War on terrorism?

[Placebo 29]

Hmm have people not forgotten that only a few short months ago 3000 innocent people were deliberately murdered, not accidentally killed, not "collateral damage" but deliberately murdered.

I for one fully back the actions of England and the USA, of course it's sad that civilians were killed in Afghanistan, but there is a big big difference from civilians being accidentally killed and an act of terrorism solely designed to deliberately murder as many innocent people as possible.

Some say "ahhh but the USA's foreign policy" blah blah "political grievances" blah blah, and I say "so"? having a political grievance does not justify an act of terrorism, I'll say it again for those who missed it the first time act of terrorism solely designed to deliberately murder as many innocent people as possible.

The Taliban were an evil regime who bastardised a fine religion, turning it into an implementation of their sick mentality. The Taliban are now gone, how many lives has that saved? How many lives have been saved by the massive amounts of food and other aid now being pumped into Afghanistan?

But I guess none of that matters, nor do the 3000 lives of those innocent civilians, all people care about is being the "moral majority", well I for one say this, if I were killed in a terrorist act I would damn sure hope that my country would do whatever it takes to get those responsible and to stop such things happening again.

Pick that apart all you like, I really don't care, all I think about is that day, what it felt like to be sat watching TV, dealing emotionally with such an horrendous, callous, evil act.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 06 2002,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">10,000 people died from "us preasence" well guess what shitheel, according to all the UN about 70,000 people PER YEAR had been died in Afganistan since the taleban took power..<span id='postcolor'>

The same American-supported Taliban who Bush gave $34,000,000 to early last year? The same Taliban who saved Afghanistan from the predatory Northern Alliance warlords and perpetual civil war? You mean that Taliban?

Now personally I'd hate to live in a country they controlled, but claiming that all the evil in Afghanistan is due to the Taliban is historical revisionism taken to its heights. Afghanistan was a poor but mostly functional nation until America and Russia decided to fight a war by proxy there, and between the Russian withdrawal and the rise of the Taliban, it was in a state of civil war between the warlords who raped, plundered and murdered at will, which is why so many people in the West welcomed the Taliban when they took over.

Americans and Russians created the chaos in that country through their own interference: so it's extremely hypocritical for Americans to now turn around and brag about how bad the Taliban were and how they bombed and killed innocent civilians in order to save them; particularly when it's descending once again into the same civil war which existed before the Taliban took power.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Feb. 06 2002,14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm have people not forgotten that only a few short months ago 3000 innocent people were deliberately murdered, not accidentally killed, not "collateral damage" but deliberately murdered.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, terrorists murdered 3000 people last year, but, assuming last year was about average and the common, everyday murderers didn't stay home to watch the news on TV, 15-20,000 Americans were deliberately murdered by other Americans, mostly inner-city drug dealers.

Would that justify carpet-bombing the inner cities in revenge? Sure, there'd be "collateral damage", but if you're lucky you might hit a murderer or two, which would be vastly more successful than the attack on Afghanistan, which has utterly failed to capture or kill any of the alleged planners of the WTC attack.

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Feb. 06 2002,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">which has utterly failed to capture or kill any of the alleged planners of the WTC attack.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm perhaps we get different news reports, I seem to recall hearing that Osama's second in command was killed in one of the air strikes?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 05 2002,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One more thing,if the terrorist blew something up in europe,who would they be calling ? That's right AMERICA(then england).<span id='postcolor'>

And the terrorists have no reason to attack any nation in Europe other than Britiain, because the other European nations don't make a habit of random bombing and stationing their troops in other nations which don't want them. Is it really that hard to understand that these people have reasons for doing the things they do, and don't just wake up in the morning and think "I know, I'll blow up Paris today"?

Ah, but I forgot, if you start thinking that way you start wondering if maybe it would be better to just bring the troops home rather than try to bomb the rest of the world into submission and invite yet more retaliation on yourselves... and that just wouldn't do.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Feb. 06 2002,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm perhaps we get different news reports, I seem to recall hearing that Osama's second in command was killed in one of the air strikes?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, they killed a few underlings, but I don't remember any claims that that guy was directly responsible for planning the attacks.

[Placebo 29]

He was Osama's 2nd in command, how would he not have been directly involved?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

This forum turns into "rage"-machine. I know that Placebo is here in this forum for quite a time now and he probably wont admit  it (cause he should not): All you people that come along with your simple pragmatic statements and solutions should have a look at what has been said in previous threads (like a few months ago). There we realy had "smart" discussions but now this place sounds like it has become a "Board for brainless Marines". I dont know what kind of education most of you "new" members here have but you do only one thing. YOU RUIN THE REPUTATION OF YOUR COUNTRY.

What the hell is that comment about: "You should take us more serious in the East, we got nukes and we are not afraid to use them." Oh, indeed, I take the whole Eastern Eurasia world very very serious, but that is not due to their nukes. The history of russia, Poland, the Tscheck Repubic, ...a.s.o has so much to offer and you tell me that bitchin: our nukes!!!

Is that all? What the fuck do you learn about your country in school.

And now a comment to this American dude! Showing your flag is not forbidden. But you should know that in an international forum this may imply a certain arrogance. Of course you would say that you are not the only one here in this forum that puts his flag. Well okay, but there is a slight difference, you reinforce your national arrogance by arrogant comments. The flag of the moderators dont bother me, cause they speak moderate, the flag of the finnish guys dont bother me, cause they can and are willing to make fun of themeselves, but you would like (and probably wouldnt care) to throw a bomb at anyone in this forum that does not agree with your "world picture" and so posting your flag just terribly anoys me.

"Well what do I care"! Probably not at all, but you are one of the types that ruins the reputation of your country. "Well what do I care?" Well ruining your reputation means ruining the support from friends (and other countries). But anyway, you gonna nuke anyone that doesnt like you! In a environment such as Europe, where lots of countries are very near to each other you learn that you should care about your neighbours (countries) cause otherwise this leads into isolation.

Fortunately not all Americans think like you, and fortunately there are many many to be found in this forum  (still). Why dont you spend a little bit more time making love to your weapon magazines and a little bit less in this forum. Otherwise we soon gonna have only those bad old "kill the ragheads" threads again in this forum.

Damm, it once was a terrible cool forum here!

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 06 2002,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This forum turns into "rage"-machine.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL sometimes that's pretty accurate, I know my lil rant earlier was kinda posted in anger, very unusual for me.

I guess some people can quite easily get past the emotions of Sept 11th, I just know I can't, never will, it's the 2nd most traumatic thing I've ever experienced, second only to losing my Dad..........

Is it odd that it effected me so? After all, weren't these people thousands of miles away, who I never even knew......who knows *shrugs* all I know is what my heart tells me

[Wobble 1]

And the terrorists have no reason to attack any nation in Europe other than Britiain, because the other European nations don't make a habit of random bombing

yea its safe to say most of EU is safe, after all yer right, it never does anything, it just sits there and talks.. then when the US or somebody finally does it ya sit there and say "no no, yer doing it all wrong" do it yerself then fuckwads.

and as far as "random bombing" are you daft? you really think the US just flies around dropping bombs on cities saying "maby there was a bad guy down there"? gimme a break.. ya remember somalia? how the US lost those people? you know why? because it decided not to just BOMB THE FUCKING THING because people like YOU would cry and bitch if some innnocent people got killed, so they decided to try and capture them insted... despite not having the ground equiptment in the area they REALLY needed.... and several people lost their lives because if it... oh well at least ya can it back and call them idiots now.. all for the better eh?

the motherfucking taleban set their command centers in the CENTER of civilian populations. they did if for an very simple reason.. because they knew that if ever anyone came to bomb them there would be no way possable to avoid killing civilians, and the sniveling pissheads would cry and piss on whoever did it.. so a murderous corrupt terrorist sponsoring regime gets attacked. by a country that it SEVERLEY attacked in a sick and cowardly way. and as a weapon it surrounds itself with innocent men, women and children not to protect itself but to make sure that as many innocent people as possable will die when they do.. .and you stick up for them? idiot. people like you are the reason terroirsts and killers use human shields.. because they know the dumbasses of the world will try and convince whoever to leave the terrorost or killer alone...

its funny the US supposidly kills 10,000 civilians (never been proven, all speculation and guessing)while DESTROYING a tyranical regime that murdered and starved at least 7 times as many EVERY YEAR and the whole fucking world gets all pissed off.

Yet noone made much of a fuss when the good ole soviets set up massive artillery setups and destroyed entire cities because "there were terrorists in them".. I guess thats different... it wasnt the bad US only the fair good natured USSR...

so many hipocrits, idiots and inept people....

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yea its safe to say most of EU is safe, after all yer right, it never does anything, it just sits there and talks.. then when the US or somebody finally does it ya sit there and say "no no, yer doing it all wrong"  do it yerself then fuckwads.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, that is abosuletly right. The EU does never do "anything" or something you call "it". No, the European countires dont do "it". Because "it" is nothing else than your idea of a perfect solution (the hollywood solution). Which does not exist.

Before you find a solution you need to weigh up Pros and Cons. But in the case of the US it does not allow this sort of discussion. And concerning "your perfect solution" I would shut up a little bit. Maybe you should not only talk about military support cause in concerning support the EU did what it could do. Germany funded a great amount of money to the victims of octobre 11th. And we all here gladly gave money to this fund. Germany was one of the first to rebuilt its embassy in Kabul, the Swiss-German Health organisation was the only in the world that remained in Afghanistan during the decades of war. Germany now trains the Police-departement for Afghanistan and rebuilts actively the educational system.

Maybe for you war-oriented people that does not mean much, but for me it does. I admire those social-workers more than any soldier (and I am not a bloody pacifist).

"We need to react!!!" for a European does not mean...today or tomorrow but when the time has come and the right solution has been worked out. Nobody here is against the US military action against the Taliban, but there is different ways of doing it. (the so called greyscale)

But I dont want to interfer your time-scale. Whats next? Iraq once again, Iran, North Corea, Somalia?

[Wobble 1]

Yeah, that is abosuletly right. The EU does never do "anything" or something you call "it". No, the European countires dont do "it". Because "it" is nothing else than your idea of a perfect solution (the hollywood solution). Which does not exist

I never said it was a "perfect solution" so dont quote me like I did.. and it doesnt not do what the US wants.. it doesent do ANYTHING.. sure it doles out a few bucks now and then.. but almost never takes a stand.. never puts its ass on the line and makes the decisions that have to be made..  people were starving to death in somalia.. the UN had declared it to be in a state of "Nation wide starvation".. EU waited.. waited.. waited.. the finally the US went in and TRIED to help.. the the warlord shithead started attacking the US troops that were protecting the food convoys (they had been being attacked frequentley) and thats how that shit storm started..

so basically the view of the "it" is that somalia was fine how it was?.. or just the "we have to wait a little longer.. maby talk to the warloards.."..

Germany was one of the first to rebuilt its embassy in Kabul, the Swiss-German Health organisation was the only in the world that remained in Afghanistan during the decades of war. Germany now trains the Police-departement for Afghanistan and rebuilts actively the educational system.

thats great and all give a few dollars, build a building or two.. but when the time comes to fight.. where are they?.. its alot easier to toss some money.. or send a construction crew.. than it is to send some mother's son/daughter out to fight some crazy bastards.. but it has to be done.. and it seems the US is the only one who will actually commit to doing it unless FORCED to by NATO.. then most of EU just sends a 'token peacekeeping force'.. save GB who doesnt mind kicking some ass now and then.

"We need to react!!!" for a European does not mean...today or tomorrow but when the time has come and the right solution has been worked out

yes.. yes.. always the time comes.. never now.. the time hasnt come yet... gotta wait some more... lets think about this.. hmm.. no lets wait a little longer..

Nobody here is against the US military action against the Taliban, but there is different ways of doing it.

what would be better? talk to them? people who blow themselves up next to you because they dont like yer lifestyle? people that kill people for going to school?.. yes they sound like they could be reasoned with..

or maby an economic sanction?.. yea.. 70+ thousand people starving to death a year.. lets block their misiscule economy..

sometimes the bullets have to fly and the bombs have to drop.. thats just the way it is..  if you think the US is so gung ho and shit to fight and shoot shit.. look at the COLD war.. for many many years we avoided a NUCLEAR conflict with the USSR.. and they made it VERY VERY hard to do so (cuban missles anyone?).. yet we managed to be diplomatic.. the US will resort to diplomacy when the situation calls for it.. with the taleban.. and bin laden.. it does not.

Whats next? Iraq once again, Iran, North Corea, Somalia?

depends.. IMO we left IRAQ too soon.. shouldent have left saddam alive.. go knows both the US and GB's special forces knew exactley where he was.. probably knew what he had for breakfast every morning..

as for Korea.. didnt they learn their lesson already?.. they would have to be pretty dumb to go acting up NOW.. the US doesent like NK but its not just gonna attack it for no reason..

Iran is on the same shitlist as Korea.. they know better than to fuckoff and try anything..

its all a matter of what these places do... the US doesent just go out and start these little piss pot wars.. but it wont hesitate to mix it up if it gets jacked with..  these little terroristic twats in these shithole countries know how patheticly sympathetic alot of the world is to innocent deaths.. so they make it as difficult as possable for civilians not to be killed if they are attacked... thats their main line of defence... they know that they have no chance of fighting the US or NATO.. so they make the civilian losses so unacceptable so pissers and moaners will demand it be stopped or not happen.. in a very real way the very people who cry out about the civilian causualties are causing them.. these terrorists are not THAT stupid.. they see the bleeding hearts and know all they need to do is make the other side kill a few civs and the they will get pressure to leave the terrorists alone

remember desert storm.. the picture of that dead woman laying under an AMERICAN CRUISE MISSLE... saying that it had hit her.. but when ya look close there is a small bullet hole in her head..

remember saddam saying the US was bombing "baby forumla plants" which was totally true!! on one side was all the equiptment for makeing baby forumla.. on the other side was a Serin gas lab.. they put the 2 in the same reason for the EXACT reason of being able to say OOOHHH LOOK THE US IS BOMBING A BABY FORMULA PALNT!! and of course the stupid fucking media took the bate and spammed the world with that headline.. then somehwere in the back pages it mentions'' "oh by the way.. half of the factory was producing nerve gas"..

the media loves demonizing ANYONE.. whats the saying "people like dirty laundry"?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Iraq has suffered a lot, but not because of the war, but because the strategy was wrong. You want to bomb that poor country once again? Once again? If it didnt work the first time, why should it now. Maybe we should learn to learn from mistakes. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with asking a little European country like France or the UK for "brain" help. Cause those little countries have centuries of experience with foreign politics in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. (before Bush became President of the US, he had only been abroad in a different country once, so much about international experience. Clinton however was a real man of the world, but that guy you threw out).

But of course a huge country like the US does not make a step backward in fight against Terrorism even if that step may guide poor countries even deeper into the mud. Dont you know the formula: poverty->less liberalism->more extremism->terrorism or supressive regime.  

One bomb will lead to more poverty and the effect of this, well look at the formula... It appears a bit to us, that you want to bob those countries untill they are no longer a threat to you. Then again you will live in peace in you superrich country ignoring world poverty. You wouldnt have given a damm about the Taliban regime if it wasnt them to shelter terrorists (you never gave a damm about the Afghans) so dont tell me you had a humanitarian purpose. Why dont you interfer when NIKE or GAP produce your luxurious goods through child-labour in Asian countries? Cause those moral-senses are unknown to you (or appear less important than national security). It is the first time that the US has learnt how cruel the world is around them.

Lets just remember how the Berlin wall fell! East-Germany was the part (satelite state) of the USSR with far the greates military budget. They were the first ones to introduce the newest Migs, and lets not talk about nukes. West-Germany was a rich country but with little fire-power. How did that wall fell (not only that wall, a whole country)? Through bombs? No but through a perfect diplomatic interplay. Now East-Germans werent terrorists, I agree, but the situation wasnt less threatening! All I wanna say there may be a solution for problems that may appear insolvable at the first place.

Yes we are afraid to send our sons into war, because Europe has lost too many gernerations in wars and in the end it didnt make the world better. Ask Isrealis and Afghans, they still didnt learn their lessons.

Dont get me wrong, I am not against Americas action against terrorism, even if it means war. But you cannot expect European countries to support you militarily if you dont also let them participate in the strategy-developement

process. We no longer follow the US blindly, for that the EU is too emancipated. But the "young" Bush government is not willing to let anyone give them advises ("we dont discuss when the issue is national security"). So when you tell us this: why dont you ever, why didnt you?" then there is a clear reason for it.  

Ever thought about the fact that you also could have been born in Iraq?

[KingBeast 0]

Well this is an interesting "discussion" though as an outside viewer i am noting a fair bit of biased opinions from you both.

I have to say though Albert, your points are more thought out and make more sense, at least to myself.

Wobble you have some good points, but mainly you are saying "Europeans are useless because they dont step into the slaughter first"

[foxer 0]

Why dont you interfer when NIKE or GAP produce your luxurious goods through child-labour in Asian countries?

Your nikes get made over there too,i don't shop at the gap.Plus it;s not america that is making those kids work there,it's the company and their gov't.I bet lots of americans be happy if those jobs came back to america.

Yes we are afraid to send our sons into war, because Europe has lost too many gernerations in wars and in the end it didnt make the world better. Ask Isrealis and Afghans, they still didnt learn their lessons.

america also lost alot of people in european wars.

I am not against Americas action against terrorism,

I don't think anyone is, but if you tell your side of the story,to support your views,i'm going to put my side of the story out that supports my views.

[foxer 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">Hmm have people not forgotten that only a few short months ago 3000 innocent people were deliberately murdered, not accidentally killed, not "collateral damage" but deliberately murdered.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, terrorists murdered 3000 people last year, but, assuming last year was about average and the common, everyday murderers didn't stay home to watch the news on TV, 15-20,000 Americans were deliberately murdered by other Americans, mostly inner-city drug dealers.

Would that justify carpet-bombing the inner cities in revenge? Sure, there'd be "collateral damage", but if you're lucky you might hit a murderer or two, which would be vastly more successful than the attack on Afghanistan, which has utterly failed to capture or kill any of the alleged planners of the WTC attack.<span id='postcolor'>

weird i didn't think drug dealers had tanks ,rpgs,others.Their are people fighting drug dealers and murders,they are called POLICE,COPS,OTHER

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 06 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has suffered a lot, but not because of the war, but because the strategy was wrong. You want to bomb that poor country once again? Once again? If it didnt work the first time, why should it now. Maybe we should learn to learn from mistakes. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with asking a little European country like France or the UK for "brain" help. Cause those little countries have centuries of experience with foreign politics in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. (before Bush became President of the US, he had only been abroad in a different country once, so much about international experience. Clinton however was a real man of the world, but that guy you threw out).

But of course a huge country like the US does not make a step backward in fight against Terrorism even if that step may guide poor countries even deeper into the mud. Dont you know the formula: poverty->less liberalism->more extremism->terrorism or supressive regime.  

One bomb will lead to more poverty and the effect of this, well look at the formula... It appears a bit to us, that you want to bob those countries untill they are no longer a threat to you. Then again you will live in peace in you superrich country ignoring world poverty. You wouldnt have given a damm about the Taliban regime if it wasnt them to shelter terrorists (you never gave a damm about the Afghans) so dont tell me you had a humanitarian purpose. Why dont you interfer when NIKE or GAP produce your luxurious goods through child-labour in Asian countries? Cause those moral-senses are unknown to you (or appear less important than national security). It is the first time that the US has learnt how cruel the world is around them.

Lets just remember how the Berlin wall fell! East-Germany was the part (satelite state) of the USSR with far the greates military budget. They were the first ones to introduce the newest Migs, and lets not talk about nukes. West-Germany was a rich country but with little fire-power. How did that wall fell (not only that wall, a whole country)? Through bombs? No but through a perfect diplomatic interplay. Now East-Germans werent terrorists, I agree, but the situation wasnt less threatening! All I wanna say there may be a solution for problems that may appear insolvable at the first place.

Yes we are afraid to send our sons into war, because Europe has lost too many gernerations in wars and in the end it didnt make the world better. Ask Isrealis and Afghans, they still didnt learn their lessons.

Dont get me wrong, I am not against Americas action against terrorism, even if it means war. But you cannot expect European countries to support you militarily if you dont also let them participate in the strategy-developement

process. We no longer follow the US blindly, for that the EU is too emancipated. But the "young" Bush government is not willing to let anyone give them advises ("we dont discuss when the issue is national security"). So when you tell us this: why dont you ever, why didnt you?" then there is a clear reason for it.  

Ever thought about the fact that you also could have been born in Iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

First I would just like to point out that we didn't "kick" Clinton out. We have term limits and he was at his...he couldn't come back. I would also like to point out that he was not an "international" man as you state. He was a draft dodger and the reason his entire foreign policy looked so successful was he gave in to so many demands, thus deals were made left and right, giving the illusion of a successful statesman (China is just one example). Clinton did horrific damage to our foreign standing and our internation clout. Clinton was a horrible President.

And I know a lot of people that haven't left their state or city or country, and they make sounder decisions and wiser comments than I ever heard Clinton make. Leaving your country has no bearing on your ability as a statesman.

I have no problem asking for European "brain help" (as you put it), nor does the US. But your allegory of "centuries" of diplomatic experience has little bearing in the real world. Your leaders don't have this experience and it is not cumulative. The leaders of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East are not the same nor are the politics, situations, or mitigating factors. I have no doubt that Europe has its fair share of brainiacs and elder statesmen, as all nations do, but what Marco Polo did in China has little bearing in the China of now.

Liberalism is not necessarily the correct answer nor the world solution you make it sound as. "Poverty equals less liberalism"? Extremism is not necessarily conservativism. Liberalism can form just as threatening EXTREMISTS as conservativism can. The correct answer is a delicate balance of the two. Not one or the other.

I don't buy NIKE or GAP shit. But many in America as well as Europe do, so this is not just a dysfunction of America as you make it sound. This is a world problem. The problem is not just American (and other countries) companies, but European countries as well, and the poor countries these companies exploit. Europe is doing just as little as America (though when it was discovered this happened sales- the American population indictator- dropped SHARPLY for both companies), and consumers in both continents continue wearing their all important pump up shoes and tank-tee's. I think this shit is ridiculous myself....but unfortunately I am not the majority.

I assume you are not saying East Germany fell with no US help or intervention, and that West Germany did all the work. It was NATO forces and German forces that protected Germany. You may have been a rich country, but the fire-power WAS there in the form of US forces, German forces, and a couple other countries ( I was previously unaware of). The Berlin Wall fell from diplomatic pressure from the US and ALL NATO countries. It took 40-odd years but it was taken down. All of NATO shares that victory.

Comparing the Berlin Wall to the present war on terrorism isn't even possible though. An immediate threat has been identified and an attack made on the US. We dont' have 40 years to negotiate this out while they send suicide bombers to take out building, nuclear reactors, or whatever.

Granted Europe has lost many generations in wars, but saying that it didn't make the world a better place is insulting to those whoe died. I think all thsoe that died fighting Hitler certainly made the world a better place. As for the Isrealis and Arabs....if you know how to overcome 2000 odd years of conflict I REALLY want to hear it. The Isrealis are not solely to blame and neither are the Palistinians...they are both equally to blame.

And I totally agree that Europe should not just go where we point. No one should do that for anyone. Perhaps a more international strategy is necessary, but they did attack the US, so telling other countries what we plan to do and when isn't necessarly required. But if we expect you guys to help, then yes, we should share and share our goals.

I think that is it...can't remember....AGAIN

[Pukko 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">This forum turns into "rage"-machine.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL sometimes that's pretty accurate, I know my lil rant earlier was kinda posted in anger, very unusual for me.

I guess some people can quite easily get past the emotions of Sept 11th, I just know I can't, never will, it's the 2nd most traumatic thing I've ever experienced, second only to losing my Dad..........

Is it odd that it effected me so? After all, weren't these people thousands of miles away, who I never even knew......who knows *shrugs* all I know is what my heart tells me <span id='postcolor'>

Few people in the world are indifferent to sep 11:th attacks and USA:s war on terrorism. Sep 11:th is by far the worst thing I have ever seen, but then I have never seen similar live pictures from for example Afganistan when USA bombed - those would probably be as awful... But even if such videos exists, we will never - or at least not for a long time - see them.

The arguments from many Americans are merely citations from very narrow and partic news broadcasts. Freedom of speech? Is that when no one dares critisising because of fear for losing viewers/listeners, or even worse when the government have great influence on what is alowed to say?

I do feel for everyone who died on NY at sep 11:th, but not more than I do for the Afgans that died in the retaliation - even if I have not seen many them dying. I have not either seen all the people that will die in the future before USA is content with the war on terrorism - Americans as others... As long as USA dont change their ways, nothing will stop further terrorist attacks, and US retaliations. Since USA is the mightiest military power around - what else can one do than use terrorism if one want to affect them? See the picture below for a parallell - In what way do the rebels deal with the, as they saw it evil, Empire?

The greatest problem we had with the Talibans is that they did not allowed a western way of life - all that we know of! Is religion criminal? They did interpret the Koran their way - and thought of western culture as bad for a pure Islam life. See MrLaggys post above for some of the positive things they did.

Wobble:

...terroristic twats in these shithole countries know how patheticly sympathetic alot of the world is to innocent deaths...

Like all us who feel symphaties for the victims of the sep 11:th attacks?

Yet noone made much of a fuss when the good ole soviets set up massive artillery setups and destroyed entire cities because "there were terrorists in them".. I guess thats different... it wasnt the bad US only the fair good natured USSR...

If I racall it right no western nations supported Russias little war on terrorism. As for Israels everlasting war on terrorism, the support is quite scattered. USA:s world coalition against terrorism will not hold forever either...

[Silencer 0]

during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @ Feb. 06 2002,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims!<span id='postcolor'>

Ummm.....ok....

I don't have anything against Muslims (or Jews, or Mormons, or Hari Krishnas, or any religion for that matter). I swear....talk like that....

And yes they are pretty much the same rebels the Soviets fought. Much of Al Queda and the Taliban and the Northern Alliance resisted the Soviets. Bin Laden first came to be an Islamic Hero through his work with the Mujahedeen.

[Thehamster 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @ Feb. 06 2002,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims!<span id='postcolor'>

You so better be joking as that sort of post is just sick. You’re the sort of person that gives the Muslims a reason to hate/dislike the West. Muslims are not evil or bad it is just a few that use Religion as a cover for their actions. It is only the dumb and ignorant that hate an entire race on the bases on the actions of a few

I do not hate Muslims I do not hate any race or creed apart from I hate racist it don't matter what colour they are I just simply hate them as they in my opinion are the lowest form of human life.

[DVII 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thehamster @ Feb. 06 2002,21:26)</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">during the afghasistan war did the soviets fight with the same terriosts as today? or resistance groups?

BTW I would love to go back to chenuya and kill some rebels and take there heads as metals.War in Chenuya owns die muslims!<span id='postcolor'>

You so better be joking as that sort of post is just sick. You’re the sort of person that gives the Muslims a reason to hate/dislike the West. Muslims are not evil or bad it is just a few that use Religion as a cover for their actions. It is only the dumb and ignorant that hate an entire race on the bases on the actions of a few

I do not hate Muslims I do not hate any race or creed apart from I hate racist it don't matter what colour they are I just simply hate them as they in my opinion are the lowest form of human life.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with The Hamster.

Many muslims live descently like you and me. Its just a small group of extremists that does the bad shit.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

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

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I guess I'll throw in my additional 2 cents into this matter again.

Akira, your earlier post in response to Albert's were my thoughts exactly.

Now, back to the matter at hand:

I was as horrified as anyone else was on Sept,11th but in my humble opinion (once again), the U.S. should have no need to even be in Afghanistan, allow me to explain. The attacks of September 11th were an internal immagration problem, not a military one. The U.S. is throwing their money at the wrong problem.

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.

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.

Usama bin Laden and various other terrorists had been suspected in those bombings but nothing was really done about it. Sure they arrsested a few people, did it make a difference? Yet 20 odd terrorists are STILL able to get through the border and commit their acts of mass murder. The U.S. even let Usama bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan, hell, as most of you know, they even funded the guy in the 80's.

IMO, most of this modern day problem was founded during the 8 years Clinton was in office. He slashed funding to the military and variuos other orginizations and polluted the military further with his PC bullshit. Do you guys know what the military was talking aboput Sept 10th? Well, there was a meeting discussing the rights and issues of lactating women to breast feed their babies on U.S. bases,.....seriously.

Well, back to my point. Bombing the Taliban and getting rid of them will not solve the problems of terrorism on U.S. soil, if you want to stop a problem in your country do you bomb and occupy another one half way around the world? There is no evidence linking ANY country with the attacks of Sept,11th. Alienating other countries to nab a few terrorists will not stop the problem. How can UBL or anyother guy do you harm if he is halfway around the world? They don't even know where Usama bin Laden is or if he is alive or not, what makes anyone think that they are going to solve problems by EXPANDING the "war on terrorism"? The best way to prevent future attacks will be by nabbing terrorists at your border BEFORE they can do anything.

Sheesh,.....

Tyler

[Akira 0]

Just a quick note...

I'll respond tomorrow...work is almost over and no internet at home *sniffle*