The programme tonite '9/11' was absolutely perfect in retelling that whole day, really sad but also with alot of hope in it...really glad I forced myself to watch it.
next week: a tribute to the countless thousands of innocent people killed as a direct result of US state terrorism around the world, including real live footage! from Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Kosovo, Panama...
Actually...I'm as anti american as they come (governemt wise) and I am just making a comment on something
I saw today. I'm on a protest next week in Dublin with the anti-war movement so i certainly oppose American foreign policy.
America is the most hypocritical country on earth, I can't think of anyone who will deny that.
'State terrorism' is such an emotive term. Me and Henry Kissinger prefer 'strategic economic and foreign policy objectives.'
That wasn't aimed at you
Days of media saturation have left me with a lot of bile that is leaking out all over the ezboards. The hypocrisy of it all is soul destroying.
Yea i know what you mean, alot of people have said that. Its just that we all watched that live on television and its fcuking horrible watching those towers collaspe and
iagree, pewrhaps if the world so the state terrorism of america at first hand then we'd all think differently.
but u had to have pissed yourself laughing when that dazed business man came walking out of the dust holding his briefcase, walking home as if it were a normal day!
go to www.rehashband.com and play 'spot the boeing'...it raises a few good points. ............................ you are being lied to
America is a bit gun ho but i agree with what it did and is about to do.
I know this is not a political forum. But hey somebody else started this, and it is a day when it's hard to avoid. I hate that "I suport america" crap matt - it achieves nothing and it ignores the fact that america is the war monger and terrorist state of our era. I posted this elsewhere earlier. It comes from the heart, not the barrel of a @#%$ gun
I refer to 11 September 2002.
What the @#%$ world do I live in?
I've just been watching global ceremonies for the victims of the outrage carried out in the USA last September. Lots of stations, lots of views, all the @#%$ same.
I mean no harm to those who died tragically this date in the USA last year. What happened was a dreadful and cruel event. Those who carried it out are scum. I understand their frustration. I could never excuse their actions.
The innocent always suffer. Those who were affected have the right to mourn and remember. Those who chose to exploit that suffering for political benefit are no better than the perpetrators.
But why is every media outlet indulging this in a mawkish, sentimental, victim driven manner when the world is filled with such cruelty everyday - much of it perpetuated by the government which oversees New York and Washington?
The hypocricy of it makes me ill. A life taken by terrorists in the US is apparently more important than the other lives taken by the US subsequently in Afghanistan, and previously in political actions across the globe, and I presume in future conflict. I can only assume that in the eyes of the governments of the USA, Ireland, Britain, and elsewhere, that a life taken in the USA is more important than one taken elsewhere.
It is racism. It is assumed superiority. It is so @#%$ crap.
It is the solution to nothing. It is the cause of what unfolded last September. Will we ever learn?
Nothing learnt. Nothing achieved. The circus goes on. @#%$ them all.
Like I said at the top.
I like others here believe that American foreign policy is evil and hypocritical, but it worries me that some people hint at using this to justify what happened a year ago.
3000 innocent people of all colours, nationalities and religions (including 67 muslims) were killed while they were doing an honest days work. This wasn't an attack on American policy - it was an attack on humanity at large. My 19 year old little sister was in NY that day and had been at the WTC the day before. I didn't know whether she was alive or dead for 2 days. People have every right to be reflective and to remember the pain of that tragedy one year on. But sometimes you're made to feel that if you express that, you're
sycophantic, America-loving and unquestioning.
While I believe the mainsteam media are largely racist, hypocritical and dangerous, of course they gave 9/11 massive coverage - the bombers designed this tragedy to be media friendly. The timing and manner of the slaughter was no accident. If I had watched 3000 deaths played out on live TV anywhere in the world, I would have been equally as appalled.
Quote: I understand their (the bombers) frustration
I don't believe what happened was born of frustration. What happened was born of man's supreme capacity for evil.
Simple as this...........such an attack (9/11) deserves maximum retaliation.
All resources deployed and utilised to the highest degree.
Zero fcuking tolerance.
Only my humble opinion, I mean it's not as if any one of these replies makes, or will make, the slightest bit of difference!! Edited by: mikey fusz at: 9/12/02 10:52:47 am
Zero tolerance for who exactly?
Retalliation against whom? Innocent Iraqi kids?
I'm not getting drawn in to a big one cos I dont look at it as deeply as you obviously.
What I saw was the worst thing ever .
It's hard to get out of your head so therefore I believe that the terrorist organisation that carried out all this should be destroyed.
End of story.
Edited by: mikey fusz at: 9/12/02 11:02:38 am
In reply to an earlier poster - read this link as well. It seems that 'Spot the Boeing' is pretty much bollox.
Jinx Paul. I beat you to it by 3 seconds.
Might I add my last reply.
America only seemed to want to counteract terrorism when it landed on their doorstep.
They didn't seem to worry themselves too much when it was elsewhere ie NI but I still stand by my beliefs.
Sorry if I pissed anyone off but there you go!
Daithi - It was actually 2 mins 3 seconds. I just don't have your lightning quick jedi reflexes. Edited by: Rodantherockband at: 9/12/02 11:32:59 am
There was quite a good article in the sunday times last sunday about 9/11 and how, over in the states its still taboo about ppl who actually jumped and that if a person jumped then the relatives were told another story.
There were also victims who spoke out about a year down the line,they're worried about their own security because all this money has been donated across the world to help victims when it seems the victims in question aren't receiving as much as ppl think they are....of course,this could all be a load of crap,after all,it is a sunday paper :)
personally,i don't like America or its foreign policy it just looks like they put themselves on a pedestal and didn't believe they could ever get knocked down.....whoops!
Ah, but if it was hamsters flying the planes it wouldn't have happened, would it?
Frickin' human beings.
AOL Time Warners acounts of what happened are no more believable than the 'spot the boeing theory'. Their excuse about the wings of the aircraft making no damage is almost laughable. And the fact is there was no damage to the lawn outside the pentagon, not even CNN can come up with a reason behind that one. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but dont just lap up everything the partly government funded Aol Time Warner tells you. Think for yourself and ask questions, thats all I'm doing.
Since when was AOL Time Warner 'partly government funded'?
That's as comprehensive a debunking of the Boeing myth as I've read.
The truck thing is interesting though....I was sitting in a newsroom that day watching the wires and PA and Reuters flashes were springing up about a car/lorry bomb for a good half an hour, then.....nothing.
But it was a rather confusing few hours and the reports coincided with the plane going down (or the time that it hit if it did - which it did, of course).
What gets me about The Left's approach to 9/11 is the barely suppressed glee with which they greeted the attacks (a cross between 'we told you so' and 'it's about time, they f*cking deserve it' was the subtext to basically all their analysis. Disgusting.)
Their hysterical whipping up of fears about the attack on the Taleban (widespread war in Middle East, next Vietnam, millions of civilians will die, suicide attacks across the world, etc etc) was completely cynical and those fears were proven to be groundless.
Iraq is a different matter, but you can sure about one thing - no matter what scare-mongering is indulged in (and there will be plenty from the usual suspects - Fisk, Pilger, Chomsky et al), the war will be successfully executed in a matter of weeks. It will not lead to widespread destabilisation / conflict in the Middle East. None of the Arab nations want that, while they can fight Israel by proxy in Gaza and the West Bank without all the inconvenient expenditure of an actual war.
Camp X-Ray, I would never have had you down as a supporter of the Serbs. That actually *was* one of those rare things: a just war fought for humanitarian reasons against a despot with very little strategic or economic gain for the major powers involved. Terrorism? I think not. Some accidental deaths? Well, yes. But you can't put a fascist and ACTUAL war criminal like Milosevic out of a country he's invaded(and subsequently out of power) without using force. A blanket condemnation of all American military action in every instance is just silly. There's a world of difference between the US campaigns in Kososvo and the Gulf War.
I don't subscribe to the theory that the US is the Great Satan, as I'm currently in that post.
The US is in an almost unique place in human history, with little need for outside interaction or imports, and this seems to have had huge impact on it's relationship with the world.
They don't really have any need to interact politically with the rest of the world either, and it's probably that lack of interchange, which has been absolutely necessary in places like Europe, that has lead to its mistaken view of it being the centre of everything...and the ensuing naivety in terms of trying to be the world's policeman.
If there was the deliberate malice in foreign policy that many attribute to it, it could settle the argument pretty quickly with military muscle, as the Soviet Union tended to do between the Revolution and 1989, and without allowing anyone a debate.
A more realistic..emmm..Realpolitik is needed to be grasped by the Americans, but I'm certainly more comfortable with them around than I would be without them in today's world.
as ever I'm a jumble of conflicting ideas when it comes to these matters...
America is unique in that in it's relatively short history (they only discovered the continent a tad over 500 years ago!) it has never really had to deal with conflict from outside coming to it, it always goes to the conflict. It had a bitch of a civil war, true, but compared to Europe and Asia's mottled and grim histories for the last 2500-odd years, it's really had an easy time of it.
That, believe it or not, could be a bad thing.
They've grown as a nation in a very linear, fast-track fashion with little external influence or impediment - no cross-pollination of culture, no experience of being beaten, of being overwhelmed, even of being threatened. For the American people, everything bad happens in far-off lands where nothing can really touch them. Just think what kind of mindset that comfort can evolve into, then place an event like 9/11 right on the doorstep...
That's along the lines of what I was trying to say, but in a more Rogerly way.
T ent, I wouldn't have had you down as someone who equtes opposition to one side as outright support for the other.
Afghanistan like Kosovo and Iraq are and have been the 'next Vietnam' but not in the way you mean. Vietnam was a horrible tragedy but not because so many young Americans needlessly lost their lives. Every country on earth that the US has bombed since Vietnam has been littered with 'clusterbombs'. Read anything about clusterbombs, from the US Army manuals to Pilger to the Murdoch press and you'll see they are basically landmines. The only reason they aren't banned is because these are dropped from planes. People still die everyday around the world because of their use. Then there's the issue of depleted uranium, still not banned. And how about our old friend Agent Orange.
Luckily for the people of Kosovo they're a little too close to home for our government to neatly sweep under the rug and their land has been cleared. But have you forgotten about the vicious killing that the KLA went on after Milosovic had withdrawn from Kosovo? Serbs massacred with US issued weapons and ammunition. But its ok, cos the KLA were the good guys. And how about the fact that the mass graves of innocent Muslims supposedly butchered by the Serbs were never actually found by the UN after the 'war'?
I don't support Milosovic. I don't support Saddam Hussein. I just wish people would see past what is presented to them by the media. The US wants a 'regime change'. That does not mean it wants a free democratic government for the people of Iraq. It will topple Saddam, and it will replace him with a government that will accept a loan from the IMF which will make the country another asset to the US's growing empire. The people will vote for this government, of course they will in the wave of euphoria that will follow the death of Saddam. But ten years down the line they will be in the same position as those in Indonesia, Russia, or Panama. And if they should try to revolt against the US backed government, they'll become the next Nicaragua. It's all just history repeating.
I really must take issue with T Ent on this one....
"What gets me about The Left's approach to 9/11 is the barely suppressed glee with which they greeted the attacks". I can't think of any political grouping that didn't make political capital out of 9/11. However, while it's one thing to have to listen to a bunch of socialist blowhards, it's quite another to witness people who are
actually in a position of power cynically use the events of a year ago to rapidly further their own political and economic agendas.
None of my family and friends in New York have anything but the utmost suspicion as to Bush's motives and they certainly don't want to see any more innocent people die anywhere else in the world over the back of this. Edited by: koyo66 at: 9/12/02 7:48:20 pm
1st up koyo66 thats a good question, and one probably better answered by George Vradenburg
Strategic Advisor, AOL Time Warner/Co
Chair, Greater Washington Board of Trade Potomac Conference Emergency Preparedness Task Force (an organisation which recieves government donations).
The reason we all have opinions on this discussion is because of what we've learned from the elite media (america online, time, CNN - ie aol time warner) These are all major, very profitable corporations.
These corporations are way up at the top of the power structure of the private economy, which is a tyrannical structure. Corporations are basically tyrannies, hierarchic, controlled from above. If you dont like what they are doing, you get out. The major media are part of that system.
I'll explain my point. Say you are a reporter writing a story on South east asia or Africa, or something like that. You're supposed to go to the nearest university and find an expert who will tell you what to write, or else go to one of the foundations. They will give you the preferred version of what is happening. These outside institutions are very similar to the media. Universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them, but that's true of the media aswell. But the institution itself is parasitic. Its dependent on outside sources of support, and those source of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power that you can barely distinguish them) - they are essentially the system that the universities are in the middle of.
So using this knowledge we could assume that ultimately CNN recieves and publishes information it recieves
from biased, government funded resources. State censorship exists.
" Freedom of press is guarenteed only to those who own one" - A.J Liebling
Let me make this clear - I didn't make any judgement on whether Bush is right or wrong to go to war with Afghanistan or Iraq. I just pointed out that the apolcalypse predicted by Pilger, Fisk and their ilk DID NOT and WILL NOT happen. And OF COURSE he wants a regime change. And a stable platform in the Middle East to deal with what the State Department regards as the real problem - Saudi Arabia, the looming death of Fahad and the possibility of a fundementalist regime there (as opposed to the current autocratic monarchy which secretly supports and funds 'terrorism').
Camp X-Ray, how would you have suggested the UN / NATO deal with Kosovo? Do nothing? Serious question. And Kosovo is different from Vietnam in so many ways that I couldn't even begin to be arsed listing them. The fact that cluster bombs were used is irrelevant, especially as you concede they were (largely) cleared.
you have to ask yourself this. Its all well and good telling everyone you hate America and saying that they are terrorists themselves but put yourself in their shoes what would you do.
One of your biggest cities has just been hit by 2 planes your economic centre is in termoil, plus 3 thousand people are dead plus you know who did it. Do you
a) ignore it and say o well these things happen and do nothing
b)stop giving terrorist the leeway they always get everwhere and go and show them how pathetic and sick they really are.
as for saddam well again man if you ran a country and it was possible that a militant dictator was making nukes and things of that sort would you
a) oh its ok lets let him break every rule in the book nothing will happen, hey it worked with hitler, um no wait a minute
b)force that country to obide by international law and stop what could be a nuclear war.
Dude i've done a whole module on this sort of thing this whole oh poor saddam oh poor terrorists oh poor such and such....WAR IS BAD, NO WAR!!!
some times its the only option you need a war to prevent the greater evil taking what is not his or from destroy what he should not destroy.
funny thiong is the war will happen and everyone will kick off about how bad it is but i'll tell you this now if the war doesnt happen then you'll be all going @#%$ really wish we'd kicked saddams ass then maybe my family would be alive or maybe my city may not have been destroyed.
We're digressing into blaming a country for the results of the weapons they've produced which is a pretty valid point, but one with virtually every European country,including the "pacificist and neutral" Swiss and Swedes could also be blamed on.
Using the cluster bomb argument, exactly the same case could be made against the USSR and China. Youll notice that the most widely used weapon in every conflict is the AK47 and it's various marques, and the problems with anti-personnel bombs, be they cluster,mines or otherwise, came to the fore in the many African conflicts supplied and widened by the USSR and Cuba.
So, leaving the obvious fact that we do know that weapons kill people, the rationale behind the policy that brings this about is more worthy of debate and examination, and the expectation that one side will have good guys who'll behave in a civilised fashion is a facile one.
Also, we should have a war because war sounds like really heavy riffs 'going off'.
I can't think of a single scenario in which Saddam Hussein would use nuclear weapons. If he had them and the means of delivery. Which he is nowhere near doing.
He certainly wouldn't even threaten to use them against Western powers as it would inevitably lead to the complete anihilation of his country. It's a total red herring.
Indeed. If America were to wage war on every foreign policy 'blowback' who ignored UN resolutions, they'd still be fighting a thousand years from now.
I'm sure, however, the prospect of installing a new dictator in Iraq who'd be prepared to de-nationalise the Iraqi oil industry has Dick Cheney and his friends in Haliburton wetting themselves.
Matt - Saddam is not threatening anyone. America PLC is threatening him.
He *is* a terrible c*nt, though. A Genuinely Bad Man. But the US is mates with lots of them.
Still, the news is a good watch
during a war. You get to see war-planes and big boats and helicopters and missiles and guns and soldiers and explosions.
Maybe we should send Saddam to 'do a module'.
He'd be sorted then Simey - that's for sure
matt, you know as well as every other poster on this thread there are infinitely more options available - it is not black and white, and if you don't agree, I suspect you fell asleep at your lectures!
It is not a case of a) sit back and wait to be nuked or b) nuke him first. it would be absurd. For one, do you really think the fall of Saddam would suddenly make every middle-eastern activist stop and think "Oh, they got Saddso, maybe I'll give up on my terrorist ways and go back to watching Neighbours at one, then again at half-five". Methinks not. Indeed, methinks an awful lot of these people would be very keen to express their dissatisfaction in very violent and explosive ways.
The UN are quite capable of sorting out the supposed threat (note "supposed") of Sadsack, however the American administration (note not "Americans") are chomping at the bit to get there first. Hell, if Saddam turned around tomorrow and reopened the oil lines, Bush & Co would simply whistle a happy tune, turn a blind eye and go back to choking on pretsels.
What I just don't understand is, do the Americans really think that this so called war on terrorism and some states is justified for a start and also, do they really think that its gonna solve the problem???
Course its @#%$ not, its gonna make them a bigger target, its gonna lead to thousands of new recruits to terrorist groups all over the world, in short the problem will be made bigger and Americans will whether we like it or not be legitimate targets.
If when (and it is a when) this war starts in Iraq and American and British planes bomb and kil innocence from 12,000 feet in the war and the world condones it, then the west is no better than the people who carried out the attacks on sept 11th---Only difference is one claims it is on the side of good---bollox to that.
Edited by: Queens student at: 9/13/02 12:32:36 am
No, there is actually a world of difference between hijacking a plane, slitting the throats of the crew and deliberately flying it into commerical buildings with the sole intention of murdering civilians and surgical strikes on military targets. In making that sort of moral judgement, one must consider intent and methodology.
If American and UK forces blanket bomb towns and cities in, then that's a different matter. But they won't.
Cue emotive talk on collateral damage which misses the above point. Edited by: T Entertainment at: 9/13/02 1:05:25 am
Bollox, if your dropping bombs on cities, on towns on wherever, You know there is gonna be some innocence lost, nomatter how little (although in the past it has been large) it is still as bad, I don't care if its premeditated or whatever, its still someones life and that is as precious as anyone who was in the twin towers that day.
I refer the right honourable readers to the last sentence in my previous post.
QS: Is it wrong and has it always been wrong to detonate bombs in towns or cities, under any circumstances?
Edited by: T Entertainment at: 9/13/02 1:25:32 am
They have blanket bombed cities in the past and it is as wrong today as it was then, but it can happen again. The hypocracy of the west and in particular America is incredible. Edited by: Queens student at: 9/13/02 1:30:57 am
QueensStudent: Is it wrong and has it always been wrong to detonate bombs in towns and cities?
Course it is and always has been wrong.
OK - sorry, I asked because I had you confused with someone with a similar log-in who used to use the Portadown News board and who equivocated once about that very issue. My apologies if this was not you.
Are you a pacifist? Do you believe war can ever be just?
NOTE: I am not saying the looming conflagration in Iraq IS a just war.
Edited by: T Entertainment at: 9/13/02 1:33:59 am
I am not as such a pacifist and war can be just, noone can say that War with Germany and to defeat that evil should not have happened. On this issue however, its not just, its a case of finishing what daddy Bush didn't in 1991, its a case of America finally having an excuse to have a say in who runs a gulf state. Wheres the real evidence???If I had firm evidence tommorrow that Saddam was about to launch nuclear or biological terror on europe or america of course I would support military action, but I don't beleive that he plans too or would be stupid enough to do it!Why support a war thats gonna lead to more deaths in Iraq and indeed more excuses and justification for more attacks on America.
I agree - it's cynical and mental.
A Christian acquaintance of mine thinks this is 'end times' stuff, foretold in Revelations, etc.
Just as he did with the Cold War, first Gulf War, 9/11, Afghanistan.
He's going to be very disappointed - this simply won't spiral out of control. The Yanks just don't take risks like that. Still, Pilger et al can borrow their sandwhich boards, I s'pose.....
there is no evidence to prove who flew planes into the twin towers (fact) ....so lets not go on about it
Dublya Bush told the has just stated to the U.N
that he's going to kill more people,
so there is NO discussion on this matter. (why stop at being just the biggest murderer in Texas?)
Anyone who saw Questiontime tonight wil have heard Michael Moore, he answered every question posted on this subject. He raised some valid points that weren't based on speculation and hear'say.
With so much opinion being thrown around on this subject, I trust you all saw it.
I missed it.
Are you suggesting that it was people other than Islamic fundamentalists that flew the planes into the towers? Because if you are, then what on earth are you doing here when there's corn circles to be investigating? While on the CIA's drugs. Edited by: T Entertainment at: 9/13/02 2:35:51 am
I think you missed my point about clusterbombs.
When did Chomsky or Pilger predict an apocalypse? If you actually read September 11 by Noam Chomsky or any recent articles by John Pilger, you'll find they conclude that things will not really change in many ways except that a lot of people will die. And they have.
'surgical strikes on military targets.' Yeah, like that wedding party in Afghanistan. Like the children stepping on brightly coloured landmines, sorry clusterbombs, everyday in Afghanistan. Like cancered and deformed infants dying from the radioactive winds that sweep Iraq. There is no such thing as a surgical strike. It's openly admitted now that the images of bombs going down chimneys in Iraq were very, very rare. The Pentagon says that they are much more accurate now. Hm. Think about it for a second: why would they bother? They don't need to spend more on highly accurate bombs for 'surgical strikes', they just need to convince us that they do. Which isn't difficult.
Saying that, in 1998 the US hit a medical factory in Sudan with horrific accuracy. Given that it was the country's only source of cheap medication for preventable diseases, people still suffer and die there today as a direct result. I'm sure it was a mistake, but it says a lot about how careful they are when choosing their military targets. I suppose also the people of Sudan would be pushing their luck in expecting some kind of aid to rebuild the Kartoum plant, or at least maybe an apology?
To defend US policy by asking me what I think should have been done to prevent what happened in Kosovo is a little unfair. How about not allowing Milosovic to get to the position he did in the first place? I think that after the USSR collapsed another Peace Corp movement wouldn't have been a bad idea. But instead former Soviet states were left to disintegrate. Why this happened is debatable but not exactly relevant.
The original question was how I could consider the Kosovo campaign to be 'state terrorism'. Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
So state terrorism would include national groups, while arming the KLA to fight on the ground and using indiscriminate weapons on Belgrade constitutes violence perpetrated against noncombatants. Et voila.
Obviously this is a pretty emotive subject for some people. It's a good and healthy debate but I think I'll be going back to NI music scene posts... for the time being
Emotive? Perhaps for some, but ceetainly not for me! I merely enjoy a good argument and dislike orthodoxy or dogma from either end of the political spectrum. I could go into a point by point breakdown
of your last post - not that I disagree with all of it by any means - but I've yet to see anyone's views changed by a message board discussion, so will not bother. In brief, I don't think the proposed war in Iraq is just at all - but neither do I think that one can fairly refer to all US action outside its own borders for the past 50 years as a homogenous horror called 'terrorism'.
Anyway, bass playing: plectrum or fingers?
ok i've read every post on this thread and noted key bits from peoples arguements. SO YOUS BETTER READ IT!!!!!!
i understand like T said this wont change your mind... well unless you actually are an un biased person who can see a valid point even if he/she doesnt agree with it.
and to all who think im some young no brain kid all i say to yous is: i do a degree in Contemporaty, Military and international History which has passed over this subject we are talking about many times and so b4 you patronise me anymore i would say that as this subject goes i know just as much maybe more than you so
anyways back to my rant so listen up people. This is how its going to be structured. im going to go through some of your points and reply then im going to summerise.
Quote: I hate that "I suport america" crap matt - it achieves nothing and it ignores the fact that america is the war monger and terrorist state of our era.
it achieves nothing? dude i know the American government arnt angels but neither is any government and me supporting them on the Afghanistan and iraq questions does not mean that i agree with everything they do. I believe that what they are doing now is right. (reasons later on)
Quote: What happened was a dreadful and cruel event. Those who carried it out are scum. I understand their frustration. I could never excuse their actions.
your right they are scum, all terrorists are. You understand their frustration? so you are a member of Islam and know about making war on the infidel?
The plane Attacks were carried out by religious nuts people who see America and anyone for that matter (who is not Islamic) as the bad guy. There is no other reason than religious hatred.
Quote: The innocent always suffer. Those who were affected have the right to mourn and remember. Those who chose to exploit that suffering for political benefit are no better than the perpetrators.
your right here and in a way 9/11 has been used to aid FP but it was only because it showed people that there is still true Evil in the World and it still needs to be dealt with.
you have a friend who smokes and you want them to stop but they wont, then their mother dies of lung cancer and they decided to give up. This is eploiting the situation but it is not a bad thing really.
Quote: The hypocricy of it makes me ill. A life taken by terrorists in the US is apparently more important than the other lives taken by the US subsequently in Afghanistan, and previously in political actions across the globe, and I presume in future conflict. I can only assume that in the eyes of the governments of the USA, Ireland, Britain, and elsewhere, that a life taken in the USA is more important than one taken elsewhere.
i can see where your coming from here i get really really annoyed with the fact that americans fund the IRA and people like that over here, they had no clue what was going on they just did it thinking they understood but they didnt. Now they have been hit my terrorism and they now know what it is like. So it took them a while to realise or do anything about it but at least its happening. Kinda wish theyd come over here and rid this country of some "scum"
Quote: Matt - Saddam is not threatening anyone. America PLC is threatening him.
ok poor old saddam wouldnt hurt a fly. Saddam is threating the World just by breaking the UNs laws. if he gets away with it then others will try and they you have chaos, we have rules to keep society right. If he wont let the inspectors in then he should punished just like a child who wont do his homework or just like a spide who wont stop breakin stuff.
Quote: Simple as this...........such an attack (9/11) deserves maximum retaliation. All resources deployed and utilised to the highest degree. Zero fcuking tolerance. Only my humble opinion, I mean it's not as if any one of these replies makes, or will make, the slightest bit of difference!!
all the criteria that would imply a 'Total War'( a prize for anyone who can tell me the 4 criteria )but thats not what is needed ok they cant be let away with it but you cant be too extreme or you will be as bad as they. Limited war is the only way. Evil to beget Evil but atleast the former Evil will cause less loss of life.
Quote: What I saw was the worst thing ever . It's hard to get out of your head so therefore I believe that the terrorist organization that carried out all this should be destroyed. End of story.
ok i feel the same times terrorist and people who support them make me sick (i do not believe America or Britain are terrorist states and so i am not making myself sick by supporting their actions
It would be hard to destroy all support for a terrosrist group and thats where diplomacy etc comes in but it doesnt work on its own like i said they have to be punished just not exterminated.
Quote: America only seemed to want to counteract terrorism when it landed on their doorstep. They didn't seem to worry themselves too much when it was elsewhere ie NI but I still stand by my beliefs
i agree with this like i said earlier
Quote: I can't think of a single scenario in which Saddam Hussein would use nuclear weapons. If he had them and the means of delivery. Which he is nowhere near doing.
He certainly wouldn't even threaten to use them against Western powers as it would inevitably lead to the complete anihilation of his country. It's a total red herring.
ok heres a scenario for ya he dosnt give a @#%$ about his country and he wants to kill a bunch of Americans so he blows them up with a nuke and doesnt care what happens to him or his people. Just like those islamic fundamentalists he might not care about himself its all jihad.
Saddam wants nukes cause they are bargaining tools he reckons that building one will make him more powerful. plus he knows that the other Arab states are on his side so he thinks he can get away with it.
N.Korea they were building nuclear plants and starting a nuclear weapons program so America stepped in and said oi stop it or we'll sanction you. Korea said @#%$ off and so america did. This didnt matter Korea still continued, so America decided that maybe if they gave them money and nuclear plants they would stop so they said ok if you promise to join the NPT we'll give you all these great prizes. Korea took the money and ignored America. Nothing was done and now Korea is sarting nuclear weapons programs which may or may not lead to something bad later on.
Quote: It is not a case of a) sit back and wait to be nuked or b) nuke him first. it would be absurd. For one, do you really think the fall of Saddam would suddenly make every middle-eastern activist stop and think "Oh, they got Saddso, maybe I'll give up on my terrorist ways and go back to watching Neighbours at one, then again at half-five". Methinks not. Indeed, methinks an awful lot of these people would be very keen to express their dissatisfaction in very violent and explosive ways.
i agree that starting on other countries is a sure fire way toi recruit for terrorist groups but only if you are targeting the wrong people. Diplomacy has been tried the've asked Saddam nicely on many occasions let us in and he hasnt so now its time for more heavier handed measure. U cant let him get away with it so what can you do? I know this isnt black and white but it also isnt that grey either. the option of War or military action is being used cause diplomacy has failed you can let people like him get away with stuff like this. They did with Hitler, look what happened. Im not pro War but i do know it is need and if its conducted right then fine.
Quote: The UN are quite capable of sorting out the supposed threat (note "supposed&quot ;)
of Sadsack, however the American administration (note not "Americans&quot ;)
are chomping at the bit to get there first. Hell, if Saddam turned around tomorrow and reopened the oil lines, Bush & Co would simply whistle a happy tune, turn a blind eye and go back to choking on pretsels.
The Un are not capable of dealing with anything they have @#%$ all power and no muscle to back them up. If we were guarded by the un we'd be @#%$. The UN is not a good organization. There are People out there who believe that all Armies will soon become peace keeping forces just like the UN in the future which is fine, when the world a nice safe place that'll be great no war no bad guys no planes crashing into buildings. Its not going to happen for a long time Evil is ripe in the world and it has to be dealt with. IUf we had only peac keeping forces we'd all be up @#%$ creek with out a paddle (fact no speculation)
last remark is speculation just like all of this which mean to accept that point you would have to accept the pro war case as well.
Quote: If when (and it is a when) this war starts in Iraq and American and British planes bomb and kil innocence from 12,000 feet in the war and the world condones it, then the west is no better than the people who carried out the attacks on sept 11th---Only difference is one claims it is on the side of good---bollox to that.
civilains will get kill in war and it is not on purpose on most accounts. I really doubt that America and Britain are going around bombing cities and towns killing women and Children but as for the Islamic terrorist, they new they would be killing innocents.
we have weapons that can be targeted and hit within like a Cm of its target. If you look at the civilian casualties in Afghanistan you'd see that there are not that many and they were not purposely killed, despite what might be said.
ok civilian deaths are bad, death in general is bad but its going to happen, ok you say yeah but you could have no war and it wouldnt happen and they'd be alive, true but maybe you wouldnt, maybe your family wouldnt because the target which would have been hit wornt and so they were used against us later.
like i've said Peace and I HATE WAR and NO war stuff is cool its a bad thing killing but unti lthe world is rid of evil it has to be used.
[quot]Bollox, if your dropping bombs on cities, on towns on wherever, You know there is gonna be some innocence lost, nomatter how little (although in the past it has been large) it is still as bad, I don't care if its premeditated or whatever, its still someones life and that is as precious as anyone who was in the twin towers that day.[/quote]
dropping bombs on cities is a horrible thing especially when its intentional like in WW2. (just a point though during the Battle of Britain if Hitler hadnt changed his plans and decided to bomb cities then we might be living in a very bad place now. Why did hitler bomb London? Cause we bomber Berlin)
everyones going on about this not black and white thing and its the same with War when Total war occurs then civilians are going to be killed thats why it has to be kept limited. Thats why things have to be done now b4 it gets out of hand.
Quote: am not as such a pacifist and war can be just, noone can say that War with Germany and to defeat that evil should not have happened.
so why is this war if it happens any different than WW2 its stopping a tyranical despotic leader. This time though it'll be done its too late. The Allies could have kicked Hitlers ass early on but no they let him go public opinion was on his side NO WAR NO WAR!!! oh but what happened i'l invade a couple of countires me thinks oh and i ll kill 6 million jews while im at it.
Quote: On this issue however, its not just, its a case of finishing what daddy Bush didn't in 1991, its a case of America finally having an excuse to have a say in who runs a gulf state. Wheres the real evidence???If I had firm evidence tommorrow that Saddam was about to launch nuclear or biological terror on europe or america of course I would support military action, but I don't beleive that he plans too or would be stupid enough to do it!Why support a war thats gonna lead to more deaths in Iraq and indeed more excuses and justification for more attacks on America.
they have evidence that he has this stuff plus they are trying to show it by going into his facilities but he wont let them so what are they meant to do go oh well we tried and then let him try something, i think not.
why start a war? well cause hes mad about losing the last one, was good enough reason for Hitler. Cause he wants to show he might be able to stand up against the might of the US.
ok right im really really tired i've been at this for hours. ther was more but stupid cmputer crashed and i lost it so i'll put it up when it come up.
War is a bad thing but is necessary in a world like ours rife with Evil. It is better to fight a war that will kill thousands than have to fight a war later that could kill millions
So True Evil really exists then? Edited by: zebulon at: 9/13/02 10:28:36 am
ok, before I address any other points here, I have one that I think is key:
Does not exist. People are not "evil". It's a made up excuse for answering awkward questions such as "Why did they do this to us?"
Which answer is easier to give to your public:
a) Because we trained them, paid them, armed them, then royally shafted them when we no longer needed them, and now they want payback.
b) Because they're evil.
The terrorists are not "evil" any more than the US bomber pilots are "evil", they both kill hundreds of people, but perspective lets us justify one's actions and villify the other's. The terrorists, activists, extremists, whatever, are people who care about what has been done to their country and way of life. They are being told by an outside force "You may not live that way, because we say so." Whether we as Westerners consider their social ethics wrong or barbaric does not therefore make them "evil". They aren't possesed by demons, they aren't doing this for the craic, or because they get a kick of big explosions. They do it for a cause and through faith that they are right.
And messageboards change my mind quite often. It's why I run one.
Edited by: fastfude at: 9/13/02 10:33:17 am
gah. beat me to it Z.
'they have evidence that he has this stuff plus they are trying to show it by going into his facilities but he wont let them so what are they meant to do go oh well we tried and then let him try something, i think not.
why start a war? well cause hes mad about losing the last one, was good enough reason for Hitler. Cause he wants to show he might be able to stand up against the might of the US.'
I just don't buy this arguement, he does not have the capabilities to invade again, the last ten years have proven that, kuiwait was a one off in my opinion, the world is watching like hawks and have been for ten years, if he ever did move to invade it would take months, years of preparation and America has the technology to know troop movements etc etc, surely thats what they've been doing for years, they've contained the threat. Why not keep doing this and wait for regime change, they said it wouldn't happen in The Soviet Union and it did, same with yugoslavia!!
Again i return to an earlier point I made, Will this war achieve anything other than more hatred towards America and more excuses for terrorist strikes like that of september 11th!!
Anyone who thinks that this is gonna solve the worlds problems is crazy, its simply not going to be the case......I only fore see the opposite and a huge crisis is looming.
I don't think this war will be about anything other than economics. In his speech yesterday, Bush outlined the reasons why the UN should support military action because of Iraq's flaunting of UN resolutions - most of which were the exact reasons for the Gulf War. Israel have ignored UN resolutions regarding Palestine, India and Pakistan - which both have nuclear capabilities and one of which is ruled by a dictator, General Pervez Musharraf - are both ignoring UN resolutions regarding Kashmir. Why are there no calls for military action against them? Because it's not financially beneficial. The terrorists who carried out the Sept 11th attacks were mostly Saudis yet the US invade Afghanistan - months after inviting the Taliban to the White House to try and secure an oil deal for a pipeline for the Caspian Sea oilfield. Iraq is one of the largest oil producers in the world. Their leader won't deal with US oil giants, so he's a friend of terrorists and a threat to world peace. I don't want to see a regime like Hussein's in power as he is an evil dictator, but war should not be the first action taken.
what do you mean is there no true evil in the world of course there is? Ure just picking holes when its not needed, fine you dont like america does not mean they themselves have been doing evil things or are about to do evil things.
true evil is on purpose killing some one who is undependable, Americans do not purposely kill innocents, the civilian casualties were mistakes.
What yous are effectively saying is there is no good or bad and that if i went out and raped a small child or killed some bloke i wouldnt be held accountable for that action because there is no bad or good.
society needs a set of rules a code to live by or like i said chaos will rain (but i've said this all in my previous post)so the east has different rules to us but they still should live by the rule that if you kill innocent people on purpose then you are a terrorist. Fine if America or Britain started strafing towns and villages and killing loads of people then i'd go thats wrong and thats sick but the thing is they arnt and yous are making them out to be worse than they really are. Saddam kills innocents, he is the one who is power hungry (not that America isnt) Those Islamic terrorist kill innocents they are bad.
Dont tell me there is no evil because then you are justify every person who ever rapes or kills.
My singers Dad was killed y terrorist leaving a family to fend for themselves, but of course thats ok because there is no evil and these people are just "frustrated!!!" @#%$ that man.
america and Britain have done alot of things that arnt right but what they are doing now and what they did after 9/11 is right and i'll stand by it.
i know that bush isnt doing this all for humanity i know this is economic as well but its still trying to make the world a safer place so all you anti war protesters and anti americans can live in a good world.
i KNOW its a bad thing war but its un avoidable. You think that becasue we have a different view on life that we are no better than they will thats bull @#%$. any country that accepts killing others no matter who they are as a part of there social and religious structure is a counrty id see raised to the ground. For that is Evil and all this intellectually hippy crap about the oppressors doesnt help. Fine when the worlds a safe place it'll be brilliant. I hate death i hate evil people and when they are gone i'll be happy and so will everyone else but how will this be achieved, by diplomacy, by talking, thats great if it works but if it doesnt then what?
Quote: There is no other reason than religious hatred.
There is much more to it.... The hypocrical behaviour of the US and other Western countries in the region, the feeling that Muslims are being victimised for racist/sectarian/economic reasons by people with bigger guns who have been encamped in their region for decades, the propping up of Israel, exploitation of their resources (oil) by the West, several centuries of "crusades" and assorted Empires, blah blah. The biggest surprise about last Septemvber was that similar had not happened previously. Be assured more will go on until the West addresses what it has done and continues to do in the region.
what do you mean is there no true evil in the world of course there is? Ure just picking holes when its not needed, fine you dont like america does not mean they themselves have been doing evil things or are about to do evil things.
true evil is.....(rants on)
Did you even read Roger's post or did you just go straight to missing the point? Do you even realise how many people have died because of the word "evil" and the fools who believe in it?
Here's another one for you - there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" either - just different places to stand.
PS: The word "you" is used for single
and plural. Edited by: insincerejon at: 9/13/02 2:38:08 pm
"any country that accepts killing others no matter who they are as a part of there social and religious structure is a counrty id see raised to the ground."
Do you honestly think that the American administration is not guilty of this? Even within their own country president Bush signed the execution of 152 people as governor of Texas. A survey by the Chicago Tribune found that two-thirds of those executed had been misrepresented at trial. Others have been mentally ill or commited crimes as children. Even Amnesty came out against it:
"''Using the death penalty against the mentally ill and those convicted of crimes committed when they were children clearly flouts international safeguards... The Governors of Florida and Texas, brothers Jeb and George W. Bush, must comply with the fundamental principle prohibiting the use of the death penalty where the level of culpability of the defendant, through youth or mental impairment, is in question.''
3 things you're missin here Mat
1.If Saddam's so @#%$ dangerous, how come those countries on his borders don't think so. Either he's not, in which case we don't need to bother, or they're all evil bastards but just not sticking their fingers up at the US. Actually in my humble opinion the answer is both of the above.
DELIVERY. Even if Sadam managed to build a bomb he'd have to blow it up in his back garden casue he's not gonna be able to put it in the boot of the car and take a road trip to Washington. He doesn't have (good) missiles and no-one is claiming that he's anywhere near builing them.
3. I read most of your post but really maybe if you spent less time on line you'd know the facts a little better. Saddam is NOT Hitler, nor will he ever, more likely as the history of the 30's will tell you, is that one of his enemies who we now consider the lesser of 2 evils will emerge as a genuine threat. Kind of how Saddam got powerfull in the first place during the Iran Iraq war
Here's another one for you - there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" either - just different places to stand.
i think yous are the ones who have missed the point and havent read what i've said. I read every post and wayed it up and not that stupid. I know what i say has point and validity. that quote above suggests that i copuld rape a child @#%$ a priest up the ass, kill everyone steal and what have you but it wouldnt be wrong cause there is no right and wrong, thats bull man and you know it. There is right and there is wrong, accept it.
I know that the Allied countries do bad things i've read many books and i've done a paper on the barbirsation of warfare. i could argue your point on how the americans kill innocents and how they them selves are bad at times but in the now in the year 2002 and last year 2001 they are doing the right thing. i will stick by what they are doing becasue i feel that if you let one country away with murder another will do it and so on then you are screwed and all of you will be wishing that something had been done.
im not sticking up for the death penalty, im not sticking up for the death penalty i think its sick all im saying is Islamic religion preaches death to the infidel. They will kill millions if they could. (i've talked to people (islamic about this)
im not the person missing anything here im clear and i understand whats going on, maybe yousssssssssss, oops you should take a closer look.
its not black and white i know then maybe yous should check your arguments.
ok right this is my last remark on this im secure in my belief and argue all you want i know im not going to change your minds and so far you havent changed mine so there ya go. Agree to disagree
Exactly, the taliban and bin ladin colaborated with america when the soviets had their forray into afganistan, when it suits them terrorists can be American allies.
Quote: that quote above suggests that i copuld(sic)......
No, it doesn't - the quote you must have read was "Anything which anyone does is not wrong".
Once again you use the extreme cases to back up your beliefs - I don't know anyone who would say that the things you mention are "right" from where they stand.
However - a man who says "thousands of innocent people have died - this is absolutely, unforgiveably terrible" while at the same time planning a war which will kill thousands of innocent people - is that "right"?
I repeat: war is good because it sounds like heavy riffs 'going off'.
like i said agree to disagree.
last nights rant was just me being bored thought i'd give an opinion and i do know the facts and i understand the theory and process. I know about nuclear weapons, and delivery systems i know saddam isnt Hitler and i know he cant reach America.....YET, why let him try? For all you know in those factories he could have a huge @#%$ rocket or something, you dont know unless its found out but that can only be done by inspections and he wont let them in so whats to be done? We just sit around and wait let him build it.
yes he could be that saddam has nothing in there but its also true he could would you take the risk.
you are in a building someone says to you theres a bomb what do you do
a) sit there and go well ther might not be so i'll just stay here. Ok 50/50 chance might get blown up might not
b) not take the risk and get out of there
saddam has possible weapons
the terrorist organisations are a possible threat they are that bomb in the building. Are you going to sit there and wait until it goes off or are you going to do something about it.
War i know kills thousands of people but if it done right and with the right support can bring donw the casualties. If you wait and wait and try and try to bargin it might work granted but it might not and then what do you have you have, something a bit worse than ww2
lifes a gamble but i would be more willing to try and prevent something from happening and just sitting and waiting for it to happen.
better to have limited war than total War
Whats the difference, you tell me?
Quote: lifes a gamble but i would be more willing to try and prevent something from happening and just sitting and waiting for it to happen.
Life is a gamble, but I would rather get on with my life in peace (as I'm sure do thousands, perhaps millions of middle eastern people) instead of starting a war just in case something might happen.
IT IS NOT A 50/50 CHANCE IT IS TOTAL BULLSHITE.
Missiles require like...TESTING, and seeing as the US is watching Iraq like a hawk I down they'd be up to 'TA DA, HERE'S ONE I MADE EARLIER'
This is not a pre-emptive strike this is a pre-election strike
Actually if someone says theres a bomb in the building I do ignore it, actually I did that not 2 months ago when we got a recognised code word threat to a radio station I was working on. Why cause it was @#%$, I knew it was @#%$ and the police knew it was @#%$? Now in this case I was putting myself at risk which is my business. But when I actively kill thousands of innocents ON THE OFF CHANCE. F U C K OFF
I'm off to the pub
War i know kills thousands of people but if it done right and with the right support can bring donw the casualties.
Dubya is going to bomb the crap out of Iraq to try to get rid of Saddam Hussein and open the world's second largest oil market up to the US again - that's what the "war" will be. But those aren't American cities and civilians those bombs will be falling on, so who cares either way, eh? :/
Anyway - what are Saddams targets - who will he be aiming his multitudinous weapons of mass destruction at, and most importantly - WHY?
Just because he is "Truly Evil"?
Edited by: insincerejon at: 9/13/02 4:44:06 pm
So he isn't a person, but a movie bad guy with no motivation, reason or thought process?
/me goes home to shoot zombies on GC
your right buddy i'll go wake up now. Thanx everything is so much clearer. I love my fellow man noone is going to do bad i'll just kick back and play my guitar.
Matt goes home and plays a nice happy tune on his guitar then goes and plays PS2
Matt, you said:
For all you know in those factories he could have a huge @#%$ rocket or something
Perhaps you remember the arms-to-Iraq 'Supergun'
scandal in 1990 where three British businessmen ended up in court for trying to export parts for a giant cannon to Iraq, with, apparently/allegedly, the knowledge of British 'intelligence' and senior figures in the British government. Does that mean that everyone in Britain is therefore 'evil' too?
As for your comment that "Islamic religion preaches death to the infidel' - this is as stupid as saying that Christianity is a murderous religion because lots of people got stoned to death in the Old Testament.
The Koran teaches peace and tolerance - and what happened on September 11th last year was viewed by most Muslims as a sin against God. After all, the most sinful thing you can do if you're a Muslim is commit suicide.
I suggest you go off to the library and find some books on 20th Century Middle Eastern history and leave your Playstation alone.
Quote: your right buddy i'll go wake up now. Thanx everything is so much clearer. I love my fellow man noone is going to do bad i'll just kick back and play my guitar.
Another exercise in point missing
University education: not terribly hard to get these days.
"Islamic religion preaches death to the infidel...they would kill millions I they could."
Please elaborate on the conversations with Muslims you have had where that view was elaborated.
You really are racist and ignorant, you know.
Edited by: T Entertainment at: 9/13/02 6:20:53 pm
Someone I know very well tutors first year Politics students. Trust me, not knowing the difference between your and you're is only the tip of the iceberg.......
I heard Saddam has frickin' sharks with frickin' lazers on their frickin' heads
dudes i dont care have a nice night
It's nice to have made a difference.
I don't know if Matt has ever spent time in a Muslim community, but each time I have, I've been made to feel very welcome.
Apart from being woken up by the prayer call at all hours of the morning...
Meeting people without the propaganda gives them a face and depth of personality allowing a degree of empathy.
Kinda like going to America and finding out that they're not a nation of coffee/football-obsessed loudmouths.
Or like going to England and finding out that they're not a nation of beer/football-obsessed loudmouths.
Or like going to France and finding out that they're not a nation of rude people who smell like garlic.
..... or like goiung to Matt world and finding out that he's ..... maybe not actually .....
i think if you read my posts you'll see i was talking about fundamentalists, people who really take their religion seriously and who go by the word of the book the keran (im not even sure if its spelt right)
i did not mean to insinuate that all Muslims were like this and i am not a racist so @#%$ you for even implying it, if you knew me you'd know that im as peace loving as yous are making out to be.
i have talked to a Muslim guy he actually teachs at my uni, Middle Eastern terrorism in the Crescent house building, Salford uni.
check it out
and i've showed understanding of both sides of the argument
yall are the ones bein narrow minded and patronizing. So i hold a different view than you doesn’t make me any less wrong or right than u, so give it a rest.
and im the child? i weep for this country and its stubbornness. I unlike many of yous (oh my god i used yous insteed of you, oh shoot me now) will give in when proven wrong or when given a good arguement. This is a trait of which many of you seem to be lacking.
im not asking yous to agree with me all i want is may some wider views, you know the ability to see things in another way, dont want to fry your brain or anything but like you all say it aint black and white.
and whats the deal with the grammar and spelling jibes, cant think of a retort.... um must insult spelling.
Excuse me, Mr 'I've been to university', but any Muslim who follows the Koran (yes, you did spell it wrong) to the letter would never contemplate killing anyone or committing suicide. So the fundamentalists you mention aren't really following Islam, more of a twisted, self serving bastardisation of it.
Edited by: koyo66 at: 9/14/02 7:53:33 pm
zu gu bu was i not just talking about....what?
right ok your all right im wrong, you big me small, happy good.
What's so depressing about your pespective, STP, is that you're completely and utterly unaware of just how racist and ignorant you are. Your smear of the Islamic peoples as inherent war-mongers compelled to murder for God by the KORAN is as nasty and insidious a piece of bigotry as I've read in a long time.
You really, REALLY need to educate yourself.
ok i really thought that i was talking about the extreme element of the Islamic faith and i apologize most profusely for any misunderstanding.
i was sure thats what i was talking about but if its been taken the wrong way im sorry but that what i meant.
i am not racist and i am not ignorant and i know many who will vouch for this, what you are getting here is a misunderstand due to the msg board nad my inability to express myself coherently and i have apologized for it.
i know what i mean i just get carried away and rant in no real order at all. You should read my essays, i pity my lecturers, i still get good marks though.
what they're all trying to point out, matt, is that "Islamic Faith" aren't two words most people would like to have thrown around in the same sentance as "extremists" and "terrorists" and so on... as the two are pretty mutually exclusive..
im sorry i just didnt explain it well enough
it's ok :-)
i think this thread's run its course?
not really, since the only conclusion has been "I'm right"... "No, I'm right."...
Matt, judgemental though this may be, I'd like to ask you to pre-assemble your posts in Word or sthg before putting them on the board. You read as if you're frantically typing this stuff off the top of your head without heed for accuracy, depth of argument, or even spelling and grammar, and if you don't want to come across as an angry fourteen year old who's been watching too much MTV2 & Jerry Springer (and to me, you are coming across that way - I mean this in as non-patronising a way as possible), you need to slow down and think through your argument and what you're going to say before you hit "add reply". Maybe then we can progress this thread (and you'll see that I'm right, rite?!
As the smoke was swallowing Manhattan and the buildings fell and the terror spread into the farthest recesses of your land and your hearts, my hopes for you, America.
While around the world many of the past victims of your own terror, your own attacks, were thinking and often saying, saying and more often thinking, they deserve it, serves them right, it's about time they knew what it's like to be on the receiving end. Not true, I thought, I said. Nobody deserves terror. Justice. What we deserve, all of us, is some measure of justice.
America suddenly living what almost everyone else on this planet has experienced at some point yesterday or today: the precarious pit of everyday fear.
My hope for America: empathy, compassion, the capacity to imagine that you are not unique. Yes, America, if this dreadful destruction were only to teach you that your citizens and your dead are not the only ones who matter on this planet, if that experience were to lead you to wage a resolute war on the multiple terrors that haunt our already murderous new century.
An awakening, America.
Not to be.
let's not all round on an individual who got caught up in his passion lest he acts on it.
let's demonstrate that another world is possible.
here on the message boards, with each other.
your right i just get worked up and feel that i could say something and it doesnt need changin i know i stupid stuff but i dont mean to, i'll usually mean something else.
i still feel though that through all my madness and rambling that i had some fair points
look no offense to anybody but at the end of the day this is a music forum not a political one, so i have one thing to say, SHUT THE @#%$ UP and lets get down to wot we're all here for and thats to enjoy music and most espescially(sorry for the spelling) the local music scene!!!!!!!
your the boss.......now wheres that guitar
to say that politics isn't relevant on this board is nonsense.
"fastfude - n.ireland's music scene" - i would hope our "scene" has opinions on subjects other than just music.
I'll second that. Politics and music are and always have been linked very closely. Your music and your politics will both reflect how you see the world around you.
as soon as people start to say that politics has no place in certain areas, then the politicians start rubbing their hands. Youth intrest in todays politics is slowly but surely sliding to the position the politicians are happy with, soon they'll be able to operate and make discisions without us even looking up from the computer screen. The day that happens is the day we wave goodbye to any right we would have had if we'd stood up for ourselves
No rattsuk is right, keep politics out of music. After all I never liked, The Specials, The Jam, Primal Scream, U2, Coldplay, The Sex Pistols, The Beatles, Blur, Massive Attack, Elbow, Manic Street Preacher, in fact I only like people who sing about love and flying without wings.
easy tiger...[/edit] Edited by: fastfude at: 9/16/02 11:04:33 am
I missed that... what he say Rog?
It'll be interesting to see what happens now since Iraq are re-admitting UN inspectors...
Some musicians making their voices heard: