Lt Cdr Data
om
maybe it was full of terrorists who attack the US soldiers?
What do al-quieda actually want?
- Thread starter julian2002
- Start date
Quite possibly so. It could also quite possibly have been filled with people taking refuge from an aggressor in the only place they thought refuge could be found. Or it could have been filled with spam emails for all I know.
My only point was to do with the type of weapon being used, not the justification for it's use, and the amount of damage said weapon will cause if used against people and not, as is clearly stated on the US Navy's own website, for it's designed purpose:
"Hellfire is an air-to-ground, laser guided, subsonic missile with significant antitank capacity. It can also be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters or slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft."
All the best,
Goomer.
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
One of many sources: www.iraqbodycount.net
Bush's war on terrorism is totally incoherent and fuelled by greed for oil and hatred for cultures that he doesn't understand. He does a massive disservice to the intelligence of the American people (once again I must point out I am anti-Bush, not anti American). Invading Iraq was the equivalent of a football supporter beating a rugby fan up based on the results of a cricket match - the logic makes no sense whatsoever, yet the result was bound to antagonise.
Al-Qaeda intended to attack the US on 9/11, Bush intended to attack Iraq last year; both acted regardless of any facts, morality or international law. What is the difference? Both did something equally wrong and equally unforgivable in my opinion.
Tony.
Tony,
sorry you cross the line on that one IMO. Bush, for all his wrecklessness, greed and stupidity, did not set out with the sole purpose of killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians without warning in their workplace.
So don't talk bollox. I don't like Bush any more than the next man, but get real. Bin Laden want's to destroy the world that we know that was built by support for his enemies at home.
How do you propose to protect your children from thugs with no morals, no demands, and no conscience? Do you really beleive that, without Bush and Blair, these thugs would leave the West alone? Of course not.
They might do so if we left the area, allowed the house of Saud to fall, and were happy to be held to ransom for the means to run the global economy. Then who would be the most powerful nations on earth? And do you think that is an enticing prospect speaking as an Englishman?
There is only one compromise that I feel radical Muslims would accept, and that is the relocation of the State of Israel (I don't have an issue with that) and the elimination of Western influence across the area. That would go down well with the City wouldn't it! So long as you are happy for your children to live as inhabitants of many third world countries sadly do today, then stick to the moderate, politically correct ethos. If you would however rather see continued prosperity in the West allied to more compassion and understanding for the global community, then make sure your vote insures that your leader acts responsibly.
In the long term fortunately, Arab oil wells will dry up and so will their ability to affect world stability. Until that day, I would rather have Americans trampling the area under foot than leave it to a group of people with nothing but hate in their minds.
sorry you cross the line on that one IMO. Bush, for all his wrecklessness, greed and stupidity, did not set out with the sole purpose of killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians without warning in their workplace.
So don't talk bollox. I don't like Bush any more than the next man, but get real. Bin Laden want's to destroy the world that we know that was built by support for his enemies at home.
How do you propose to protect your children from thugs with no morals, no demands, and no conscience? Do you really beleive that, without Bush and Blair, these thugs would leave the West alone? Of course not.
They might do so if we left the area, allowed the house of Saud to fall, and were happy to be held to ransom for the means to run the global economy. Then who would be the most powerful nations on earth? And do you think that is an enticing prospect speaking as an Englishman?
There is only one compromise that I feel radical Muslims would accept, and that is the relocation of the State of Israel (I don't have an issue with that) and the elimination of Western influence across the area. That would go down well with the City wouldn't it! So long as you are happy for your children to live as inhabitants of many third world countries sadly do today, then stick to the moderate, politically correct ethos. If you would however rather see continued prosperity in the West allied to more compassion and understanding for the global community, then make sure your vote insures that your leader acts responsibly.
In the long term fortunately, Arab oil wells will dry up and so will their ability to affect world stability. Until that day, I would rather have Americans trampling the area under foot than leave it to a group of people with nothing but hate in their minds.
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
You are in my opinion asking the wrong questions. Yes, Bin-Laden is a manipulative psychopath, he is a fanatic, a murderer and general loon. We all know this. Unfortunately Bush and his government are too retarded and fuelled with hatred to play one step ahead of the game.
The sensible thing would be not to antagonise the ordinary sensible Muslim people going about their business, yet time and again the US give Al-Qaeda legitimate reasons to stir up hatred towards the west and gain further recruits. It is the new recruits to Al-Qaeda that are the problem, not Bin-Laden ââ'¬â€œ without an argument he would be seen merely as a fanatical crank. Time and again the US coalition fuel his case, they build his argument. Every new atrocity resulting in civilian casualties that the US coalition carry out in the absurd name of ââ'¬Å"freedomââ'¬Â boosts the hatred and gets more previously middle ground Muslims joining Bin-Laden's cause. The biggest difference between Bush and Bin-Laden is that Bin-laden is far more intelligent. Evil yes, stupid no.
Do you honestly think the invasion of Iraq helped matters? If the casualty figures I quoted earlier have any baring in reality (and I strongly suspect they do) then the families of up to ten thousand people may now be sufficiently pissed off and desperate to retaliate in any way they can. The more Bush bullies, the stronger the Al-Qaeda cause gets. The problem is he is too stupid and ill-informed to grasp this absurdly simple concept. This situation will never be finished with brute force and ignorance. Bush is brute force and ignorance. His utter stupidity may well kill us all.
Tony.
Lt Cdr Data
om
I am beginning to wonder if Iraq was better with Saddam, at least there was an order of sorts. Its turning into a real mess.
Sorry Tony, maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see a solution laid out in that response.
Do you genuinely think that if we pull all the troops out now, give the Iraqies free reign to select a leader (which would be through the bullet and not through the ballot box I hasten to add), and come down heavily on Israel, that the whole of the Arab world will cease their hatred of the western ideals?
And if they continue to hold a grudge (which I would hazard a guess they just might!), don't you think they might retaliate in the only way they know how (ie wreking havoc throughout the Western world?)
I hate to say it, but in times gone by, the solution commonly applied (by peoples and armies from all over the globe), was to leave NO survivors, insuring that kith and kin did not seek retribution for eternity.
Maybe, and I say this with a heavy heart, a long war fought with the sole aim of preventing an uprising of the Arab people and their fanatical leaders, will prove to be the ONLY way of ensuring global security and world peace.
But we're in it now. Regardless of the historical events that led up to conflict, it is clear that a war is being fought to maintain the status quo of the global community. To suggest that we put that security in danger (putting billions of people at risk of hunger, poverty and civil unrest) , in order to prevent the possibilty of a few thousand Iraqi's dying from American fire rather than their own, seems to me to be taking Liberalism to a worrying new level
Do you genuinely think that if we pull all the troops out now, give the Iraqies free reign to select a leader (which would be through the bullet and not through the ballot box I hasten to add), and come down heavily on Israel, that the whole of the Arab world will cease their hatred of the western ideals?
And if they continue to hold a grudge (which I would hazard a guess they just might!), don't you think they might retaliate in the only way they know how (ie wreking havoc throughout the Western world?)
I hate to say it, but in times gone by, the solution commonly applied (by peoples and armies from all over the globe), was to leave NO survivors, insuring that kith and kin did not seek retribution for eternity.
Maybe, and I say this with a heavy heart, a long war fought with the sole aim of preventing an uprising of the Arab people and their fanatical leaders, will prove to be the ONLY way of ensuring global security and world peace.
But we're in it now. Regardless of the historical events that led up to conflict, it is clear that a war is being fought to maintain the status quo of the global community. To suggest that we put that security in danger (putting billions of people at risk of hunger, poverty and civil unrest) , in order to prevent the possibilty of a few thousand Iraqi's dying from American fire rather than their own, seems to me to be taking Liberalism to a worrying new level
There are some very contrasting opinions appearing on this thread and I guess, for the most part, we'll agree to differ.
Watching the news over the last few days it is of course sad to Iraq and the surrounding countries slowly disintegrate into war zones, and a resolve is going to be hard to find.
Somehow I cannot quite get my head round some of the scenes I have seen. E.g. Last night on TV they where showing Iraq 12 months ago, the fall of Saddam and the Iraqi people where praising Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Thank you Mr Bush ââ'¬â€œ We love Americans, they were saying.
So why 12 months later do the Iraqi's hate America and increasingly the UK? Are they just plain ungrateful, are they stupid? If someone had got rid of the person who was bullying me, I'd be grateful, not telling him I hate you f******.
They are a strange, if not sad, race of people who want everything given. Did they not think that there would be a price to pay for the help they are getting. Obviously not.
So what if we all just packed up and brought our troops home, what of Iraqi then?
I know Bush is looking after his own interests, and why the hell shouldn't he, and the OIL, but lets face it, if it was left to the Iraqi's to look after the oil they would pour it on each and set it on fire shouting traitor.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but maybe we should have made a deal with Saddam over his oil and left him to continue to butcher and torture the Iraqi people. After all the Americans and the British troops got shut of Saddam to help the Iraqi people, and they are still not happy.
I fear that they will never be happy with Peace, Only blood shed and anti-American propaganda.
As for Al-Qieda (however you spell it), most of the Mr Big's will probably be living in this country on state-handouts to fund their weapons. Another election winner for Mr Blair. Perhaps Mr Blair could bring them all over here, and continue to turn the UK into a third world country.
That I suppose one of the differnces between Bush and Blair -
Bush - When America is doing ok then I'll think about the rest of the world
Blair - Is every lowlife numpty in the rest of the world ok? If not lets bring 'em here.
There was a 'have your say' on the BBC website yesterday, and I am not alone in my thoughts.
Watching the news over the last few days it is of course sad to Iraq and the surrounding countries slowly disintegrate into war zones, and a resolve is going to be hard to find.
Somehow I cannot quite get my head round some of the scenes I have seen. E.g. Last night on TV they where showing Iraq 12 months ago, the fall of Saddam and the Iraqi people where praising Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Thank you Mr Bush ââ'¬â€œ We love Americans, they were saying.
So why 12 months later do the Iraqi's hate America and increasingly the UK? Are they just plain ungrateful, are they stupid? If someone had got rid of the person who was bullying me, I'd be grateful, not telling him I hate you f******.
They are a strange, if not sad, race of people who want everything given. Did they not think that there would be a price to pay for the help they are getting. Obviously not.
So what if we all just packed up and brought our troops home, what of Iraqi then?
I know Bush is looking after his own interests, and why the hell shouldn't he, and the OIL, but lets face it, if it was left to the Iraqi's to look after the oil they would pour it on each and set it on fire shouting traitor.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but maybe we should have made a deal with Saddam over his oil and left him to continue to butcher and torture the Iraqi people. After all the Americans and the British troops got shut of Saddam to help the Iraqi people, and they are still not happy.
I fear that they will never be happy with Peace, Only blood shed and anti-American propaganda.
As for Al-Qieda (however you spell it), most of the Mr Big's will probably be living in this country on state-handouts to fund their weapons. Another election winner for Mr Blair. Perhaps Mr Blair could bring them all over here, and continue to turn the UK into a third world country.
That I suppose one of the differnces between Bush and Blair -
Bush - When America is doing ok then I'll think about the rest of the world
Blair - Is every lowlife numpty in the rest of the world ok? If not lets bring 'em here.
There was a 'have your say' on the BBC website yesterday, and I am not alone in my thoughts.
Lt Cdr Data
om
It would be absolute mayhem if we all suddenly pulled out. That is for sure.
I try not to judge things now, as there are 2 sides to any propaganda, but the yanks said they fired on the mosque because they came under fire from it, and they only demolished the outside walls.
To be frank, its the Iraqis own fault, not the majority of decent iraqis, but the trouble makers.
They are attacking the very people who are trying to put the power, phones, food back, and establish some order of civility.
Their actions are causing suffering to the population at large. And the americans get the blame. that is not right, I can't see why they can't see that.
I try not to judge things now, as there are 2 sides to any propaganda, but the yanks said they fired on the mosque because they came under fire from it, and they only demolished the outside walls.
To be frank, its the Iraqis own fault, not the majority of decent iraqis, but the trouble makers.
They are attacking the very people who are trying to put the power, phones, food back, and establish some order of civility.
Their actions are causing suffering to the population at large. And the americans get the blame. that is not right, I can't see why they can't see that.
tones
compulsive cantater
I think the answer to that one is relatively straightforward, Mark. For a start, Saddam wasn't bullying Iraq. He was a nasty piece of work to be sure, and was totally ruthless in disposing of anybody getting in his way. However, for the Iraqi in the street before Gulf War I (with Iran), life was good, in fact, one of the best in the Middle East. Women had more respect in Iraq than anywhere else in the Middle East and religious minorities had complete freedom of worship (senoir minister Tariq Aziz is a Maronite Christian).
Then Saddam's stupidity came into play. As a result of GWI and II (the Kuwait adventure) and Saddam's intransigence, the standard of Iraqi life dropped like a stone. As a result, when the Americans and British arrived, they were welcomed, because this meant that life could get back to normal. The problem was that Bush & Co. had planned to win the war, but not the peace. They hadn't a clue about nation building and had put no planning into it whatsoever. As a result, Iraq remains a mess, with people with no water and electricity and no jobs and not much hope. They see the Americans as doing nothing about it, so of course they're angry. In their position, I think I would be too. If the US would put half the effort into building up Iraq that they put into demolishing it, I suspect that they wouldn't be having problems.
We've seen what the US can do. The Marshall Plan got Europe back on its feet very rapidly after even worse devastation and produced a democratic country where the worst dictatorship ever had previously ruled. We need another George Marshall.
The whole thing is that Saddam was a toothless tiger and should have been left alone to stalk around his cage. But Dubya always was spoiling for a fight with him, and September 11 was a convenient excuse, so he took it. And the US is paying for it and will continue to do so.
penance
Arrogant Cock
I think we should shoot Bush
Be a much better world then!
Be a much better world then!
Lt Cdr Data
om
The allies are TRYING to put iraq back together, the arseholes are making it impossible, and are responsible for the peoples suffering.
My thoughts exactly, saddam was evil true, and yes maybe his order is better than the chaos, but a lot were jubilant he was gone and praising blair and bush.
Now they want rid of him, true, they appear to be unhappy with their lot, its not bushs direct fault now, if they stop fighting, let the yanks repair the infrastucture, they will pull out, when its all done, as long as the fighting continues, the yanks won't leave, they sabotage thier own ends.
Then they will come here and complain about their lot here, too
My thoughts exactly, saddam was evil true, and yes maybe his order is better than the chaos, but a lot were jubilant he was gone and praising blair and bush.
Now they want rid of him, true, they appear to be unhappy with their lot, its not bushs direct fault now, if they stop fighting, let the yanks repair the infrastucture, they will pull out, when its all done, as long as the fighting continues, the yanks won't leave, they sabotage thier own ends.
Then they will come here and complain about their lot here, too
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
The solution is unfortunately rather more complex that your racist, ill-informed and reactionary suggestion of a new holocaust / mass genocide with the goal of wiping out a whole race!
In a similar, but potentially far more dangerous way to Bush you apparently wish to generalise, stereotype and dehumanise the whole Muslim population as somehow all being exactly the same as one another. This is obviously not the case. They are people, they have jobs, homes, families, and often hold radically different opinions to one another.
To be honest I'm not sure how to respond to your post as you don't seem to have grasped the basics of this situation. Without wishing to sound overly patronising I would suggest you read up on the history of the region and try and understand what this is all about.
The only way out of this is discussion, respect and reconciliation on both sides.
No, they have just lived for 12 months under occupation, watching their loved ones be blown up, their property looted, their food and water supplies fail etc, etc. Shortly after the US invasion many were genuinely optimistic about the future. Their hopes have been dashed by many factors; incompetent and overly aggressive occupation from the west, manipulation and aggression from minority Muslim fundamentalist groups etc. I really feel for the average guys in the street over there, they had it crap under Hussain, thought things would get better, then saw it degenerate into a bloodbath. Who can blame them for being pissed off?
There are small fanatical factions who desperately want it all to fail, Al-Qaeda obviously being the most talked about. The trouble is that America behaves like the big, fat, slow schoolyard bully it is and always rises to the provocation by lashing out in a stupid and uncoordinated way, always allowing the real, and far more agile trouble maker to run off. Every time Al-Qaeda or whoever pull this trick off yet more innocent people get killed and the hatred against the west is increased. This is their goal. Make no mistake, they are winning this at the moment, and will do so until the west is genuinely able to talk intelligently to the vast majority of moderate Muslims and really get them on side. It is the moderate and sensible Muslims that will kill Al-Qaeda, not the west.
Tony.
You say racist, I say realist - let's call the who.......
Seriously Tony, if they really are decent human beings, why don't they take up arms against the insurgents and defeat them themselves, rather than stay indoors whilst people walk their streets with masks on?
What I don't see is the ordinary Iraqi standing up for himself unless they are doing so by turning a blind eye to the killing and guerrilla warfare. If that is the case, then kindly explain to me why I should in all conciousness feel any pity for them?
Tony, I am not racist, and consider your remark uncalled for and somewhat ignorant. I am however happy to say what others are only too happy to think. Reread my post. I did not advocate the mass slaughter of a race of people, merely pointed out that history suggests it is a successful tactic for ending inbred hatred. I am familiar with the history of the area, with the atrocities carried out by many cultures all over the so called holy land. Having equal contempt for the majority of the human race does not make me a racist Tony. It does however allow me to say what is on my mind rather than worry if I might offend someone whose main concern is political correctness.
What I fail to grasp is whinging liberals spouting garbage about applying human rights and correcting past injustices when they are discussing a scenario such as this. It's a war for F**k's sake, over a period of years one party will be victorious. If the West is, I very much doubt it will be due to the pussyfooting and apologising advocated by "bleeding liberals"
Seriously Tony, if they really are decent human beings, why don't they take up arms against the insurgents and defeat them themselves, rather than stay indoors whilst people walk their streets with masks on?
What I don't see is the ordinary Iraqi standing up for himself unless they are doing so by turning a blind eye to the killing and guerrilla warfare. If that is the case, then kindly explain to me why I should in all conciousness feel any pity for them?
Tony, I am not racist, and consider your remark uncalled for and somewhat ignorant. I am however happy to say what others are only too happy to think. Reread my post. I did not advocate the mass slaughter of a race of people, merely pointed out that history suggests it is a successful tactic for ending inbred hatred. I am familiar with the history of the area, with the atrocities carried out by many cultures all over the so called holy land. Having equal contempt for the majority of the human race does not make me a racist Tony. It does however allow me to say what is on my mind rather than worry if I might offend someone whose main concern is political correctness.
What I fail to grasp is whinging liberals spouting garbage about applying human rights and correcting past injustices when they are discussing a scenario such as this. It's a war for F**k's sake, over a period of years one party will be victorious. If the West is, I very much doubt it will be due to the pussyfooting and apologising advocated by "bleeding liberals"
Markus S
Trade
Hi Merlin,
I didn't know that in addition to your hi-fi adventures, you found the time to help out the U.S. government. AFAICT the official U.S policy follows your reasoning exactly.
FWIW I'm with Tones here: we need a coherent plan for re-building the region and a new Marshall plan.
I didn't know that in addition to your hi-fi adventures, you found the time to help out the U.S. government. AFAICT the official U.S policy follows your reasoning exactly.
FWIW I'm with Tones here: we need a coherent plan for re-building the region and a new Marshall plan.
Lt Cdr Data
om
May I kindly point out that calling people racist on a public forum without evidence or back up is libellous, and could get open the owner of the forum, and the ISP to possible trouble.
joel
Shaman of Signals
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction score
- 0
Markus,
I can't agree with this statement. It is blindingly obvious that the US administration does not have a policy, never mind a reasoning (which normally follows policy in politics
).I agree with Tones and Sideshow (to a degree at least) on this: Afghanistan should have been sorted out before embarking on any further adventures, and the great failure of GWII was that Bush and Blair had no plan for rebuilding Iraq (or at least nothing realistic or coherent). I would have much preferred the debate over the last year to be less about WMD or lack thereof and more about the sheer incompetence of the West in it's failure to rebuild Iraq.
Three Japanese* have been taken hostage in Iraq. They will probably be murdered, the JGSDF (Japanese Army out in the real world) will be wihthdrawn, and all Japanese aid to the region either stopped or massively curtailed. As usual it is the poor, ordinary people who will suffer (the Japanese haven't fired a shot so far in Iraq, and have been building schools, hospitals and infrastructure - none of which is now likely to be continued).
This, effectively, is what Al Quaeda wants.
*and watching the news now, I see eight South Koreans too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lt Cdr Data
om
Doesn't it strike you as absurd that they go in, bomb the sh*t out of a country, then put pounds and dollars in to rebuild whats been destroyed, all the summits discussing it flying abroad, and the UK infrastructure all the while needs cash, caus all the desk twats drinking coffee and talking making crap policies are stealing the cash? They then implement these crap policies without any regards for peoples feellings or concerns and follow it to the letter.
Blind basta*ds. yes I hate pen pushers like that
We spend more killing people we don't know, than making our own country nice for ourselves
It seems if cash is needed to kill people its always there, yet never to make our lot better
That is the evil that is the west, yet you can't change it, and suicide bombings won't change it either.
Blind basta*ds. yes I hate pen pushers like that
We spend more killing people we don't know, than making our own country nice for ourselves
It seems if cash is needed to kill people its always there, yet never to make our lot better
That is the evil that is the west, yet you can't change it, and suicide bombings won't change it either.
Last edited by a moderator:
tones
compulsive cantater
I once worked in the explosives business, in the commercial side. In that side, the blasters quibble over a few cents' difference in the price of detonators, and they use as little high explosive as possible (high explosive = expensive). However, when it is desired to kill someone, money is no object - the military can and do use all the most exotic (and enormously expensive) explosive they can get their hands on. I always thought it was a sad commentary on human values.
Not beneficial!
That area contain loads of oil and other resources we need more and more to sustain our economy and life style.
Best way would be clear the area of the locals.
With biggest stock pile, by far, of WMDs sitting unused in the US and in the UK, this operation can be carried out much more efficiently than Hitler ever could.
