War on terrorism?

[foxer 0]

Do the U.S. Barracks bombings in Saudi Arabia ring a bell? The 1993 attack on the WTC? How about the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa? How about the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? The attempt to down a dozen U.S. commercial planes over the Pacific, simultainiously? Does anyone remember these events anymore? There was a clear and obvious warning that something BIG was going to happen (once again) on U.S. soil, but no warning was big enough for the U.S. and the Clinton administration to take heed.

Theres probably alot more too,Should we kick every middle-eastern man outta america ?

UBL is not fighitng for what the u.s. did,he is fighting for power.NOt because some muslim is getting his butt kick.He just using people in iraq and other countries as an excuses,to kill people.Because if he did care he would go blow up russia.

Wanna know why wtc was live on tv ? Because he attacked the middle of NYC,if USA goes carpet bombs a city you will probably see it on the tv,You probably also think that america is carpet bombing cities and dropping the daisy cutter on them.Because you suck up all that anti-america propaganda,but then you call america media propaganda.Whats propaganda to you ? Something that doesn't agree with your views ?

In america you can only serve 2 terms each 4 years long,he did his 2 he couldn't run anymore,thats why the vice president was running.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">n america you can only serve 2 terms each 4 years long,he did his 2 he couldn't run anymore,thats why the vice president was running.<span id='postcolor'>

I knew that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wanna know why wtc was live on tv ? Because he attacked the middle of NYC,if USA goes carpet bombs a city you will probably see it on the tv,You probably also think that america is carpet bombing cities and dropping the daisy cutter on them.Because you suck up all that anti-america propaganda,but then you call america media propaganda.Whats propaganda to you ? Something that doesn't agree with your views ? <span id='postcolor'>

Usama bin Laden did not attack the WTC, he might have planned it though.

What are you trying to say? What anti-American propaganda am I watching? Where did I refer to propaganda? Hmmm, please be clearer

Tyler

[Pukko 0]

Assault, I think he was writing to me...

As a matter of fact Swedish news broadcasts is not very brave I can tell. Back in October there was some critics, but most of the time they talk nicely about USA. I have watched Euronews alot the past months, I think they are quite neutral anyway (and is showing remarcable brutal pictures quite often I think; dying people and corpses where they are to be found).

But placebo (I think it was) wrote as if the ones that support USA was a minority - to me it do look the other way. Maybe not in Europe, but indeed in the USA. Most of my opinions are not direct copies of what is said officially, I try to put my own picture together of all pieces I can see. As if I were to be special for that - thats something everyone believes -that one have OWN opinions. As a matter of fact we are quite well socialised and therefore cant think outside our societies borderlines without a real effort. So the reason I am writing here is rather to get some new input about the situation - because I have an incredible hard time to just close my eyes for what i see right now, and would rather hate if it turned out that I'm blind, but to find that out one have to catch different opinions - and then if the only arguments popping up is the same as the ever repeating non critical telly broadcasts its quite meaningless...

[Wobble 1]

It cracks me up and makes me sick at the same time when people say "bombing is not the answer.. you just make them madder"

HELLO!!! they hate us because of WHO WE ARE..

they look at the US.. they see streets with 5 different religion's churches within 2 blocks... what do they see? do they see freedom of religion? NO.. they see s country that supports the worshipping of false gods. and they hate us for it.. because its not what THEY believe.

they see our TV.. with the hundreds of channels.. they dont see a vast and amazing entertainment.. they see usless 'decadent' lives.. and they hate us for it.. because its not what THEY believe.

they see muslims in the US talking and shopping and enjoying their lives, getting along with others... do they see a fair unbiased racially integrated socity? no.. they see a country who has taken THEIR people and turned them into EVIL CAPITALISTS.. and they hate us for it.. because its not what THEY believe

I could go on and on..

but the bottom line is that the US doesent have to do ANYTHING to make them hate us.. they hate us for who we are.. its the purest for of racism.. they consider they way we live to be an abomination..

and who are they to decide to kill us just because we do not live the way they like?

fuck em.. kill em all!

by all i dont mean muslims.. I mean the extreamist pukes like the taleban and al-queda.

[foxer 0]

wobble hurry,put your flame suit on.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Wobble, where did I say that "bombing will only make people madder"? I just said there was no real reason for it.

The muslim extremeists don't hate you for "who you are", frankly, I don't think they even give two shits about "who you are".

Just like with the whole Palestine/Isreal debate, both sides have done something wrong to piss each other off, you just can't blame 1 side for ALL the problems, it doesn't work that way.

The extremist muslims hate you because of what you do. Lets look at things from their perspective, shall we?

You support Israel (whom they hate even more than you) with money and weapons. You put troops and planes on the holiest possible land (Saudi Arabia) and have left them there since the gulf war. You faught to aid the "corrupt monarchy" of Kuwait, who is selling off all the profits of their mismanaged and limited oil reserves, which benefit mainly the rich. BTW, there was also a muslim extremist movement to topple the Kuwaity gov't at the time of the gulf war, so they were pissed when the U.S. helped restore the gov't they hated.

Don't get me wrong!, I am not saying that the U.S. should not support Israel or fight Saddam, I am just giving a few clues as to why they hate you.

Terrorists have demonstrated more than once that they CAN hit civillian targets within the U.S. If it was so simple to get in and kill civillians, why didn't they do that earlier? Why do you think they went after U.S. military targets and foriegn outposts instead? They did it because they wan't you and your military out of their land and their business. When that didn't work, they hit you where it hurts.

We other nations in the western world live much the same way you do, why don't they attack us to the same extent they have attacked you? They attack you because of your doings in THEIR land. If they hated us for "who we are", I am sure we would all be attacked.

I don't consider myself "anti-American" in any way, nor do I think that it was your fault for the terrorist attacks. We already know how the muslim extremeists are at fault, for spreading their hate propaganda to any poor muslim who will listen and CONVINCING them that the U.S. is the "great satan" of the world and needs to be destroyed.

All I am saying is this: They have their reasons, you have yours and in their view, the U.S. started it.

I honestly think that the U.S. gov't attacked Afghanistan to appease the American public for the attacks of 9/11. We in the West like results, and fast. The U.S. gov't attacked Afghanistan to make it appear as if they were getting "results" and when they can't accomplish those goals they set earlier, they widen them. Hence the "axis of evil" speech. I think you would be safer and better off if you captured suspected terrorists in your own country and tightened up the borders.

Instead of nabbing a few high profile guys in a country half-way around the world, you should be getting the guys who would actually commit the acts of terrorism in your own country.

Just my opinion.....

Tyler

[foxer 0]

Like i said this is all about power.

If the U.S. wasn't in the middle-east there would be lots of wars,and maybe not israel there.If we was still funding bin laden,he wouldn't never attacked us.He hates us because of what we do with our power, if he had the same power america has he would do something else with it ,i doubt he would do something good with the power.He also hates the USA because he got kick outta his home land,Why ? because he didn't want the USA there to take iraq outta kuwait,he wanted to do it with USA money.But the leaders of saudi arabic wanted usa help,he got upset and started to hate the USA and left to another country.

What kind of message would the USA sends if we pulled outta middle-east and don't fund israel ? The message would be if you killed 3,000 americas,they will run,and make a deal.

Like i said before if this was about poor muslim people they would been blasting china and russia for years.This is not about how many muslims die,this all about power and who has it.

Middle-east is funny,America gives like 15 billions (maybe more or less) to the middle-east,but yet they still blast us.They want us outta their country.My point is,They are using us,just like we are using them.But you people think we are using the middle-east.Soo i don't feel bad for them.

Other then iraq we really haven't killed muslims.

One more thing,Is bin laden racist ? What does he think bosnia and kosvo was all about ? Muslims.I guess he doesn't like white muslims.

[Silencer 0]

I'm more interested in chenuya.....

I want to got there myself and rat out soo rebels and kill cheuyas!!!!

BTW I'm russian

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh, come on silencer, you already pee into your pants when it gets dark and you got to bring the garbage downstairs. Keep on playing with yourself and the world will stay a better place.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 06 2002,23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Akira, youn put it all into a very nice English, which of course I cant cause I got a different linguistic origin. So let me put it in my simple terms: BULLSHIT(dont get anoyed, I dont mean it as harsh as it sounds).

East Germany fell because of .....well definetly not to the pressure of the NATO. Always sounds nice to put the word NATO when you talk about politics but in this case it is pure bullshit. I can say it because we were watching the great demonstrations and politicans every day during these days of trouble around Berlin.

The NATO had none, but realy none at all impact on this historical event,neither on the fall of the wall (which rather was an accident) and the reunifictation. The only time where the NAtO came into play was when the Sovjet Union stated that there would now be a vaccum of power between the East and the West. And Thatcher said that Germany only wants the the OLD-German-borders back!.... Anyway if you would be the USSR would you give in to the NATO?

If you want to discuss the formula, fine! It is not realy necessary but fact is that whenever a country gets poorer the more people tend to vote (or support) extremist parties. That is not assumption, nor a word-play of liberalism ..extremism bla bla... it is a fact.

Clinton was a good man!, he did not create a financial deficit! He was well respected in Europe. Whether you kicked him out or not, is not important. But the way in which the nation treated him was ridiculous. It is funny that the country with the greatest porn industry in the world (yeah!!!)has such a problem with a president who has good sex (and dont tell me this: no, it was because he was lying).

No I definetly do not insult the Europeans that died in a war, I insult the ideas they HAD TO DIE FOR. As I am of a german root you may assume that many of my previous generations have lost family members because of war. And they died for nothing! In WWII a whole generation of 17 year olds were wiped out. Dont tell me those farmers knew what they were fighting for. But I can tell you, they killed others without knowing why they did it and then they got killed by others that didnt know why they had to murder too. The Brits had to go into war, because Germany attacked them. For what did those british soldiers die? So please dont glorify war telling me they were fighting for something special. I am not a Hollywood-berserc. I wish you people would have to listen to that old stories from your grand-grand-onlces who were fighting in Stalingrad. Then you would probably spit on all those films such as "behind enemy lines". War is a dirty business and should always be the last solution available, keep that in mind. IT IS NOT A GLORIOUS MOMENT IN A SOLDIERS LIFE.

France and England STILL have a lot of experience in terms of international diplomacy. I am not talking about history here I am talking about the PRESENT. France is not a country positioned only in Europe, France is spread all over the world, the same could be said about England. And those are not ancient colonies, those are continuing relations.

But I have no doubt that you Akira have good senses for what war can be about.... there are just a few things I have to insist on.

Hey Kingbeast, you could perfectly work in a Swiss-embassy. I guess you know why say this <span id='postcolor'>

Well quite simply, East Germany and the Berlin Wall did not fall because of demonstrations around the "troubled city." East Germany fell shortly after the USSR fell, because of US and NATO (yes I say NATO but I mean the political structures of each member country...not the organization itself) diplomatic, and technological strategies. I can say it because like you I was there and also watching the events unfold (remember the Reagan "Tear that wall down" speech?). To claim NATO had no impact or even origins for this historic event is ridiculous. NATO and its diplomatic corps from the 60s to the 90s help lead the way for the fall of the USSR and its satillite states. Demonstrations look good on TV but have little effect on a communist Soviet system (Poland and 50s and 60s Hungry come to mind). It was DIPLOMATIC pressure for NATO members that brought the Wall down. The reunification was Germanys deal...not NATOs, and there NATO had no imput or control, and rightly so. Reunification was a European issue, and I remember many protests against it because some were afraid that Germany would again become like Nazi Germany (which I find ludicrous).

No doubt as a country gets poorer people vote and support more extremist parties. I only had a problem with use of "liberalism" in the formula, though voting extremism does not necessarily bring violence.

Clinton most certainly was NOT a good man. The problem with Clinton was not that he was having "good sex" which he wasn't. The problem was A- he was married, and B- he did it IN the Oval office. The fact he lied about it and tried ot cover it up only made matters worse. These are not the actions of a GOOD person. And he didn't create a deficit that is for sure, and he made a false surplus by eviscerating many programs and other budgets, namely the armed services and the intelligence community (original started by another Demo Carter) that many here like to continually bring up as "incompetant." Thanks to Clinton and Carter it remaind so. Clinton had numerous chances to obtain Bin Laden (after the embassy bombings), once while he was in Turkey, and thus prevent 9/11 and yet he didn't...for the sake of "international relations"...he never said with whom. And 3000 people died because of it. Instead he lobs a few cruise missles at some tents, like that was suppose to accomplish anything. Clinton was all about show and talk and what people percieved...not about accomplishment or the country.

And thank god for porn! HOORAY!

I don't glorify war nor do I think it is a glorious experience. But at the same time I don't belittle those who died either. Its safe to say I as well have had relatives who have died in war, and I can tell you they did believe in what they did. They saw destroying Hitler (not Germany....Hitler) as the "right thing" to do. There may have been idealogical problems for the Germans fighting, many being forced to fight against an enemy they welcomed, or fighting for Hitlers cause which they wanted nothing to do with, but don't blanket statement it for every soldier. Yes war is gruesome and horrible and an afront to civilization, but unfortunately sometimes it IS necessary, and most combatant DO go so willing,and sometimes even because they believe in what they do (as hard as that maybe to believe). My grandfathers have told me stories, so don't think I harbor any illusions about war as a shiny, sanitary experience. But the glory is there whether you choose to see it or not.

France and England are positioned all over the world....true...but Frances current system of government is younger than the US's....wheres the experience? The Congo? Algeria? Not good diplomatic experience to lean on. The only diplomatic experience needed from Europe now is their basis of third-party outsiders. England or France I'm not so sure of though. Remember Bin Laden was planning attacks against most European nations as well (except Luxembourg...I don't think ANYONE has a beef with them )

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @ Feb. 08 2002,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm more interested in chenuya.....

I want to got there myself and rat out soo rebels and kill cheuyas!!!!

BTW I'm russian<span id='postcolor'>

The first time a bullet whizzes past yeah you'll crap your pants and run back to mommy....might take you awhile due to the load in your shorts though...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

LoL

(and about your response to my comment: Good points, I wish there were more like those to be found in the forum. Of course we will never agree, or at I wouldnt admit it , but you (I mean I)gather ideas and that is what counts. (or to speak in sophisticated English: to broaden your views). A little milestone in between all those garbage-comments!)

[Akira 0]

Thanks.

Your comments as well are as enlightening. It basically just boils down to a difference of ideologies, and cultures I guess. Its good we can respect these differences without resorting to "YOU SUCK"

Now if only other can too

Lets face it...You and I are the ideal posters...hehehehe

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You suck! (just kiddin)

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 07 2002,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UBL is not fighitng for what the u.s. did,he is fighting for power.NOt because some muslim is getting his butt kick.He just using people in iraq and other countries as an excuses,to kill people.Because if he did care he would go blow up russia.<span id='postcolor'>

Nonsense. He's stated quite clearly that he's attacking America because of the presence of US troops in Saudi, US support for Israel and a few other odds and ends. If all he wanted was power, he has (or had) hundreds of millions of dollars, he could easily buy plenty of power rather than live in caves.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Feb. 08 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UBL is not fighitng for what the u.s. did,he is fighting for power.NOt because some muslim is getting his butt kick.He just using people in iraq and other countries as an excuses,to kill people.Because if he did care he would go blow up russia.<span id='postcolor'>

Nonsense. He's stated quite clearly that he's attacking America because of the presence of US troops in Saudi, US support for Israel and a few other odds and ends. If all he wanted was power, he has (or had) hundreds of millions of dollars, he could easily buy plenty of power rather than live in caves.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes,because we are in his home country,which he was going be in power(some kinda power) of, until the USA got there.He is piss about getting kicked outta his country.because he didn't want the USA there ,soo he talk bad about them.I really doubt it's about support of israel.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UBL is not fighitng for what the u.s. did,he is fighting for power.NOt because some muslim is getting his butt kick.He just using people in iraq and other countries as an excuses,to kill people.Because if he did care he would go blow up russia.<span id='postcolor'>

Nonsense. He's stated quite clearly that he's attacking America because of the presence of US troops in Saudi, US support for Israel and a few other odds and ends. If all he wanted was power, he has (or had) hundreds of millions of dollars, he could easily buy plenty of power rather than live in caves.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes,because we are in his home country,which he was going be in power(some kinda power) of, until the USA got there.He is  piss about getting kicked outta his country.because he didn't want the USA there ,soo he talk bad about them.I really doubt it's about support of israel.<span id='postcolor'>

Every Muslim extremist group uses Isreal or our support of Isreal as a rallying cry.

Though I suspect his motives are more simplistic than the US being in Saudi Arabia. He says that our "suppression" of the Muslims is another factor, yet he ignores the millions of Muslims living in America and countries (like Russia) that suppress or endanger (Bosnia/Kosovo) Muslims far more than the US. Plus he ignores our support of him and the Mujahdeen when Russia invaded Afghanistan, and again never threatens Russia.

I believe, as it has been said, it is merely a "will to power". His goal is death and destruction and unfortunately he is succeeding.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton most certainly was NOT a good man<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on,He wasn't that bad,plus it was just sex.He lied about SEX,SEX doesn't run america,we shouldn't care what he does in his personnel life.Bush started militay cut back before him,and reagon funded bin laden,Soo at the end of the day all 3 of them had something to do with the attack that happen on sept.11.

But don't you see,You may be for republicans,or democrats,but i'am not.Why ? Because they both will stab you in the back if you pay them money,They are not for us.We americans need to get off the idea of Democrats and republicans,They haven't did crap for us in the last 30/40 years (?),We need a change,That change is not a democrat or republican.Some people are Dems.,soome people are reps. Fine,but if you blame the dems. for something then your just blaming yourself , or vice versa.

Democrats-Little bit better then republicans,but not that far behind.Will stab you in the back for money

Republicans-They bring god in everything,i'm fine with that,But not every damn day.I believe in god.also Will stab you in the back for money.But theres alot more.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 08 2002,21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton most certainly was NOT a good man<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on,He wasn't that bad,plus it was just sex.He lied about SEX,SEX doesn't run america,we shouldn't care what he does in his personnel life.Bush started militay cut back before him,and reagon funded bin laden,Soo at the end of the day all 3 of them had something to do with the attack that happen on sept.11.

But don't you see,You may be for republicans,or democrats,but i'am not.Why ? Because they both will stab you in the back if you pay them money,They are not for us.We americans need to get off the idea of Democrats and republicans,They haven't did crap for us in the last 30/40 years (?),We need a change,That change is not a democrat or republican.Some people are Dems.,soome people are reps. Fine,but if you blame the dems. for something then your just blaming yourself , or vice versa.

Democrats-Little bit better then republicans,but not that far behind.Will stab you in the back for money

Republicans-They bring god in everything,i'm fine with that,But not every damn day.I believe in god.also Will stab you in the back for money.But theres alot more.<span id='postcolor'>

He was pretty bad. And as I said it wasn't just about sex...it was about his actions, and his actions were decidedly un-Presidential. And when you are the President you don't have a personal life...you are the President...you represent 240 odd million people, and they should act like it. I'm not attacking him because of his being a Democrat, though I will attack the Democrats tendency to cut the military. It's usually the first to go when Democrats need a budget cut.

Reagan funded Bin Laden true, but that still doesn't make up for having the chance to capture him and blowing it. Reagan had some terrible social program ideas. But I liked what he did with the military. Bush started military cut backs due to the short-sightedness of thinking the world was ok now that Russia was gone...quite naive. Plus in my opinion we shoulda pushed all the way to Baghdad...but thats just me.

I have problem with all Presidents, and applaud most Presidents with what they do, Demo or Repub....Clinton just has more bad than good. I don't blame nor vote for any one party. I vote for who makes sense (after I take their rhetoric with a HEALTHY dose of skepticism).

I've always said we need a Republican foreign policy and a Democrat social policy. And neither should interfere with the other....but thats a bit simplistic...there is good and bad in all.

And if I hear one more word about "God" or "morals" or "family values" I swear I'm gonna go ape shit and climb the nearest tower and start poppin' heads!

[Renagade 0]

Whatwas the russian v chechen rebels thing about again because i remember when it was happening that the russian were going to airstrike them but the US stopped them with threats of sanctions.

What was the deal going on there ?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Feb. 08 2002,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatwas the russian v chechen rebels thing about again because i remember when it was happening that the russian were going to airstrike them but the US stopped them with threats of sanctions.

What was the deal going on there ?<span id='postcolor'>

From what I understand....Russia said Muslim extremist/terrorists were staging from there (remember when the apartments were bombed in Moscow?). Plus Chechnya wanted to be independant and Russia said "No"...thus alleged extremist/terrorists went after Russia.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus in my opinion we shoulda pushed all the way to Baghdad...but thats just me.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, there are a few reasons that we didn't. Even though we could have easily done it.

I think that the U.S. was afraid that Iran might try and interfere if Sadaam was gone, by invaiding Iraq. Afterall, those countries had been at war for 10 years prior and U.S.-Iran relations have always been shakey at best or non-existent.

There was a resistance movement in Iraq that the U.S. promised support for, but they pulled out last minute and all the resistance leaders and most of the supporters were executed or ran out of the country. Anyone here recall the "Bay of Pigs" incedent? it was basically the same deal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He was pretty bad.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, Clinton was pretty bad. No argument there!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reagan funded Bin Laden true,<span id='postcolor'>

He also funded the corrupt "Government" of Nicaragua to help fight the Sandinistas who were trying to liberate the place from the corrupt "government". He funded them on the basis that the Russians had sent the Sandinistas some support in the way of cash and Ak's. What Reagan did was just stupid IMO.

U.S. foreign policy is screwed up for the most part, it doesn't matter if the President is a Dem. or Rep.

Tyler

[Silencer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 08 2002,22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatwas the russian v chechen rebels thing about again because i remember when it was happening that the russian were going to airstrike them but the US stopped them with threats of sanctions.

What was the deal going on there ?<span id='postcolor'>

From what I understand....Russia said Muslim extremist/terrorists were staging from there (remember when the apartments were bombed in Moscow?). Plus Chechnya wanted to be independant and Russia said "No"...thus alleged extremist/terrorists went after Russia.<span id='postcolor'>

damn right I hate american for threating russia for nothing doing airstirkes!

american can't tell russia what to do!

attack chenuya is the right way!

[Vir 0]

'Instead of assembling coalitions and battle groups to battle the "axis of evil" in the "war on terrorism" , they should be using the money to openly investigate their own orginizations for the worst possible case of incompetence in the past 100 years.'

I had to comment on this one becuase of your avatar :)

A lot of the terrorists that hijacked those planes were already known to be assosiated with al-queda(sp?) and got into america across the canadian border.

[Vir 0]

'Instead of assembling coalitions and battle groups to battle the "axis of evil" in the "war on terrorism" , they should be using the money to openly investigate their own orginizations for the worst possible case of incompetence in the past 100 years.'

I had to comment on this one becuase of your avatar :)

A lot of the terrorists that hijacked those planes were already known to be assosiated with al-queda(sp?) and got into america across the canadian border.