|
Forum: General Talk
11-30-2009, 12:16 PM
|
| |
You are misinterpreting a comment as an absolute. I am well aware that the problems between the Middle East and the West date back pretty much to the formation of the Islamic religion.
However, it was more or less a regional problem until the west imposed the state of Isreal onto the map and frog marched the Palestinians into tent camps.
I think that was when the Muslim world really got a hate on for us.
We took sides with their enemy, and now we are their enemy as well.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-30-2009, 09:12 AM
|
| |
You might want to google "Robert Dziekanski". In a nutshell, a gang of thugs in RCMP uniforms tazed the guy 5 times,killing him.
They lied through their teeth, even in the face of video evidence to the contrary.
I don't know how or if the "trial" ended up, but last I heard the whole affair had just quietly gone away, the officers had been reinstated to active duty and the taxpayer was on the hook for the entire farce, including the officer's salaries while the mock trial was going on.
Going to trial doesn't necessarily mean justice will be served.
Terrorism is more random. Gang killings are generally about turf or bad business.
Drive by shootings and the like would be definable as terrorism.
As soon as a soldier sets foot on foreign soil as part of an invading force, he or she is fair game.
It's a hard thing to get ones head around, but a soldier signs up to be killed.
Whatever braying is done about how they are "victims of terrorism" when they are blown up by a roadside bomb, or have a grenade tossed into their jeep or whatever, they are an invading force, and they are going to be targeted.
That isn't especially fair, and it is quite untrue. The fact is, right now pretty much all terrorism in the world is being done by Muslims.
Saying this isn't being racist, it's just being factual.
If for example, radical Swedes (if such a thing exists) were blowing up shopping malls and the like, then the news would be talking about Swedish terrorists rather than Muslim terrorists.
Would this be racist against the Swedes?
Or just reporting the facts?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-30-2009, 07:39 AM
|
| |
You are attributing that which you don't understand in the worst light possible.
Having said that, the surest way to guarantee more terror attacks on your soil is a continuation of the status quo.
I'm not going to offer up an alternative, since I am sure it would be dismissed, as it doesn't actually involve carpet bombing.
The present course is not going to lead to any sort of peace, it's just going to escalate the situation further.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-30-2009, 06:44 AM
|
| |
Well then you have no choice.
Call in the nukes and slag the Middle East in it's entirety. You have no other way of guaranteeing the continuation of your way of life.
C'mon, you know you want to.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-30-2009, 12:23 AM
|
| |
I don't have a solution, but then again, neither does anyone else, so I don't feel especially inadequate. It's just that it is becoming painfully apparent that the present method seems to be creating more terrorists rather than less.
To my small mind, this says that what we are doing now is the wrong thing, unless what we really want is an excuse to blow people up.
We blow them up, so they blow us up, so we blow them up, so they blow us up, so we blow them up, and on and on ad infinitum.
Perhaps what we should be asking ourselves is not how to blow them up, but rather how to persuade them to stop wanting to blow us up.
Or, just escalate it until someone pushes a really big button and we find ourselves in the middle of a war where really big bombs get tossed around.
After that, we can figure out how to get their oil out from under a sheet of glass.
Given the history of the world since the formation of Israel, I really don't think blowing them up them is going to make them want to stop blowing us up. Do you?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-29-2009, 09:38 AM
|
| |
Post reported.
Attack the idea if you like, attack the person at your own risk.
What you are advocating is a continuation of the status quo. What you are advocating is a continuation of terrorism, because you do not want to get to the roots of why it happens, you just want to kill people who you see as being terrorists.
On the other side of the fence, the USA have been the terrorists for the past half century or more. You have supported puppet dictators who have committed the most heinous crimes against their people.
You put Pinochet in power in Chile, you put Noriega in power in Panama, you put the dictatorships of Iraq, Iran and Israel in power.
You actively worked against peace in Afghanistan because you wanted to bloody the noses of the Russians.
And now you are complaining because people are turning against you and doing to you the very same things that you have done to them.
Call me whatever names you like, but what you are advocating the continuance of is both drooling idiot stupid, and is guaranteed to solve none of what you want to solve.
You don't want an end to terrorism, you want an excuse to go off and kill more people.
Do other people actually agree that being a bloodthirsty asshat is going to solve anything or are you a puss filled island standing in a sea of your own drool?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-29-2009, 08:25 AM
|
| |
Rupert, no one cares if you kill the enemy. What is objectionable is the number of people who are not the enemy that get killed while going after the enemy.
Also, by signing onto the Geneva Convention, you have agreed to comport yourselves within a set of standards.
When you step outside of those standards you are telling the world you cannot be trusted to uphold your agreements.
When you lose the trust of the world, you find yourselves in the situation you now find yourselves in. You are close to becoming a country of schoolyard bullies walking around in a blind rage swinging your fists at any and everyone. At somepoint, this will come home to roost on your doorstep.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-29-2009, 08:17 AM
|
| |
The Afghans themselves would be a good choice. Whether or not we in the west agree with their method of rule, we are not going to impose our method of rule on them.
That, my friend, is the fools game that is being played out by fools right now (my own country included).
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-28-2009, 12:30 PM
|
| |
Unfortunately, conventional war is all the USA knows. They don't have the imagination to try something that might work.
Or, more to the point, any attempt gets branded as bleeding heart liberalism because the conservatives with the jerky knees don't have the mental wherewithall to try something other than that which has been proven to not work.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
11-28-2009, 10:13 AM
|
| |
Probably correct, but they would have done better if the USA hadn't been arming the other side to the teeth.
|
