    Lightbulb My oh my, jesski ...

    ... what a fershlugginer tirade you launched - not only once, but twice! Your ad hominem attacks against me personally only go to show your immaturity ... what are YOU anyway ... 24 going on 12? Your rudeness and lack of any semblance of "manners" is only exceeded by your childlike, simplistic belief in whatever the RPM (the Republican Propaganda Machine) cranks out for you to assimilate. Your mind's made up ... no one should try to confuse you with facts. Let me remind you that - "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". Stop wasting yours fer crissakes - wake up to what's actually going on in the world - if you cannot grasp the fact that the present administration does NOT have you or me or anyone else belonging to the so-called "middle class" at the top of its priority list - never mind the actual poor, then I cannot help you any further. Thanks to the "prez" that you endorse, the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" just keeps on widening, day after day. At this rate, both you and I could end up living on the street in a cardboard box. Oh, woe is us (including the brainwashed Republican faithful) who'll wake up one day to find out that their beloved party has betrayed them!

    My only comment on your diatribe is regarding my criticism of Dubyas ability to speak his native tongue, and that you wouldn't think that I would want to be held up to the standards that I demand of others ... well, think again. Let me state it in the very simplist of terms:

    It's my belief that someone that cannot speak the language as well as I do, is not fit to be the president of this great land ... period.

    Now go take your afternoon nap. and hopefully get out of the right side of the bed next time.
    woodman

    I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
    Steven Wright

  13. #13
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    I still think you're unfair to Woodman. You write about him like you know all about his political philosophy.
    His "political philosophy" is ridiculously simplistic and "out there" for everyone to see. It amounts to "I hate Bush because I hate him", and doesn't amount to much besides that. It is irrational, illogical thought based totally on emotion and has little basis in fact. It follows the typical mindset of liberals.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    I get a whiff that he is smeared as ignorant for simply disagreeing with you.
    Well then, take another whiff. He's ignorant NOT because he disagrees with me, but because he is totally unable to digest and analyze factual information. Again, he bases his analysis on his emotions.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    Do we all have to be Neocons for our views to be respectable?
    Nope. All you have to do is demonstrate a capacity for rational thought and common sense. Then your views will get the respect they deserve.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    I'd blame Bush for further incidents, having studied 9/11 in some depth. It looks like a black ops job to me
    Yes, we've covered this before. We've also seen your tendency to be persuaded by these ridiculous conspiracy theories that defy common sense and rely on simpleminded analysis, conveniently abandoning science in order to formulate the desired outcome. Let me remind you: http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...=6104#post6104

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    I have also studied the strategic situation in the middle east and the Caspian area, and I still stick to my guns - it's OIL OIL OIL.
    See above paragraph. Let me know when SOMETHING, ANYTHING supports your theory. I'm not saying oil plays absolutely no role in the decision-making process regarding our nation's security. I just find the belief that the Iraq war was precipitated on the sole basis of oil is wishful thinking on the part of many who haven't got the slightest clue about the dangers of terrorism.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    You said, "We know that Saddam supported terrorism." Remember, we used to support Saddam.
    This topic has been beat to death. In short, we supported Saddam in his effort to subdue what we thought at the time to be a far greater danger: Iran. I see no problem with using one set of lunatics to help minimize the danger posed by another a second set of lunatics. It's actually a very good strategy. I'm sure we've made many mistakes along the way, but for the most part, I'd rather have seen these two countries war with each other than direct their anger elsewhere (i.e. at US).

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    The rest of the world is not stupid
    From what I've seen lately, I'm not so sure that is true. From RGA's post quoting Michael Mooron's "letter to the President": As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush.
    Who is the stupid party here? Is Bush stupid because he "lost" this "popularity contest" with Saddam? Or are the people who "voted for Saddam" so stupid that they think a murderous, barbaric and sadistic dictator is better than someone who is trying to rid the world of murderous, barbaric and sadistic people? Maher's comment was likely packaged for the humor content, but a fool like Mooron touts it as if the comment had some significance. As long as there are people like Mooron, Soros, Penn, Streisand, Bush Is A Liar, Woodman, and millions of other idiots who believe in this gross inversion of truth and morality, I will believe that a large portion of the world's population is just hopelessly stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    The rest of the world, thus, does not hate us without cause.
    That may be true, but of what validity are those "causes"? By Osama's own admission, the 9/11 attacks were caused by the infidel Americans setting foot on the "holy" land of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. They weren't based on America's support of Israel. Furthermore, the fact that we prevented one predominantly Muslim country from conquering another in that war had no affect. Nor did our support for another predominantly Muslim region, Bosnia. Nor did our support for the Mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan. By my reckoning, liberating 2 regions (Kuwait & Bosnia/Herzegovina) from oppression far outweighs the "offence" of placing military bases in Saudi Arabia, especially when we were based there with the blessing of the government of that country! By the way, if the Iraq war is all about "oil, oil, oil", then why didn't we snatch the oil-rich country of Kuwait when they were down-and-out and had absolutely no power to fend us off?

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    War is terror and destruction
    Terror and destruction are unavoidable by-products of war. Analysis must be made to determine whether or not war is justified. What will it accomplish? What will happen if actions aren't taken? The second question is the harder one to answer, as it is a more intrusive attempt to peek into the future. This is where we rely on history to teach us. There is little doubt that the world would be a far different place today if the U.S. had bowed out of WWII and allowed Hitler to proceed unimpeded.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    Bush's claptrap about liberation is just window dressing.
    Maybe to you it is. But then again, you haven't been living under brutal dictatorship for 30-some years, have you? You get to live your life in relative paradise compared to what most Iraqis have had to put up with. Just ask "depressed" on this site about his/her feelings about the value of being liberated from oppression. Don't take my word for it. Here are some words from that post: Had America just watched and stood by, I would probably be in the trenches fighting or dead...Two oceans and the American spirit separating you from the evil will give you that. Most Americans can't understand what it's like over there. Be happy that you can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Justlisten2
    should I call you Ed Gillespie!!
    That would be fine by me. I don't mind being indistinguishable from other intelligent people! Oh, and when we do implement our evil plan, you're tops on the list of the people that we're planning on hunting down and relocating to New Auschwitz, Nevada!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kursan
    I don't think Jeskibuff is a bit hard on Woodman.
    Actually Jeskibuff is a bit hard on himself.
    Woodman's comments show that he is an intelligent and rational person.
    Man, you must be on some pretty strong hallucinogenics to come up with analysis like that! You do know that abuse of controlled substances damages brain cells irreparably, don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman
    Your rudeness and lack of any semblance of "manners" is only exceeded by your childlike, simplistic belief in whatever the RPM (the Republican Propaganda Machine) cranks out for you to assimilate.
    Sorry Woodman, but my "rudeness" is a fitting reply to your total ignorance and inability to frame an argument on anything but "I HATE BUSH". I have demonstrated on this site my ability to think and analyze current events without resorting to riding on anyone else's analysis. But I understand your inability to discern that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman
    wake up to what's actually going on in the world
    I've been awake and am obviously much more aware of what's going on than you are. The only way you'd recognize the danger of terrorism is if one of your "buddies" held your head to the floor while buddie #2 started to saw it off with a dull knife. Some people just don't "get it" until it's too late, and you're one of those.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman
    Thanks to the "prez" that you endorse, the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" just keeps on widening, day after day.
    That's been going on for decades and is not the fault of the current administration. Here's what one of your fellow Dumbocrats said about your idol Clinton: while there was an economic boom, look at the statistics: 1 out of 4 jobs was under $8/hr, and the other three weren't always terrific either. CEO pay went up 500% while workers did twice the effort and got nothing more in the end...We are in a big divide these days. Clinton could have stopped it. But didn't. He's as sleazy as all the other politicials. I originally quoted that in this thread from this DU thread where I can no longer find that post. Things sometimes conveniently disappear on DU.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman
    At this rate, both you and I could end up living on the street in a cardboard box.
    Speak for yourself. I'm doing much better economically under Bush's administration than under Clinton's. Clinton's economy was a false one that took us years to recover from. And don't blame the Social Security fiasco on Bush either. That Ponzi scheme is going to be crashing down. It's amazing that it's stayed afloat for as long as it has. Recognize the inevitable, but assess the blame where it belongs, not where you want it to lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman
    It's my belief that someone that cannot speak the language as well as I do, is not fit to be the president of this great land ... period.
    Thank you for clearly demonstrating your shallowness and superficiality. While you demand such shallow qualifications from your leaders, I will prefer to vote for those who show the ability to make the tough choices for the good of our country, despite the shallow voices of the mindless opposition. I will prefer someone who has a demonstrable ability to discern between right and wrong and to NOT do what is politically expedient. I prefer someone who will take the assessment of people who are paid to gather and analyze sensitive information rather than someone like Clinton who made choices based on popular opinion.

    If you were still in the television repair business, it would have been justice to see people turn you away from work because they didn't like your appearance or demeanor or the nervous twitch in your eye. In my opinion, one's worth should be assessed based on their ability to perform the task at hand, and GWB's worth should be judged on his ability to steer this country in the right direction, not on how well he can enunciate. We have different standards, obviously. It's just that none of us (including yourself) would want to be judged by your standards.
    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    Now go take your afternoon nap. and hopefully get out of the right side of the bed next time.
    Can you come up with something with just a little more substance in your next post? Something worth responding to, maybe??
    Click here to see my system.

  14. #14
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Laz,

    I understand your reasoning about war being terror to the civilians in the thick of it. I would argue that it was not the Commies but the Nazis. Although Stalin ended up killing at least as many of his own citizens as Hitler did. No difference between us & them?

    That begs the question - what do we do about it? We cannot put down the forces that would control us without force. They didn't call it the "Peacemaker" for nothing. And if all gov'ts are terrorist organisations, what is the alternative? Anarchy?

    "Claptrap". We might succeed in Iraq, at helping them build an honest gov't, they MIGHT be strong enough. This would have repercussions (good ones) for decades. Even if it's a miserable failure we have still removed a large source of unrest in the Middle East. That ain't window dressing!

    Regarding "personal insults" & such, I feel very tolerant. This has not been a one-way street! If you can dish it out you'd better be able to take it. ("you" and "you'd" being used in the plural )

    Pete

    PS I assume I can count your vote for GWB ??
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Laz,

    I would argue that it was not the Commies but the Nazis. Although Stalin ended up killing at least as many of his own citizens as Hitler did. No difference between us & them?

    That's just what Hitler said, "No difference! There is no difference!" That is, between his system and Stalin's system.

    "Claptrap". We might succeed in Iraq, at helping them build an honest gov't, they MIGHT be strong enough. This would have repercussions (good ones) for decades. Even if it's a miserable failure we have still removed a large source of unrest in the Middle East. That ain't window dressing!

    I hope you're right on that one!

    Regarding "personal insults" & such, I feel very tolerant. This has not been a one-way street! If you can dish it out you'd better be able to take it. ("you" and "you'd" being used in the plural )

    Pete, my skin is very thick, thank you.

    Laz

    PS I assume I can count your vote for GWB ??
    PS You assume wrong...

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    Well, I screwed up that reply didn't I??

    Now it looks like Pete said all that - sorry!

    Laz

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    Jeskibuff, much of what you say in your post is...

    ...food for thought. I do respect your views, and would not call you ignorant. Yet, I do want to comment on one thing you said: "...ridiculous conspiracy theories that defy common sense and rely on simpleminded analysis, conveniently abandoning science in order to formulate the desired outcome."

    Here's an example. On the morning of 09-11-2001, I did not jump to conspiracy theory mode. Yes, I know what you're thinking - yes, it came later, happy? The very first thing I heard about the airliner crashing in the field, was that it had been shot down. One of my rules is that the very early reports are the true reports, before damage control kicks in. Do you doubt that the world works this way? Ha! Later, I accepted the Official Story about the heroic passengers, etc. But I did not abandon science, you see, for I found that there was a big flaw in the Official Story. For an airliner crashing intact into the ground, the debris field was simply too big. Have you ever heard the industry term "aluminum rain"? A big debris field means that the airplane broke up or exploded IN THE AIR. Thus, the Official Story is a lie. I could give many more examples from 9/11
    Last edited by trollgirl; 12-11-2008 at 06:07 PM.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    For an airliner crashing intact into the ground, the debris field was simply too big. Have you ever heard the industry term "aluminum rain"? A big debris field means that the airplane broke up or exploded IN THE AIR. Thus, the Official Story is a lie. I could give many more examples from 9/11

    Where did you ever get that idea? The cell phone records made by passengers clearly indicate that several of the passengers were going to fight for comtrol of the airplane.

    One also must consider the angle of incidence when the plane hit the ground and what the composition of the ground was.

    -Bruce

  19. #19
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    On the morning of 09-11-2001, I did not jump to conspiracy theory mode.
    That's actually when your conspiracy theory thinking cap should have been on. With so little information at that point to go on, you should have been thinking of ALL the possibilities that were behind that event. As time progressed and we gathered more and more information and evidence and began to put the puzzle pieces together, many of those theories should have died, one by one.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    The very first thing I heard about the airliner crashing in the field, was that it had been shot down. One of my rules is that the very early reports are the true reports, before damage control kicks in.
    Then you ought to trash such "rules". It doesn't matter what you heard first. "First" doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. The sniper case should be a good example to use. The cops were looking for white men in a van. When we got the full story, we saw how those first suspicions were all wrong. But I know what you're saying and I think the Roswell incident may be a good example of that. A UFO sighting turns out to be a weather balloon? The report by the Air Force seemed credible enough, but by the next day it seemed to have gotten buried. I may be off base here, as I really am not ALL that familiar with the events as they unfolded. But with Roswell, we have very little evidence made available to us. With 9/11, we have TONS of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    I did not abandon science, you see, for I found that there was a big flaw in the Official Story. For an airliner crashing intact into the ground, the debris field was simply too big. Have you ever heard the industry term "aluminum rain"? A big debris field means that the airplane broke up or exploded IN THE AIR. Thus, the Official Story is a lie.
    That's all a stretch of the imagination. Do you still believe that because the hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the wingspan of a 757 that it HAD to be a cruise missile that made it? There's a lot of smart engineers in this world, and there would be an outcry from them if they believed it were not possible for that hole to have been punched by a 757. There would be an outcry of people who KNOW if it weren't possible for that Pennsylvania flight to impact the way it did. The ones who ARE making a big stink of it are the ones with little to no ability to grasp scientific principles. That's the problem we have with an education system that is too far behind: it creates people who think they know a lot, when they really have no clue. Check out DemocraticUnderground if interested in meeting up with these morons. Michael Mooron believed that it was impossible for rookie pilots to have directed a plane into a building, but again he just proves himself to be a fool. We have millions of airplane pilots in this country who will attest that it is WELL within the realm of possibility. I'll trust the word of people who KNOW. You can rely on Mooron and Icke to feed your fantasies.
    Click here to see my system.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    That's actually when your conspiracy theory thinking cap should have been on. With so little information at that point to go on, you should have been thinking of ALL the possibilities that were behind that event. As time progressed and we gathered more and more information and evidence and began to put the puzzle pieces together, many of those theories should have died, one by one.

    Then you ought to trash such "rules". It doesn't matter what you heard first. "First" doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. The sniper case should be a good example to use. The cops were looking for white men in a van. When we got the full story, we saw how those first suspicions were all wrong. But I know what you're saying and I think the Roswell incident may be a good example of that. A UFO sighting turns out to be a weather balloon? The report by the Air Force seemed credible enough, but by the next day it seemed to have gotten buried. I may be off base here, as I really am not ALL that familiar with the events as they unfolded. But with Roswell, we have very little evidence made available to us. With 9/11, we have TONS of evidence.

    That's all a stretch of the imagination. Do you still believe that because the hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the wingspan of a 757 that it HAD to be a cruise missile that made it? There's a lot of smart engineers in this world, and there would be an outcry from them if they believed it were not possible for that hole to have been punched by a 757. There would be an outcry of people who KNOW if it weren't possible for that Pennsylvania flight to impact the way it did. The ones who ARE making a big stink of it are the ones with little to no ability to grasp scientific principles. That's the problem we have with an education system that is too far behind: it creates people who think they know a lot, when they really have no clue. Check out DemocraticUnderground if interested in meeting up with these morons. Michael Mooron believed that it was impossible for rookie pilots to have directed a plane into a building, but again he just proves himself to be a fool. We have millions of airplane pilots in this country who will attest that it is WELL within the realm of possibility. I'll trust the word of people who KNOW. You can rely on Mooron and Icke to feed your fantasies.
    Jeskibuff:
    You make good points, but I still disagree, and you are being unfair and trying to stifle further discussion when you say that those making a big stink have a light grasp on scientific principles. Science, as I understand it, has to do with things which can be observed and reproduced experimentally. Shall we set up the 9/11 thing for another run-thru? I thought not!

    Maybe I'm a dummy after all, but I'm assuming that a Boeing 757 was designed and built to haul passengers and cargo, not for the ability to penetrate masonry walls. Yet, whatever hit the Pentagon penetrated three rings and left no debris that I saw on any photo or video. Anybody here see any debris? Maybe some wing or a tail assembly?? There is something else - no video of the hit. Just imagne how MANY security cameras were in the area - were they all out of order, or pointed in the wrong direction? Maybe the video records showed an aircraft other than a 757 - just a guess... I think there is good reason to think it COULD have been a cruise missile. Maybe something else, but a 757, I don't think so.

    The debris field in PA was WAY too big for any argument about angle of descent or soil composition to be more than a desperate quibble. Cell phone calls to the contrary notwithstanding!

    I still believe the report of the flight instructors who trained the (alleged) terrorists: they were miserable pilots!

    It really boils down to, as I've said many times, what you've read and thought, and what I've read and thought. We exist in different paradigms, different personal universes...

    Laz

  21. #21
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    The debris field in PA was WAY too big for any argument about angle of descent or soil composition to be more than a desperate quibble.
    Or just convienient to dismiss so one does not have to consider this. Not desperate at all, it's science. you can start with F=MA and work it out from there. Pretty obvious that if a plane hits hard ground, that energy has to go somewhere if it can't go into the ground. Also pretty obvious that anything other than perpendicular is going to create a spray pattern of debris. You want science, this is science. Did the author you're apparently believing in do the math?

    -Bruce

  22. #22
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Maybe I'm a dummy after all, but I'm assuming that a Boeing 757 was designed and built to haul passengers and cargo, not for the ability to penetrate masonry walls. Yet, whatever hit the Pentagon penetrated three rings and left no debris that I saw on any photo or video. Anybody here see any debris? Maybe some wing or a tail assembly?? There is something else - no video of the hit. Just imagne how MANY security cameras were in the area - were they all out of order, or pointed in the wrong direction? Maybe the video records showed an aircraft other than a 757 - just a guess... I think there is good reason to think it COULD have been a cruise missile. Maybe something else, but a 757, I don't think so.
    Wait a minute....you have LARGE pieces of a 757 laying around and yet it wasn't a 757? You logic escapes me.

    -Bruce

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    It's more than that!

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Or just convienient to dismiss so one does not have to consider this. Not desperate at all, it's science. you can start with F=MA and work it out from there. Pretty obvious that if a plane hits hard ground, that energy has to go somewhere if it can't go into the ground. Also pretty obvious that anything other than perpendicular is going to create a spray pattern of debris. You want science, this is science. Did the author you're apparently believing in do the math?

    -Bruce
    Since reading that author's book, I've read (on infowars.com, I think) that eyewitnesses have recently come forward to state that they saw the plane blow up in the air, and that there was another aircraft flying nearby. Sonic booms were apparently also recorded in the area at the time. No, he did not work out F=MA, but in a real world situation (versus a physics lab) you just can not plug in handy numbers. How hight was the plane, how many pieces/parts did it get blown into, big parts, little parts, etc., etc. You know that, surely. He does present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the official story is a big, big lie, however. No one here seems interested in exploring the idea, however. Maybe this is why I've never owned a comfy chair of my own...

    Laz

    For those who want to know, and have eyes to see, no further argument is necessary. For those who do not want to know, and lack eyes to see, no amount of further argument is sufficient. Lazarus Short

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    Got a photo of the pieces???

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Wait a minute....you have LARGE pieces of a 757 laying around and yet it wasn't a 757? You logic escapes me.

    -Bruce

    I must have missed them...

    Laz

  25. #25
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by trollgirl
    No one here seems interested in exploring the idea, however...For those who want to know, and have eyes to see, no further argument is necessary. For those who do not want to know, and lack eyes to see, no amount of further argument is sufficient.
    Not a whole lot of people are interested in exploring such fantasies. Blame it on your fellow lefties, DemocraticUnderground wackos, the David Ickes and Michael Moorons of this world. Such people just want to push their own agendas and have been caught at ridiculous lies while attempting to do so.

    Why should we consider someone who believes the President is a shape-shifting reptile, as does Icke?

    Why should we think that Mooron has any intention of finding the truth when we've caught him in lies so many times?

    Why should we consider conspiracy theories emanating from DemocraticUnderground as believable, when we clearly see their anti-Bush, anti-America, anti-morals hatred driving them in the same manner that rabies controls an infected animal?

    All these sources lack trustworthiness. They're damaged goods. They've shot down their own credibility. They don't deserve recognition until they cease pushing their agendas.

    And yes, there were large pieces of that 757 lying around outside the Pentagon where the plane lost pieces as it clipped the lamp posts. I posted links to them before, but you apparently didn't give them the time of day. The rest of the plane was incinerated inside the Pentagon.
    Click here to see my system.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What most liberals can't seem to grasp
    By jeskibuff in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-30-2004, 11:54 AM
  2. A great article on terrorism
    By jeskibuff in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-09-2004, 11:06 AM
  3. Will on Kerry
    By piece-it pete in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-22-2004, 05:13 PM
  4. The smell of fear
    By jeskibuff in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-01-2004, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •