New Al Qaeda Leader Planning Attack Against U.S. ? [Archive]

unregistered user

March 2nd, 2006, 02:14 AM

"The government of Pakistan has been selective in its crackdown," said Haqqani. "In the process, there are many individuals and groups that have been acting on their own, and frankly, until all of them are treated as people who need to be eliminated, al Qaeda and al Qaeda linked groups will continue to survive."

I agree with Haqqani. Pakistan needs to crackdown more-so on these radical groups, but the government remains passive about it. Why?

|^| Well based on al Qaeda trends... they like to use bombs of some sort... perhaps their window of opportunity lies among port security.

Originally posted by TakaTiger
its not about the fighting and killing blah blah... but the whole "Terrorist" thing is gettin old... bush milked it way too much in my opinion

Why don't you tell that to the terrorist. Because I'm sick 'n tired of all these threats...

:grrr:

Whitewolf

March 2nd, 2006, 02:22 AM

you gotta remeber it the middle east we talking about.... not say the Pakistan government is not as clean as what you think they are......

yea hopefully the US ports would not be sold to that Arab company.. i heard from the news that the head of the company is related to Al Qaeda or have connections with them.....:gasp:

unregistered user

March 2nd, 2006, 02:34 AM

It is said that UAE had ties to 9/11. Whether they did or not, remains to be seen. Dubai Ports would give al Qaeda a persuasive element to play with.

Utora

March 2nd, 2006, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Whitewolf

yea hopefully the US ports would not be sold to that Arab company.. i heard from the news that the head of the company is related to Al Qaeda or have connections with them.....:gasp:

I heard they already were. The head of that company is right over there in the middle of conflict too. I feel Bush has made a 180? turn. I supported him up until a few months ago, and this is the creme of the crop. He might as well go, Terrorists Welcome! not because all Muslims are bad - but our main conflict is with them standing.

Xinithian

March 2nd, 2006, 03:17 AM

I don't understand what the point of us fearing a terrorist attack, when we have no idea whereabouts it is going to occur. If they released information like, "Terrorists plan to strike Los Angeles" or something like that, it would make more sense for us to know about it because we could avoid traveling to that area or make less stops there. However, if we don't know where it is going to occur, then I don't see what we can do about the situation.

Also, I don't see why the terrorists don't attack already. It's not that hard to plan an attack... even an average pyromaniac could cause a lot of damage if he set fires in CA during the Santa Ana winds, as observed in the 2003 fires.

unregistered user

March 2nd, 2006, 03:35 AM

*sigh* To answer the utopian inspired train of thought question you imposed KTL;

History proves that sadly Humans, and in fact all creation, needs war and disease in order to survive. That sounds crazy, but it's true. Otherwise we'd overpopulate. This is the reason why some animals eat their spouse after they mate for an example in nature.. anyway..

It's still sad, but there will always be terrorists, so long as their are differing opinions.

Juniper

March 2nd, 2006, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Nuka
*sigh* To answer the utopian inspired train of thought question you imposed KTL;

History proves that sadly Humans, and in fact all creation, needs war and disease in order to survive. That sounds crazy, but it's true. Otherwise we'd overpopulate. This is the reason why some animals eat their spouse after they mate for an example in nature.. anyway..

It's still sad, but there will always be terrorists, so long as their are differing opinions.

That is in no way a justification for war; though I feel war may be necessary at times, I don't think the necessity of it depends upon overpopulation. I personally think that takes war out of the cruel context that it is and makes it seem like spring cleaning or something; war is a barbaric and horrid thing and should never, under any circumstances, be treated otherwise. I realize it's not going to go away any time soon, and there are some cases (especially self-defense) when it is necessary, but I also think it should never be thought of as a form of population control, nor justified as such.

Kovu The Lion

March 2nd, 2006, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Nuka
*sigh* To answer the utopian inspired train of thought question you imposed KTL;

History proves that sadly Humans, and in fact all creation, needs war and disease in order to survive. That sounds crazy, but it's true. Otherwise we'd overpopulate. This is the reason why some animals eat their spouse after they mate for an example in nature.. anyway..

It's still sad, but there will always be terrorists, so long as their are differing opinions.

Sadly its true :( *yipps* >>..

Hmm well, upon this whole thing. I think Bush has done the best he can, and has done whatever possible he can do. People say he's gone to far, and people say he isn't doing enough. What I say is

What the heck would you do if you were him?
And most of them say
"I dont really know."

Bush has done all he can about the terrorist stuff, but one thing I don't see right is how everyone is attacking America. Sure we are good people (Some not all) but.. I have yet to figure out why Iraqians attacked us in the first place, and still continue wishing to attack us (If this question has been answered on the news, it would be awesome if you could tell me that ;P)

~KTL~

lion_roog

March 2nd, 2006, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion

Sure we are good people (Some not all) but.. I have yet to figure out why Iraqians attacked us in the first place, and still continue wishing to attack us (If this question has been answered on the news, it would be awesome if you could tell me that ;P)

~KTL~

I believe the answer you seek may be in America's Track record when it comes to its dealings with many nations across the world. In many instances that is not the driving force behind an attack, but it sure does influence the energy of hatred in regions. In the middle east the United States has been a major presence since Israel became a State in 1948. Isreal and America are linked in the eyes of the populace of the Middle East, and to many Arabs, Isreal represents injustice and invasion. Not just because of its existance, but by some of the methods used to obtain its existance. Another major mark is the Iran-Contra affair which was not a good point in United States relations with the Middle East.

unregistered user

March 2nd, 2006, 04:38 AM

I'm not saying it justifies war Pnt, not in the slightest, just saying that it is a neccesity for life to move on. As morbid as it might seem, you can't deny it, to do so would be to turn your back on history, science, and even mathematics in a sense.

In a utopian society (which is impossible on Earth, no matter how hard we want it), we wouldn't have war, and everything would be perfect. This isn't perfect *inserts lame Walgreen's commercial here*

However, that doesn't mean that we can not strive for it, striving for anything is always a possibility, just not neccasarily probable, such in this case.

Sombolia

March 2nd, 2006, 04:55 AM

*breaks out the anti-war music* Free nachos in the bomb shelter!

Originally posted by Nuka
History proves that sadly Humans, and in fact all creation, needs war and disease in order to survive.

How is that? (Not trying to be mean, I'm curious.)

unregistered user

March 2nd, 2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by lion_roog
I believe the answer you seek may be in America's Track record when it comes to its dealings with many nations across the world.

And there lies our BIGGEST problem. Our diplomacy. The fabric of peace and war alike. Once it starts, it never ends... The United States is the centerfold of the world today. Being diplomatic has a great responsibility; from negotiating peace to ending a war. Terrorist are just the opposite; they'd like to throw us a monkey wrench, just to see us react to it. But what are they really fighting for, I bet they don't even know ... Supremacy? Hardly. Destruction? Absolutely. As long as there is a fight to be fought, there will always be a war to be won....

Kovu The Lion

March 2nd, 2006, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Nuka

History proves that sadly Humans, and in fact all creation, needs war and disease in order to survive. That sounds crazy, but it's true. Otherwise we'd overpopulate. This is the reason why some animals eat their spouse after they mate for an example in nature.. anyway..

To answer that Somby ;P

Sombolia

March 2nd, 2006, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
To answer that Somby ;P

Oh, aha, sorry -- shoulda made that clearer. Er, I got the overpopulation part, but how does history prove this?

unregistered user

March 2nd, 2006, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Sombolia
How is that? (Not trying to be mean, I'm curious.)

Well, as pointed out one example is Overpopulation. All species do indeed cut their numbers, including humans. We don't do it for overpopulation, no creature does (to my knowledge) but it does accomplish this nonetheless.

Another explanation would be the pure simple facts that there has always been some kind of fighting all through history. Whether political, religious, etc.. etc..

History also shows that people have always had differing opinions (Plato & Aristotle, Caesar & Brutus, Jesus and the Jewish High Court, Luther & the Catholic Church, Israel & Palestine, Allies & Axis...). The only way war could end is if everyone had like minds, which if done would have to be forced upon folks, and those that still disagreed would be eliminated, and thus a war between that idea even could break out..

Humanity needs it *shrugs* That's probably not the best explanation, but I'm quite tired today, forgive my poor skills.

lion_roog

March 2nd, 2006, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Sonkakee
And there lies our BIGGEST problem. Our diplomacy. The fabric of peace and war alike. Once it starts, it never ends... The United States is the centerfold of the world today. Being diplomatic has a great responsibility; from negotiating peace to ending a war. Terrorist are just the opposite; they'd like to throw us a monkey wrench, just to see us react to it. But what are they really fighting for, I bet they don't even know ... Supremacy? Hardly. Destruction? Absolutely. As long as there is a fight to be fought, there will always be a war to be won....

True, even the presence of a foreign nation, no matter who it is, will stir up resentment among some people...even if it doesn't lead to an extreme like acts of terrorism. But with my previous statement I was referring moreso to the United State's ability to use its power to obtain what it wants...even if that means invading a country or overthrowing a democratic government to replace it with one (not always democratic, to my knowledge) that is more friendly to the United States politically, economically, etc. Acts such as The Bay of Pigs, The Bay of Tonkin, and the Iran-Contra Affair show that the United States doesn't always play nice to get what it wants. I'm not saying that the US is bad or anything, just that it will abuse the power it has when the people leading the country feel the need to. And acts like that will lead to a lot of resentment in the parts of the world that they happen...especially a part like the Middle East where tensions in the area have a history of being rather high.

LoneStar

March 2nd, 2006, 07:17 AM

Its at times like this im glad to be British.

Juniper

March 2nd, 2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Nuka

Humanity needs it *shrugs* That's probably not the best explanation, but I'm quite tired today, forgive my poor skills.

I'm sorry, but to say humanity needs war is in of itself in humane. Every life on earth has significance, to say it's necessary that these lives be taken to make room for others is just wrong. War is horrendous; people, usually young men, are horribly disfigured, have limbs ripped off, skin burned off, their body torn apart, and die in ways that just aren't comphrehendable. It'll be a cold day in Hell when I shrug off war as anything but barbaric, cruel, and something that needs to be avoided through any possible means known to man; when all those means have been exhausted, and every single attempt has been made to avoid it (and thus, it's unavoidable to go to war), even then neither science nor history nor religion can add an ounce of good to it because of "Overpopulation". I cannot look at humanity as a bush that needs periodic pruning to survive, because I look at every individual instead of the humans species as a whole; that may be idealistic or misinformed, but given the choice, I'd rather live in my ignorance than accept war as something humanity needs.

Only-now

March 2nd, 2006, 02:55 PM

I am not going to type a long post, but I can say a few things.

War IS more complex than it seems, so you CAN look at it on different levels. There is the horrendous, reality of it, there is the political essence, the natural one, the emotional level etc. Nuka and your views are not opposing one, they are just different levels of the same "object" .

Secondly, just a word thing to clear up. Iraq has nothing to do with this thread because the terrorists were attacking us LONG before we went to Iraq. So, being there has nothing to do with it (not to mention the Iraqi people DO want us there), and secondly, it wasn't Iraqis who attacked us in any instance here. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, and that article mentioned no one other than Pakistani terrorists.

Just some things I wanted to point out.

~Kiva

unregistered user

March 2nd, 2006, 04:37 PM

Thanks for the clear up Kiva.

And Pnt, as I stated before, I hate war as much as you do, I don't agree with it nor like it. But if you deny that it is neccasary, then you are living in ignorance (no offense). I mean,s ure we don't want war, but it's an evil that we have to live with, just like disease. We'll never be able to get rid of all disease nor war.

*sigh* That's all I have to say really =/

Muruwa

March 2nd, 2006, 11:01 PM

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the religious justification terrorists use? I had been taught that the Muslim religion was suppose to be one of peace (I never went too into depth with it, it was just a 7th grade history class XD ). I can't imagine what you would have to do to convince yourself that killing yourself while killing others would be a good thing...

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 3rd, 2006, 01:38 AM

First of all Iraq has a lot to do with this whole topic...without 9/11 Bush wouldn't have had ANY justification to start his onslaught on Saddam (let's face it, 'war' is hardly the word). It's obvious they couldn't care less about the population - their early troop policy of killing anything that moved proves that - it was all about a political show of force, with some oil reserves thrown in for good measure. (By the way, I don't blame any of the troops in any of this, it's not their fault they're out there and we must support them now that they are).

As for the war debate it can be exampled fairly simply...think of a playground. Children of about 7 are mankind in its most basic form, old enough to know what they're doing, but still not connected with the trappings of adult life. (Incidentally, they still rank slightly higher than Bush on the sense-o-meter). In an environment such as that we see that some kids will be bigger and stronger, and take advantage of that. Some kids will form rivalries, or simply not get on, and start fights because of this...but the majority of kids will just stand at the side; sit on the fence and generally watch whats going on safe in the knowledge it isn't happening to them.

Exactly the same rules apply in an adult context, such as the politics of independent nations. They like to make their own justifications to themselves but essentially they're playing classroom games in adult shoes.

Terrorism has been around for thousands of years. It's only because it's affecting the USA and the fact we have such a media driven culture here in 'the West' that everyone's kicking up such a fuss about it. Plus why is it always Al Qaeda? Why does nobody ever mention the many other terrorist groups currently posing a threat to the world's population? Groups like Hamas, ETA and the Real IRA are just as dangerous...potentially more so, as they're actually carrying out attacks instead of just threatening to.

Anyway, sleep tight everybody!
:-)

Xinithian

March 3rd, 2006, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by LoneStar
Its at times like this im glad to be British. You guys definetly aren't safe from terrorist threats, either. There were those subway bombings, not too long ago...

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
It's obvious they couldn't care less about the population - their early troop policy of killing anything that moved proves that -:-) There was a policy like that? Where did you hear this? Also, though it connects to our invasion over there, probably about 75% or more of the civilian casualties resulted from insurgent bombings than US forces... Of course, it's still unjustified, and we're responsible for the consequences of removing a political power over there, but it's not entirely our fault for all of the civilian casualties. If there weren't the insurgents, the casualty count would be somewhere in the 5 digits or less.

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 3rd, 2006, 02:46 AM

I heard it from interviews with soldiers relating to the orders they had been given. They admitted it was attributed to a fear of the unknown as in every house and behind every corner there could have been someone with an AK-47. As I stated I don't blame the soldiers for any of this, they're just following orders. That is, with the possible exception of the small minority who have been found to have been mistreating the Iraqi Prisoners of War, there can be no justification for that.

Sombolia

March 3rd, 2006, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by LoneStar
Its at times like this im glad to be British.

Heh, thanks for the support, there. I didn't see anyone in the thread about the London bombings go, "It's at times like these, I'm glad to be American."

lion_roog

March 3rd, 2006, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer

Terrorism has been around for thousands of years. It's only because it's affecting the USA and the fact we have such a media driven culture here in 'the West' that everyone's kicking up such a fuss about it. Plus why is it always Al Qaeda? Why does nobody ever mention the many other terrorist groups currently posing a threat to the world's population? Groups like Hamas, ETA and the Real IRA are just as dangerous...potentially more so, as they're actually carrying out attacks instead of just threatening to.

The reason terrorism is such a big deal now in the media stemming from the attacks on America is because America was thought to be untouchable in her homeland. The last major terrorist events in America before 9-11 was the failed WTC bombings in 1993 and the Oklahoma Bombing...also the Atlanta Olympics one, too. Many countries also have ties with America. I don't think you can find a country as diversified as America.

And Al Qaeda is world wide. The others you mentioned are local terrorist groups, affecting mainly the places they are based. And, to my knowledge, the ETA stopped commiting terrorist acts several years ago.

Whitewolf

March 3rd, 2006, 03:46 AM

LOL I SAY SENT IN SARABI TO EAT THEM ALL WHOLE :D

Well it messy over there and i still think it only going get worst before it going get better...

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 3rd, 2006, 05:19 AM

ETA are still carrying out quite regular attacks but I don't think people are hearing much about them because of all the media coverage given to Al Qaeda. The definition of local terrorists can be questioned as well, didn't all the 9/11 hijackers live and work in the US? If so, that would technically make theirs local attacks. But anyway enough of being pedantic...Al Qaeda incorporate more in the way of global issues but the principles remain the same, whether the people dying are American, Isreali, Iraqi or Spanish. I agree with the concept of putting a stop to these organisations, but the way the governments of both the US and UK are going about it appears to show questionable motives on their parts.

It does strike me as odd that the 9/11 attacks have worked so well in Bush's favour; many would argue that they are all that kept him in the presidency. All you ever hear these days are 'issues of national security' and 'in the interests of public safety' but really the mojority of the laws that have been forced through in the last 5 years serve little purpose other than to allow the state to keep tabs on your actions.

In no way do I endorse the actions they undertake but it seems to me that Al Qaeda is using its resources very well. Seeing as many experts doubt their ability to formulate a global attack strategy it seems their best form of attack is not physical, but mental. They are fully aware that the media is completely paranoid about another attack on the United States so if they release a new video every few months then they can keep the population and, more importantly, the government in that state of perpetual fear. They also have the upper hand in terms of location...if they were set in one place then America would blow them away but as they have many small cells across the Middle East they can give the impression that they are a huge global force, also helping with the fear factor. The greatest fear comes from an unknown danger...

Of course there's also the theory that the governments have deliberately created a media frenzy around the subject so they can get away with forcing through the aforementioned 'anti-terrorism' laws but that's a whole new debate...

lion_roog

March 3rd, 2006, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
ETA are still carrying out quite regular attacks but I don't think people are hearing much about them because of all the media coverage given to Al Qaeda. The definition of local terrorists can be questioned as well, didn't all the 9/11 hijackers live and work in the US? If so, that would technically make theirs local attacks. But anyway enough of being pedantic...Al Qaeda incorporate more in the way of global issues but the principles remain the same, whether the people dying are American, Isreali, Iraqi or Spanish. I agree with the concept of putting a stop to these organisations, but the way the governments of both the US and UK are going about it appears to show questionable motives on their parts.

Hmm...seems you are right about the ETA. That situation is kinda frusterating for me as I am French, Spanish, and Basque. But what I meant by local is that a local terrorist group is like that of Hamas and the ETA, they affect only the region they're based and don't carry out attacks on a world wide level nor do they have a world wide presence. Al Qaeda is world wide, they have a world wide presence, thus they affect a larger amount of nationalities and countires on a more constant level. For example, people in Brazil aren't worried about the ETA or Hamas...but Al Qaeda can pose an actual threat to them because they do have a presence there.

The 9/11 hijackers may have resided in the United States, but to my knowledge, most, if not all were originally from a foreign country.

I am no fan of Bush, the Patriot Act, the recent spying thing, etc...but I doubt that he had anything to do with 9/11. Now the Bay of Tonkin Incident was a setup to persuade America to enter Vietnam, and there's evidence to support that claim...but I don't see 9/11 with that same strength of evidence. Sorry for going off on a tangent, I'm sure you weren't implying that 9/11 was possibly setup.

unregistered user

March 3rd, 2006, 06:13 AM

Well... I'm not sure if the 9/11 terrorist lived and worked in the U.S. or not, but I'm sure of one thing; they were the al-Qaeda network.

...in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaida's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

The liberal media plays a huge role, Bush openly admitted that the media is so keen, that it has more gathered intelligence than the United States combined intelligence. The media doesn't exaggerate, it more or less exuberates itself to the fullest extent. It's the world's largest shared market in margin.

Now about eradicating the use of weapons of mass destruction. I think all nuclear States should adopt Japan's "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" pledge.

Originally posted by lion_roog
But with my previous statement I was referring moreso to the United State's ability to use its power to obtain what it wants.

The joyness of out-of-context-ness... But my bad, yes, our imperialistic, uh I mean our capitalistic/democratic venues....

Originally posted by LoneStar
Its at times like this im glad to be British.

I'm glad you're too, holla!

lion_roog

March 3rd, 2006, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Well... I'm not sure if the 9/11 terrorist lived and worked in the U.S. or not, but I'm sure of one thing; they were the al-Qaeda network.

They lived here. My friend's father built a house for one of them here in Tucson about 5 years before 9/11.

unregistered user

March 3rd, 2006, 07:18 AM

Those local terrorist groups ain't nothin' but a pie in the oven. The local government has the power to suppress 'em before they grow in actability. But why don't they?

Here's a fundamental fact: A lot of terrorist organizations are funded by governmental over-expenditures. The al-Qaeda network is funded by ex-Saudis and ex-Taliban officials. Al-Qaeda threats is something to take very likely, and it isn't because of media exposure, it's because of demonstrations like 9/11 and the London bombings that these people will stop at nothing to get their point across and it doesn't even matter who they kill in the process to get it done.

Kovu The Lion

March 3rd, 2006, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Sombolia
Heh, thanks for the support, there. I didn't see anyone in the thread about the London bombings go, "It's at times like these, I'm glad to be American."

*Goes to bump that thread up and say that* Well, technically it makes me feel good to be an American at these times, for people and us will get through this, and when we do. (if we do which we probably will) It makes you feel, Good. :P *Points to his Proud to be American Siggy* Owned, IRL xD!! <333

But the 9/11 attacks (old stuff) I do belive was not residents of the US, I don't really see our own people doing something that big, but i can see some probably doing it... However I don't really like the fact that everyone targets the US for some reasons, I've heard Bush say "we are targeted because we are a beacon of light, a place for opportunity, etc" But I don't see why we should be attacked, just because we are a free country, and a place of possibilities, if other countries want what we have, they should try to work for it. Like the fathers of America did so long ago.

~KTL~

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 3rd, 2006, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Al-Qaeda threats is something to take very likely, and it isn't because of media exposure, it's because of demonstrations like 9/11 and the London bombings that these people will stop at nothing to get their point across and it doesn't even matter who they kill in the process to get it done.

Ironically reminiscent of the political history of a country not a million miles away from this debate...
;)

Still it's not America's fault they act that way really, the British had been doing it for centuries before them...and the Romans before them...it goes on.

Anyway back to topic: I'm sure even Americans will concede that they had grown complacent with their situation as the world's only superpower before the 9/11 attacks. Where opinions differ is on their reaction when they did get hit. It was a sharp wake-up call and, I must admit, I can understand their actions; but still feel it was a bit 'knee-jerk'. Flying in and blowing up the few towns and cities Afghanistan has was a misguided approach, in my opinion, especially seeing as they didn't even capture Osama Bin Laden. That's not even to mention the fact that they put the Taliban in there in the first place...funny how so few American mediators mention that really...

As to Osama and Al Qaeda claiming the attacks...They probably did orchestrate them but imagine you were a terrorist, and a huge attack like that was being attributed to you, you wouldn't exactly deny it would you...? A terrorist's claim is not always as it seems. The media has turned Al Qaeda into almost a second superpower at times...or at least they have implied a similar sense of danger. According to the politicians Al Qaeda are a well-organised, clinical and professional terrorist operation; when in all likelyhood before their fame, and most probably fortune, they were no more powerful in terms of numbers and resources than Hamas or ETA. With this considered, it is highly possible that the Western media has aided Al Qaeda much more than they have hindered them. They've turned Western society inside out, with people persecuting all Musims and fighting amongst themselves. Perfect. We've all been there before as well of course...'Reds under the beds' anyone?

Juniper

March 3rd, 2006, 07:35 PM

What I don't understand is how the US is always turned into the bad guy. Hell, people nowadays think these terrorists, who want them dead, are the victims in this story and the big bad US came in throwing its weight around. That is how sick the world has become, that when "People" (of which I strain to call them) kill innocent civilians in times of general peace are considered the victims and the people that defend themselves from such attack are considered the bad guys. I know a lot of people do it to look cool, because they're different, and I know a lot of people are mislead by the media, but for God's sake, is that what the world's coming to? We have people who go out and blow things up or burn things down because of some cartoons in a Danish newspaper and the world sympathizes with them? Seems like all intelligence has been lost, and the US is becoming the whipping boy of the world.

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 3rd, 2006, 09:14 PM

This is nothing to do with sympathising with the terrorists. It's simply that the rest of the world has a very cynical view of the US. You mention killing innocent civilians in times of peace, what exactly did the US and its 'allies' (of which I'm disappointed to say the UK was one) do in Iraq? There was no immediate threat, whatever Bush and Blair may say, and they essentially stormed the place.

There are also many events in the past that have contributed to this oft-found worldwide view on America. Things such as jumping into other people's wars - Iraq #1 and Vietnam come to mind immediately. Plus you're going to have to accept that the country with the most power is always going to come under the most scrutiny and criticism due to the fact that you have to potential to kill us all on a whim.

Juniper

March 3rd, 2006, 09:20 PM

Bud, I was talking about a completely different subject and was not talking to you or about your post.

You seem to have a very very sick and twisted view of the US, which seems to be commonplace among misinformed people nowadays, as we are not some country out to ruin the world's day. The majority of the US does not like war, the people of society want to avoid it, and I'd appreciate you not grouping me in with the war-mongers. But, of course, arguing that point with you would be as fruitful as arguing with a brick wall, as I'm sure you're set in your viewpoint and no amount of reason could sway you otherwise.

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 3rd, 2006, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by pntbll248
Bud, I was talking about a completely different subject and was not talking to you or about your post.

You seem to have a very very sick and twisted view of the US, which seems to be commonplace among misinformed people nowadays, as we are not some country out to ruin the world's day. The majority of the US does not like war, the people of society want to avoid it, and I'd appreciate you not grouping me in with the war-mongers. But, of course, arguing that point with you would be as fruitful as arguing with a brick wall, as I'm sure you're set in your viewpoint and no amount of reason could sway you otherwise.

Well I wasn't aware we were getting personal. Shock, horror! ...that I should believe it's possible to have an enlightened debate on a message board without someone bring it down to into personal attacks.

Of course, it would help if you had actually read and understood what I had written; but clearly some people are just looking for an argument...

At no point did I say or even suggest that the American public were pro-war; all my examples relate to the government and the media. I also didn't state my feelings on the USA in general; I merely mentioned some of my thoughts on specific situations and offered probable reasons that may, in some way, support your theory that the world hates your country. Maybe you don't agree, you're perfectly entitled to that, but then it's your responsibility to respond in a manner fitting of the discussion. If we were in a high school playground then perhaps your response would be fine, but this is supposed to be an intelligent debate between mature people. Surely that's the very definition of a debate? Not everyone believes the same as you, though that may be beyond your realms of comprehension on the above evidence. I think you'll find my arguments are sound and reasonable; and at no time have I just been spouting off my "sick and twisted" views.

Far be it from me to question your, clearly correct, opinions on me...but perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself before you start launching offensives. I would offer this up to the Moderators as evidence of an unjustified personal attack but hey, life's to short to spend it arguing with people who clearly would be more at home in the classroom throwing bits of scrunched up paper at the teacher.

Juniper

March 3rd, 2006, 11:02 PM

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 3rd, 2006, 11:18 PM

I can see you had your reasons, not excuses mind, but still I accept and appreciate the apology. However it might be a good idea to avoid such heated debates until you feel a bit better about things. Subjects like this are very close to people's hearts and it's not the sort of thing to enter into when feeling emotional.

Anyway I hope things work out for you and you feel more settled soon. I'm sure the Mods would take your apology into consideration if they did choose to take any action.

Adrenaline

March 4th, 2006, 12:36 AM

Don't they always say they're going to attack? They never seem to. :\

Utora

March 4th, 2006, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Adrenaline
Don't they always say they're going to attack? They never seem to. :\

9/11 and then some.

Kovu The Lion

March 4th, 2006, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
Well I wasn't aware we were getting personal. Shock, horror! ...that I should believe it's possible to have an enlightened debate on a message board without someone bring it down to into personal attacks.

Of course, it would help if you had actually read and understood what I had written; but clearly some people are just looking for an argument...

At no point did I say or even suggest that the American public were pro-war; all my examples relate to the government and the media. I also didn't state my feelings on the USA in general; I merely mentioned some of my thoughts on specific situations and offered probable reasons that may, in some way, support your theory that the world hates your country. Maybe you don't agree, you're perfectly entitled to that, but then it's your responsibility to respond in a manner fitting of the discussion. If we were in a high school playground then perhaps your response would be fine, but this is supposed to be an intelligent debate between mature people. Surely that's the very definition of a debate? Not everyone believes the same as you, though that may be beyond your realms of comprehension on the above evidence. I think you'll find my arguments are sound and reasonable; and at no time have I just been spouting off my "sick and twisted" views.

Far be it from me to question your, clearly correct, opinions on me...but perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself before you start launching offensives. I would offer this up to the Moderators as evidence of an unjustified personal attack but hey, life's to short to spend it arguing with people who clearly would be more at home in the classroom throwing bits of scrunched up paper at the teacher.

Totally offtopic, but I'm here to defend Pnt,

This reply could be easily reported if you read it correctly as you have said..

If we were in a high school playground then perhaps your response would be fine, but this is supposed to be an intelligent debate between mature people. = put down = against rules

but perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself before you start launching offensives.
Sure its just stating something, but can be a putdown which = against the rules,

and to point out some things also on my point of view.

You mention killing innocent civilians in times of peace, what exactly did the US and its 'allies' (of which I'm disappointed to say the UK was one) do in Iraq?

heres what we didn't do, We didn't nuke there asses to hell is what we didn't do, did you guys not obviously know that was an OPTION to do so to just, blow them away? Yeap it was. SO I think US is doing the rightthing to do.

And you obviously put down and threw away american reputation, in something you have no clue of what the heck you are talking about.

Things such as jumping into other people's wars - Iraq #1 and Vietnam come to mind immediately.

If I'm right, It was President Nixon, and not the people of the United States that wanted to go to war. And half the people of the US didn't even know what was happening, and that Nixon and the government were hiding a huge secret from us until it was published in a newspaper, Get your facts straight before you post okay?

if you want to put someone down, or make points, or views that aren't right, do it somewhere else where their arent people who dont know what they are talking about. And if you want to get really technically about it.

and a little bit of advice

perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself before you start launching offensives.

Practice what you preach pal ;) Go ahead and report me for this, but I was only defending a friend. And if I get in trouble, at least I know I did it to help someone else out, and if I'm banned since I have no warnings. I know Lea isn't the place that you should really be.

With that said,

KTL OUT

Utora

March 4th, 2006, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
This is nothing to do with sympathising with the terrorists. It's simply that the rest of the world has a very cynical view of the US. You mention killing innocent civilians in times of peace, what exactly did the US and its 'allies' (of which I'm disappointed to say the UK was one) do in Iraq? There was no immediate threat, whatever Bush and Blair may say, and they essentially stormed the place.

((avoids war on thread))

On a completely different boat, I viewed your post. Because I'm going to counter-debate , it does not mean I hate you or do not consider you my friend. Friends should be able to have a friendly debate at times.

You point out the times America has jumped into conflicts, but let me point the times she didn't.

French Revolution, and WWII is a good two example. Of course when they claim neutrality, they're attacked as well, go figure. It's the World.
Iraq isn't a threat to us, or it's neighbours, but itself actualy. I admit, America changing their government may of not been all too wayso there. None the less I think they need a can o whoop *** on the lot of terrorists contributing to the horrors everyones facing. They tried attack our Nation a while back, then they dedtroyed the Trade Towers and countless people. They attempted to crash into the Pentagon. They've done bombing in other countries. They were caught with attempts to attacking LA. Ay which point do you think America should get involved? I say when they tried years back. However it wasn't until Bush came along that things started to happen. And just recently he is making a 180 on much of his beliefs so therefore I'm not too much in favor of him either.

I don't think the USA enjoys war. I think the terrorists do. It's all over their country. I think if the USA was what you make it to be our very country would be in a war like Iraq is.

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 4th, 2006, 02:23 AM

*Sigh* I thought my part in this debate had finished by now, I've said all I need to, but I suppose I must repeat myself one last time...

First of all, regarding Pnt. He has since apologised and I have accepted so I'm only going back over it to justify my actions; I don't bear a grudge Pnt. Okay: KTL...

I had just received Pnt's post, which seemed to offer nothing other than a personal attack, with little reference to what I had actually said. This annoyed me, I believe I'm entitled to that...and I feel I responded rather calmly considering my position; I simply re-stated my arguments...something I seem to be having to do a lot on here. If anyone did bother reporting me for the sentences you highlighted I could easily justify them by pointing out the nature of my previous posts and the apparently uncalled-for insults in the response from Pnt. Next...?

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
heres what we didn't do, We didn't nuke there asses to hell is what we didn't do, did you guys not obviously know that was an OPTION to do so to just, blow them away? Yeap it was. SO I think US is doing the rightthing to do.

And you obviously put down and threw away american reputation, in something you have no clue of what the heck you are talking about.

First of all, just to point something out, the last line could easily be considered a "put down = against rules". Anyway, back to your response...It appears you are saying the US did the 'right' thing simply by not nuking them. Have you considered the fact that they also had the option to not blow them up at all? It's like saying to a starving child in Africa "You're fine, at least you have legs"

If I'm right, It was President Nixon, and not the people of the United States that wanted to go to war. And half the people of the US didn't even know what was happening, and that Nixon and the government were hiding a huge secret from us until it was published in a newspaper, Get your facts straight before you post okay?

For the second time I shall point out the 'put down' and, also for the second time, I shall repeat that none of my arguments imply any pro-war feelings in American citizens. Have you actually read my posts? Just wondering...

if you want to put someone down, or make points, or views that aren't right, do it somewhere else where their arent people who dont know what they are talking about. And if you want to get really technically about it.

Exhitbit C, your honour...yet another insulting and unjustified comment. And what, exactly, is "views that aren't right" supposed to mean? Aww, does someone disagree with your views? Sorry about that, it happens. Oh and "aren't people who don't know what they are talking about" is a double negative...

Practice what you preach pal ;) Go ahead and report me for this, but I was only defending a friend. And if I get in trouble, at least I know I did it to help someone else out, and if I'm banned since I have no warnings. I know Lea isn't the place that you should really be.

Ahh now there's an idea, possibly the most sensible thing you've said in the post, I could report you. You're defending a friend, and that's very admirable, but next time...try not to do the very thing you're complaining about...just makes it look like you don't know what you're doing.
;)

Kovu The Lion

March 4th, 2006, 02:26 AM

BUt you know whats different about us Wew, I don't really care what you do =D

But the fact over you said you weren't "Pro-war" or whatever. You still implied upon it as that. And nevermind, This isn't even worth arguing about.

But the thing is I can go on and on about how you just offended me or put me down in that post you just made, meaning, Reporting me, would mean I'd have to report you, and it would just continue.. Till we were both in trouble! Wow a chain!

But lets state this also,

If you are going to have a debate, you are going to have put downs, and some harassing, and you are also going to have arguments.

So if you are going to report every little thing that offends you, Why the hell bother posting in a debate, if all that is going to happen is you ending up reporting for your views? Eh, sounds stupid to me but neither the less. Debates here at Lea are useless for some members are just "omfg, i'm so offended"

unregistered user

March 4th, 2006, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
It's simply that the rest of the world has a very cynical view of the US.

And it's very funny that the U.S. doesn't view the rest of the world that way. People wonder why the United States is so beaucoup frightened nowadays. Because we're on everyone's radar, and because of this; we have to be very skeptical about everything. You know what actually, I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us, because they don't live here, so how do they really know us. And vice versa. Because we really don't know them either. Unless you've been here or there, only the media will tell you what or what not you are going to know.

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 4th, 2006, 02:35 AM

FAO KTL: Ah yes, so now you don't care...one would question why you made such an empassioned response the first time around if that was the case?

Oh, and I'm glad to see you still haven't read my posts...if I implied anything it was that I am vehemently anti-war. Frankly I'd question the sanity of any human that was 'pro-war'.

Anyway I agree, nevermind...take your leave of absense from political discussion and we can both be on our merry way.

Oh, and I took your sage advice and sent a little report slip along to the mods...told them to go easy on you though...
;)

EDIT: Seeing as you did I thought I might as well...

I agree and have no problem with debate, it's when it gets personal that it becomes obsolete and the topic is reduced to the level of infants. Oh, and unless you can be reported for defending your arguments in a calm and controlled manner, while remaining on-topic and not getting personal, then good luck with reporting me.

Kovu The Lion

March 4th, 2006, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
Ah yes, so now you don't care...one would question why you made such an empassioned response the first time around if that was the case?

Oh, and I'm glad to see you still haven't read my posts...if I implied anything it was that I am vehemently anti-war. Frankly I'd question the sanity of any human that was 'pro-war'.

Anyway I agree, nevermind...take your leave of absense from political discussion and we can both be on our merry way.

Oh, and I took your sage advice and sent a little report slip along to the mods...told them to go easy on you though...
;)

Good job Wew, Do you want a medal for your actions? : )

Keep that up with the reporting, and soon, THERE WONT BE AN LEA. Jesus lmao. And btw, You can't go any easier when you have no warnings left ;) :p And why do I leave? Because I have a choice to leave and not post here if I want to, but now. I feel as if arguing about useless materials would be the best in my interests.

But ah you see.. I am now sad because you sent a report, and now I'm put down.. Should I report you also :(?

EDIT: Wow i'm a retard xD Anyways, I'm just.. Backing off. Congratz on the victory.

unregistered user

March 4th, 2006, 02:48 AM

Here, I will give Thorazine and a neuropeptide enhancer if y'all will cool it. :p

W-Eyed-Wanderer

March 4th, 2006, 02:50 AM

Just to let you know, I've been here for quite a long time and you're the first person I've ever reported. And even then I probably wouldn't have if you hadn't asked me to. The option to report is there for a reason, and I doubt the mods would see mine as unjustified.

Oh, and if this debate is so useless why did you come here in the first place? From what I can gather it was for no other reason than to start a fight with me...each to their own I suppose.

Anyway, I'm tired of this, if somone wishes to debate my views with me further I'll gladly do it over PM. I've stated all my views and I'm going to leave it at that. In the meantime I'll apologise for my part in the thrilling discourse with KTL that got in the way of an interesting debate...I'm sure it made great reading to y'all.

Kovu The Lion

March 4th, 2006, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Here, I will give Thorazine and a neuropeptide enhancer if y'all will cool it. :p

Deal!

anyways, I agree totally with what Sonkakee said, Though sometimes it may look like the US is doing things for very bad reasons (things in Iraq) Its actually for a pretty danged good reason.

If you look at us over in Iraq, our soldiers are not only fighting, but helping to rebuild the community. We even have PeaceCorps members out there rebuilding cities, helping the economy, and trying to establish a government in some cities and establishments, and some, thankfully, have been succesful!

So I don't really see why.. People think the US is such a bad place, and why we are just "Killers" or in other words, "People who do bad things" :S

EDIT: Wow, I'm lost now, didn't you just not report Pntball? :confused:
Also, I'm not going any farther than this. He asked a question(this is to the mods) and I'm going to answer it.

I came to defend Pnt in what he said, though he apologized, I still don't see why He had to apologize after what you posted in response to what he said.

~KTL~

Dare

March 4th, 2006, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion

Wow, I'm lost now, didn't you just not report Pntball? :confused:

Pntbll reported himself.

Kovu The Lion

March 4th, 2006, 02:59 AM

I see, Sorry about that then WwE, :P I'm a bit out of my mind tonight apparently >D And mmkay, I'm out of this off-topic/assulting/mauling/put-downs/reporting-people/thing lol :P

Back ontopic...

Wait, no point in me posting anything else about this topic.. I wont be able to see it tomorrow.

~KTL~

Xinithian

March 4th, 2006, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
If you look at us over in Iraq, our soldiers are not only fighting, but helping to rebuild the community. We even have PeaceCorps members out there rebuilding cities, helping the economy, and trying to establish a government in some cities and establishments, and some, thankfully, have been succesful! What else were we supposed to do? We overthrew the government and created chaos in Iraq when Saddam was evicted from office. It's not like we had much of a choice when it came to staying in Iraq... if we had just left Iraq after Saddam was evicted, the world would be against us. Besides, honestly, there are and have been much more needy non-Iraqi nations that we haven't helped. Why don't we do anything about the terrible events occuring in Africa, or parts of Asia? IDK how many Iraqis died from Saddam's reign, but 1 million people died in the rwandan genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) , and the US did nothing at all about that.

Aurelian

March 4th, 2006, 03:56 AM

Yes, Pnt did report himself. However, since I know nothing of politics, and both sides have saw their differences and apologized and forgave, I see no reason to take any action. I can delete the said post if Pnt wishes, otherwise I am just going to say good job to everybody for handeling themselves so well, and to Pnt, I have gained alot of respect for you for telling on yourself. That takes courage and a strong will.

Kovu The Lion

March 4th, 2006, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Xinithian
What else were we supposed to do? We overthrew the government and created chaos in Iraq when Saddam was evicted from office. It's not like we had much of a choice when it came to staying in Iraq... if we had just left Iraq after Saddam was evicted, the world would be against us. Besides, honestly, there are and have been much more needy non-Iraqi nations that we haven't helped. Why don't we do anything about the terrible events occuring in Africa, or parts of Asia? IDK how many Iraqis died from Saddam's reign, but 1 million people died in the rwandan genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) , and the US did nothing at all about that.

Like all people, The US is a person, if you wish to say that, if you called all the countries in the world, one person, instead of a thing that consists of people, you would see. That they are only "Human" and being human, we make mistakes. And sometimes, Humans are busy. But this isn't the case I guess you could say.

The PeaceCorps goes all over the world, its not my job to tell them to go to other places. But the main reason could probably be that, The US doesnt affair much with Africa? heck Idk.. Ask George Bush!

~KTL~