You are absolutely right TM.

When I meant winning I meant getting enough attention for their cause to become legitimate and therefore to start to get somewhere and eventually get what they wanted in the first place.

The child who screams and throws a tantrum, gets instant attention. It is imperative that anyone responsible for the child's upbringing and education, to qualify this attention in such a way as to ensure the child does not learn this is the way to get its own way.

As it is with a child, so it is more so with terrorism. We cannot ignore the inhumanity of terrorism, but it is more than imperative, that the terrorist does not get its own way. This is - and must remain - the case.

IRA, getting there, not yet, but the accords are there, they just need to be implemented.

The IRA has not its signature on the Accords. The Accords are a result of a political process, in which the legitimate political demands of all parties have been taken into consideration. That some political demands have also been identified with terrorist actions does not de-legitimise their value. Do not confuse medium with content.

Palestinians, same, the Palestinian state is going to happen no matter what. 2005 ? not sure.

If the Palestinians are able to declare a state, it will be as a result of the political pressure and resolutions of:

1. UN

2. USA

3. EU

4. Arab States

and with the agreement of the State of Israel.

As I said before, this state will not be anymore than that offered to the Palestinians in 1947 by the UN (which they then declined).

Terrorism will have gained nothing.

Mujahdeens  happened with the help of the west, but it was mostly the Russians incompetence that made the Victory easier. A repeat with the Chenchens ?

Terrorism does get you somewhere, and they know it. We have more to loose than they do. It's the poor man "nuclear option".

You are wrong. This is the assumption made by the terrorist and the political and physical coward. It equates loss of life with loss of principal and loss of right.

That 50 people lose their lives in London does not and will not make the terrorist right.

We win because despite loss of life we will never give up our principles to the murderers.

Those who argue as you do have already lost their souls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Doc I might winning, forgot an "n"

Butterfly-

The American Revolution was not terrorism. Where did you get that idea? We formed an army and took to the fields to face the British. The closest we got to an act of terrorism was the Boston Tea Party.

I shall quote my mentor George Carlin

"If crime-fighters fight crime and fire-fighters fight fire, what do freedom-fighters fight?"

When it comes to killing there are villians on both sides of the line, however, how one does their duty helps determine how one walks away from it with their honor intact. To say that the only option these people have in a day and age with the U.N. calling shots is to place bombs on buses and fly planes into building is wrong. Look how much support the cause to free Tibet has gained by asking people in America, Britain, etc: to put pressure on their government. The worlds sympathy is with the Tibetan people China will have to face this one day. These people with planting bombs in public places are cowards, their actions show no value placed on human life. They willing to kill their own people as well to accomplish their goals! &lt;deleted&gt;?

You are absolutely right TM.

When I meant winning I meant getting enough attention for their cause to become legitimate and therefore to start to get somewhere and eventually get what they wanted in the first place.

The child who screams and throws a tantrum, gets instant attention. It is imperative that anyone responsible for the child's upbringing and education, to qualify this attention in such a way as to ensure the child does not learn this is the way to get its own way.

As it is with a child, so it is more so with terrorism. We cannot ignore the inhumanity of terrorism, but it is more than imperative, that the terrorist does not get its own way. This is - and must remain - the case.

IRA, getting there, not yet, but the accords are there, they just need to be implemented.

The IRA has not its signature on the Accords. The Accords are a result of a political process, in which the legitimate political demands of all parties have been taken into consideration. That some political demands have also been identified with terrorist actions does not de-legitimise their value. Do not confuse medium with content.

Palestinians, same, the Palestinian state is going to happen no matter what. 2005 ? not sure.

If the Palestinians are able to declare a state, it will be as a result of the political pressure and resolutions of:

1. UN

2. USA

3. EU

4. Arab States

and with the agreement of the State of Israel.

As I said before, this state will not be anymore than that offered to the Palestinians in 1947 by the UN (which they then declined).

Terrorism will have gained nothing.

Mujahdeens  happened with the help of the west, but it was mostly the Russians incompetence that made the Victory easier. A repeat with the Chenchens ?

Terrorism does get you somewhere, and they know it. We have more to loose than they do. It's the poor man "nuclear option".

You are wrong. This is the assumption made by the terrorist and the political and physical coward. It equates loss of life with loss of principal and loss of right.

That 50 people lose their lives in London does not and will not make the terrorist right.

We win because despite loss of life we will never give up our principles to the murderers.

Those who argue as you do have already lost their souls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here I don't agree. The political process only happened AFTER those terrorists acts were committed. They were not LIVE AID or LIVE 8 to advertise their misery in their cause. It only happened after SOMEONE started to question the motivations of such desperate acts. The political process wouldn't work without the "ghosts" of terrorism in the background. This is the only thing that keep the pressure on the political process. Terrorists know that and it's one of the reason (IRA and others) they won't put down their arms until the last minute when an accord is ready to sign. To think otherwise is NAIVE to say the least because it's not how things work.

A lot of wishful thinking in your other statements above. Denying the reality of terrorism will not make it go away like magic.

Yes the attacks doesn't mean that the terrorists are right. This is irrelevant in this debate of who is wrong or right. There are only power struggles and winners. Might they be right or wrong or good or evil.

Hey Doc I might winning, forgot an "n"

Butterfly-

The American Revolution was not terrorism. Where did you get that idea? We formed an army and took to the fields to face the British. The closest we got to an act of terrorism was the Boston Tea Party.

I shall quote my mentor George Carlin

"If crime-fighters fight crime and fire-fighters fight fire, what do freedom-fighters fight?"

When it comes to killing there are villians on both sides of the line, however, how one does their duty helps determine how one walks away from it with their honor intact. To say that the only option these people have in a day and age with the U.N. calling shots is to place bombs on buses and fly planes into building is wrong. Look how much support the cause to free Tibet has gained by asking people in America, Britain, etc: to put pressure on their government. The worlds sympathy is with the Tibetan people China will have to face this one day. These people with planting bombs in public places are cowards, their actions show no value placed on human life. They willing to kill their own people as well to accomplish their goals! &lt;deleted&gt;?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irrelevant in this debate. Tibet is not moving forward. Nothing has been accomplished since Hollywood took over that "admirable" cause. It didn't stop the Chinese government one bit from doing their "reforms" there, they are just being more discrete when doing them. So in a sense, it's totally ineffective to "struggle" peacefully with a giant bully like China. This is extermly naive from you to think otherwise. "China will have to face this one day" &lt;deleted&gt; does this mean ??? They don't give a rat ass of what of the people in the West think of them and nobody is going to invade them or punish them over this. They get a free ride as much as America is "allowed" to get a free ride in Iraq for an illegal occupation (not to forget Russia free ride with the ChenChens).

Re: American Revolution

They were terrorists and commited acts of terrorism (The Boston Tean Party was only one of them). The Brits labelled them "terrorists" back then but were they really ? for the Birts no doubt. For others, freedom fighters, independentists. As usual the "bully" will try desperatly to "demonize" the ennemy when he can't fight a war.

You are absolutely right TM.

When I meant winning I meant getting enough attention for their cause to become legitimate and therefore to start to get somewhere and eventually get what they wanted in the first place.

The child who screams and throws a tantrum, gets instant attention. It is imperative that anyone responsible for the child's upbringing and education, to qualify this attention in such a way as to ensure the child does not learn this is the way to get its own way.

As it is with a child, so it is more so with terrorism. We cannot ignore the inhumanity of terrorism, but it is more than imperative, that the terrorist does not get its own way. This is - and must remain - the case.

IRA, getting there, not yet, but the accords are there, they just need to be implemented.

The IRA has not its signature on the Accords. The Accords are a result of a political process, in which the legitimate political demands of all parties have been taken into consideration. That some political demands have also been identified with terrorist actions does not de-legitimise their value. Do not confuse medium with content.

Palestinians, same, the Palestinian state is going to happen no matter what. 2005 ? not sure.

If the Palestinians are able to declare a state, it will be as a result of the political pressure and resolutions of:

1. UN

2. USA

3. EU

4. Arab States

and with the agreement of the State of Israel.

As I said before, this state will not be anymore than that offered to the Palestinians in 1947 by the UN (which they then declined).

Terrorism will have gained nothing.

Mujahdeens  happened with the help of the west, but it was mostly the Russians incompetence that made the Victory easier. A repeat with the Chenchens ?

Terrorism does get you somewhere, and they know it. We have more to loose than they do. It's the poor man "nuclear option".

You are wrong. This is the assumption made by the terrorist and the political and physical coward. It equates loss of life with loss of principal and loss of right.

That 50 people lose their lives in London does not and will not make the terrorist right.

We win because despite loss of life we will never give up our principles to the murderers.

Those who argue as you do have already lost their souls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here I don't agree. The political process only happened AFTER those terrorists acts were committed.

Not true. Take Northern Ireland as an example. The post '66 "troubles" began as a civil rights issue with elected MPs such as Bernadette Devlin waving the flag for the disenfranchised Catholics. A large proportion of the British public were sympathetic with these demands. Very similar to the civil rights movement in the USA.

Only when violence escalated and the IRA began its terrorist campaign did the attitude of the British public and government begin to harden.

Every political institution that could have been used to reconcile the opposing parties has been terminated as the result of renewed terrorist activities by the IRA (and later the UDLA).

The Blacks in USA have achieved their civil rights because their demonstrations were non violent (despite the efforts of the black panthers).

The Catholics whose demands were no more excessive than the Blacks in USA, are only now beginning to realize their rights because their political campaign was almost destroyed by the violence of terrorism.

They were not LIVE AID or LIVE 8 to advertise their misery in their cause.

Pop shows, despite their good intentions, are just like anything else "pop" - here today and gone tommorow.

It only happened after SOMEONE started to question the motivations of such desperate acts.

The SOMEONE here can only be the weak and the ignorant. The issues of every cause are known. And if you don't know about a cause until a terrorist action - the fault is yours. The only question concerning motivation that needs to be addressed is, how can it be that some individuals look only on their cause to such a degree that it, in itself, becomes a justification for the slaughter of innocents.

The political process wouldn't work without the "ghosts" of terrorism in the background.

This is BS. Politics is the alternative method to violence civilised society uses to allocate resources. The legal system is used to solve problems and disputes. There is no causal effect in politics to terrorism apart from the resolve of all reasonable people to see this evil eradicated.

This is the only thing that keep the pressure on the political process. Terrorists know that and it's one of the reason (IRA and others) they won't put down their arms until the last minute when an accord is ready to sign.

Terrorists know very little. They may be able to construct convoluted pseudo-political arguments justifying their actions, but these cannot disguises that a part of their raison d'etre is a lack of concern for the sanctity of innocent human life. With this premise alone, it is, and must remain, impossible to achieve anything of value.

In the final analysis, they are evil adult version of the school yard bully.

To think otherwise is NAIVE to say the least because it's not how things work.

A lot of wishful thinking in your other statements above. Denying the reality of terrorism will not make it go away like magic.

Yes the attacks doesn't mean that the terrorists are right. This is irrelevant in this debate of who is wrong or right. There are only power struggles and winners. Might they be right or wrong or good or evil.

Could you list for me the issues in which terrorism has won (apart from creating a generation of apologists as yourself)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Could you list for me the issues in which terrorism has won (apart from creating a generation of apologists as yourself)?"

K. Butterfly does not respond to specific hard questions such as yours, Thomas. It's all smoke & mirrors with the enablers and apologists...

Hey Doc I might winning, forgot an "n"

Butterfly-

The American Revolution was not terrorism. Where did you get that idea? We formed an army and took to the fields to face the British. The closest we got to an act of terrorism was the Boston Tea Party.

I shall quote my mentor George Carlin

"If crime-fighters fight crime and fire-fighters fight fire, what do freedom-fighters fight?"

When it comes to killing there are villians on both sides of the line, however, how one does their duty helps determine how one walks away from it with their honor intact. To say that the only option these people have in a day and age with the U.N. calling shots is to place bombs on buses and fly planes into building is wrong. Look how much support the cause to free Tibet has gained by asking people in America, Britain, etc: to put pressure on their government. The worlds sympathy is with the Tibetan people China will have to face this one day. These people with planting bombs in public places are cowards, their actions show no value placed on human life. They willing to kill their own people as well to accomplish their goals! &lt;deleted&gt;?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irrelevant in this debate. Tibet is not moving forward. Nothing has been accomplished since Hollywood took over that "admirable" cause. It didn't stop the Chinese government one bit from doing their "reforms" there, they are just being more discrete when doing them. So in a sense, it's totally ineffective to "struggle" peacefully with a giant bully like China. This is extermly naive from you to think otherwise. "China will have to face this one day" &lt;deleted&gt; does this mean ??? They don't give a rat ass of what of the people in the West think of them and nobody is going to invade them or punish them over this. They get a free ride as much as America is "allowed" to get a free ride in Iraq for an illegal occupation (not to forget Russia free ride with the ChenChens).

Re: American Revolution

They were terrorists and commited acts of terrorism (The Boston Tean Party was only one of them). The Brits labelled them "terrorists" back then but were they really ? for the Birts no doubt. For others, freedom fighters, independentists. As usual the "bully" will try desperatly to "demonize" the ennemy when he can't fight a war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's simple enough english Butterfly, what is so confusing? Japan is being forced right now to take another look at it's war crimes commited during WW II because Korean and Chinese citizens are protesting and getting media attention. The same governments are also appling pressure, mostly through trade agreements.

If the pressure stays on China, which from what I can tell the U.N. does a pretty good job of, they will have to do something about. If the nonviolent path is the path the people want to follow the honorable thing to do would be to attack the government that is oppressing them, not the guy on the bus going to work, or the lady who owns the local market.

These terrorist are engaging in hate crimes on a most epic scale. I should that the terroist leaders are doing this, for they use the poor and uneducated, or the weak minded, to do their dirty work. You don't see them walking in to town with C4 duct taped to their body. They are all old with white hair, some maytars.

Could you list for me the issues in which terrorism has won (apart from creating a generation of apologists as yourself)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with some of your conclusions BUT not with your explanation. Yes the political process is the way to go and using existing political institutions to solve those issues is the best route. But this is Theory. It doesn't work like that in the real world.

I am not an apologist of terrorism, I am just trying to understand why it happens. And I want to find "reasons" to end it. All I see is repeat of the same mistakes during or BEFORE the political process that triggers terrorism. From your statements above, you seem to imply that the terrorists have other alternatives. But they don't and that's the problem. If the early political process doesn't give them some of their key demands, and the bully opponent doesn't want to yield, then "terrorism" happens. How can we solve this before it happens ? How can we avoid it ? it's a power struggle. Both sides will revert to violence. It gets dirty quickly and both sides are guilty of their escalating violence, not the terrorists alone.

How does terrorism win is probably a better question ? what is winning for the terrorists ? I think as soon as they get the attention and things start to move in their direction (that is key demands being met) they won. Palestinian, IRA etc... are the "easy" examples I gave you previously. You seem to have a different definition of "winning" though.

It's simple enough english Butterfly, what is so confusing?  Japan is being forced right now to take another look at it's war crimes commited during WW II because Korean and Chinese citizens are protesting and getting media attention. The same governments are also appling pressure, mostly through trade agreements.

If the pressure stays on China, which from what I can tell the U.N. does a pretty good job of, they will have to do something about. If the nonviolent path is the path the people want to follow the honorable thing to do would be to attack the government that is oppressing them, not the guy on the bus going to work, or the lady who owns the local market.

These terrorist are engaging in hate crimes on a most epic scale. I should that the terroist leaders are doing this, for they use the poor and uneducated, or the weak minded, to do their dirty work. You don't see them walking in to town with C4 duct taped to their body. They are all old with white hair, some maytars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you think it would stop Japan from doing it again if they get another chance ? they will do it again 1000 times worse if given the chance. They are still in denial and think they were victims, not aggressor.

China is laughing at the UN as much as America is laughing at it. So what's your point ? the UN doesn't keep pressure on anybody when you don't have leadership to put the pressure on. In the case of Iraq, it was the US. In case of China, it's nobody. Everybody love China, above all the WalMart economy.

Their crimes are as much epic as US soldiers fragging women and children in Iraq. What's your point again ? Yes they are hateful but that's irrelevant. Why are they doing it and how you avoid "terrorism" should be the real question. I don't have the answer for that but we can only learn at this stage. Current efforts have no effects and would only make things worse. The cure is not to become "one of them" and respond with the same violence to eradicate them. It's like trying to cure a flu by cutting off parts of your body. In the 15th century that would have worked, but not today. We are stuck in the 15th century trying to resolve terrorism

Could you list for me the issues in which terrorism has won (apart from creating a generation of apologists as yourself)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with some of your conclusions BUT not with your explanation. Yes the political process is the way to go and using existing political institutions to solve those issues is the best route. But this is Theory. It doesn't work like that in the real world.

But it does. At least 90% of the world's territorial, social and economical problems are addressed in a peaceful fashion, using all sorts of institutions designed for this purpose – from the UN to village councils. You just don’t hear about it because no bombs explode and nobody dies.

I am not an apologist of terrorism, I am just trying to understand why it happens. And I want to find "reasons" to end it. All I see is repeat of the same mistakes during or BEFORE the political process that triggers terrorism.

Terorism happens because terrorists ague in immoral ways. They say "losing" a house or some land, or even some human rights, justifies the death of innocents. They then use these arguments to justify actions whose only function is to jump the political queue. They scream like a three year old having tantrums to have their own way, but cowardly use the dieing shreakes of the maimed and injured to make their horrible noise.

From your statements above, you seem to imply that the terrorists have other alternatives. But they don't and that's the problem.

This again is not true. Even in the most totalitarian states there are - albeit difficult - alternatives.

But terrorists do not attack totalitarian states. They attack democratic states were there are institutions they could easily and readily use to argue their cause. They do not use these institutions because their arguments are so immorally and illogically thrown together. They believe it is right to fight for their cause despite, not only, any legitimate claims others may have for an alternative, but more importantly, despite the rights of innocents to have a life.

If the early political process doesn't give them some of their key demands, and the bully opponent doesn't want to yield, then "terrorism" happens.

The use of the word "bully" is a valued judgement describing those who have power, and displaying a childish and naive inability to recognise in any given situation there will always be those who have more power than oneself. That this power is exercised certainly is not synonymous with the act of bullying. In democratic countries this power comes as a result of the authority given to people or institutions via of the votes of the people.

The true bully is the terrorist who screams against authority and kills innocents with the sole purpose of achieving his own ends, despite the votes of the people.

How can we solve this before it happens ? How can we avoid it ? it's a power struggle. Both sides will revert to violence. It gets dirty quickly and both sides are guilty of their escalating violence, not the terrorists alone.

BS. This is like saying the surgeon is guilty for the cancer he must operate to remove.

How does terrorism win is probably a better question ? what is winning for the terrorists ? I think as soon as they get the attention and things start to move in their direction (that is key demands being met) they won. Palestinian, IRA etc... are the "easy" examples I gave you previously. You seem to have a different definition of "winning" though.

You give far too much significance to the terrorist. He is a bug, an illness - a cancer - that will be removed.

All of the advances in the Irish or the Palestinian examples have been created and debated and agreed upon by hard working, diligent, peaceful politicians and civil servants - despite the unholy irritations of terrorism - not because.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Today’s Jawdropper (of the non-political variety) is brought to you from Simi Valley, California where guns don’t kill car alarms, people kill car alarms ....

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP)—A man annoyed by a noisy car alarm fired at least three bullets into a Toyota Camry, silencing the alarm and bringing out police who hauled him away in handcuffs, authorities said. David Owen Rye, 48, was arrested and booked for investigation of reckless discharge of a firearm and felony vandalism, Sgt. John Adamczyk said. Rye allegedly told officers he grabbed his handgun and went out to put a stop to the car alarm.

The owner of the Camry, a sailor whose ship the USS Theodore Roosevelt just returned from an eight-month cruise, was visiting a friend when he heard the gunfire at about 10 p.m. Tuesday, KCAL-TV reported.

“I mean, that’s not a safe guy. I mean, you get upset over an alarm, over a noise like that, (then) there’s some little kids making too much noise and he decides to do something awful,” sailor Nicholas Moreno, 25, said.

Police were called to the Yosemite Avenue apartment building and Rye was ordered out of his apartment by an officer with a bullhorn. A Los Angeles Police Department helicopter also responded and Rye was arrested. Neighbor Ken Davis said he heard gunshots and looked outside to see Rye holding a gun.

“It was little scary,” Davis said. “I didn’t know what kind of mood he was in. I didn’t want to say anything to him."

In a related story Toyota announced it is filing suit against Smith & Wesson.

Link

TM I will get back to you on your arguments, I am not done with you yet

Hey Boon, another jaw dropper for you

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.

4) Florida’s reporting of more presidential votes (7.59 million) than actual number of people who voted (7.35 million), a surplus of 237,522 votes, does not indicate fraud.

5) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.

6) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.

7) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).

8) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;

9) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.

10) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.

11) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.” (Boldface in original).

12) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.

13) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 larger than the number of registered voters and where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count. [see appendix – attached herein]14) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.

15) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.

16) The National Election Pool’s exit polls were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.

17) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.

18) It must be merely a stunning coincidence that exit polls were wrong only in precincts where there was no paper ballot to check against the electronic totals and right everywhere there was a paper trail.

We're Sorry

Well now, this is not something you hear every day.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed “deep reflections and heartfelt apology” for the Tokyo’s wartime colonization and pledged that his country would never forget the “terrible lessons” of the war, which ended Aug. 15, 1945.

“Our country has caused great damages and pain to people in many countries, especially our Asian neighbors, through colonization and invasion,” Koizumi said in a statement.

‘bout time someone else apologized. Tired of it always being the U.S. who is apologizing for things done a generation ago.

We're Sorry

Well now, this is not something you hear every day.

    Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed “deep reflections and heartfelt apology” for the Tokyo’s wartime colonization and pledged that his country would never forget the “terrible lessons” of the war, which ended Aug. 15, 1945.

    “Our country has caused great damages and pain to people in many countries, especially our Asian neighbors, through colonization and invasion,” Koizumi said in a statement.

‘bout time someone else apologized.  Tired of it always being the U.S. who is apologizing for things done a generation ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US gov't apologized for something....what was it and when was the apology...I must have missed it....this is interesting.

We're Sorry

Well now, this is not something you hear every day.

    Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed “deep reflections and heartfelt apology” for the Tokyo’s wartime colonization and pledged that his country would never forget the “terrible lessons” of the war, which ended Aug. 15, 1945.

    “Our country has caused great damages and pain to people in many countries, especially our Asian neighbors, through colonization and invasion,” Koizumi said in a statement.

‘bout time someone else apologized.  Tired of it always being the U.S. who is apologizing for things done a generation ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US gov't apologized for something....what was it and when was the apology...I must have missed it....this is interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't have to, the American people spend all our time apologizing for it.

We're Sorry

Well now, this is not something you hear every day.

    Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed “deep reflections and heartfelt apology” for the Tokyo’s wartime colonization and pledged that his country would never forget the “terrible lessons” of the war, which ended Aug. 15, 1945.

    “Our country has caused great damages and pain to people in many countries, especially our Asian neighbors, through colonization and invasion,” Koizumi said in a statement.

‘bout time someone else apologized.  Tired of it always being the U.S. who is apologizing for things done a generation ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US gov't apologized for something....what was it and when was the apology...I must have missed it....this is interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't have to, the American people spend all our time apologizing for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I didn't think the US had apologized for anything......this is either because it has always acted honorably or because it has no code of honor.

We're Sorry

Well now, this is not something you hear every day.

    Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed “deep reflections and heartfelt apology” for the Tokyo’s wartime colonization and pledged that his country would never forget the “terrible lessons” of the war, which ended Aug. 15, 1945.

    “Our country has caused great damages and pain to people in many countries, especially our Asian neighbors, through colonization and invasion,” Koizumi said in a statement.

‘bout time someone else apologized.  Tired of it always being the U.S. who is apologizing for things done a generation ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US gov't apologized for something....what was it and when was the apology...I must have missed it....this is interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't have to, the American people spend all our time apologizing for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I didn't think the US had apologized for anything......this is either because it has always acted honorably or because it has no code of honor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the US is just the biggest kid in the block right now, so we don't have to say sorry to anybody for any reason. The British Empire at it's height never said sorry. It's a size thing.

OUTSOURCING

Congress today announced that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to overseas interests as of August 31st. The move is being made to save not only a significant portion of the President's $400,000.00 yearly salary, but also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead.

"We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-Wash.). Reynolds, with the aid of the Government Accountability Office, has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively.

"We cannot expect to remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.

Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time. Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will be assuming the office of President as of September 1st. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month but with no health coverage or other benefits.

It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few offices of the US Government will be open.

"Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the American Express call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President someday."

A Congressional Spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using this tree, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issues at all.

"We know these scripting tools work," stated the Spokesperson. "Mr. Bush has used them successfully for years."

Mr. Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible for $240 dollars a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.

Mr. Bush has been provided the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition.

According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to limited practical work experience. One possibility is reenlistment in the Air National Guard. Should he choose this option, he would likely be stationed in Iraq, a country he has visited.

"I've been there, I know all about Iraq," stated Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a visit to the Baghdad Airport's terminal and gift shop.

Sources in Baghdad and Fallujah say Mr. Bush would receive a warm reception from local Iraqis. They have asked to be provided with details of his arrival so that they might arrange an appropriate welcome.

I've read that before and wouldn't be surpirsed if it happened.

Shouldn't 'outsourcing' be in the Jokes section?

TM I will get back to you on your arguments, I am not done with you yet 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Don't butterflies only live for a day?

TM I will get back to you on your arguments, I am not done with you yet 

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Don't butterflies only live for a day?

The Romans eliminated the threat of the Carthaginians when they demonstrated that eradicating Carthage completely wasn't excluded from the playbook and, more importantly, they maintained the fear of Rome for centuries by letting everybody know that there wasn't anything they wouldn't do to win. Funnily enough, that most likely saved a lot of lives as a result of wars never fought because nobody dared start them.

Butterfly is of the type who slavishly follow folks such as Neville Chamberlin - you know, the appeasiers and enablers. Believe it, TM, Butterfly has already given you his best shot!

Just for interest ...between the 2nd and 3rd Punic wars

The slaughter that accompanied the house to house fighting in Carthage is perhaps the greatest systematic execution of non-combatants before World War II.

Of a city population that may have exceeded seven hundred thousand, only 50,000 remained at the final surrender.

Although Scipio Aemilianus sacked Carthage he wanted to spare the city further destruction. The Roman Senate decreed otherwise, completely destroying the city and selling some 50,000 citizens as slaves.

The town was stripped of its valuables and burned for ten days. The harbor and the city were demolished. The land was then cursed (the story that it was sown with salt is a later invention). Carthage ceased to exist.

Such was the hard fate of Carthage. Polybius, who was an eyewitness of the destruction of the city, records that Scipio, as he gazed upon the smoldering ruins, seemed to read in them the fate of Rome, and, bursting into tears, sadly repeated the lines of Homer:

The day shall be when holy Troy shall fall

And Priam, lord of spears, and Priam's folk [iliad, vi. 448]

When asked what he meant he said that he was worried that a similar event might befall Rome, too. This moment is an odd indication of the Hellenism of the mid Republic.

Scipio can interpret what he is doing in light of Greek literature. Yet he nonetheless oversees the destruction of the city like a good Rome

TM I will get back to you on your arguments, I am not done with you yet 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Don't butterflies only live for a day?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are a pseudo intellectual genius, aren't you ?

ok stop crying, I will reply to your arguments even though they are getting weakers and going into circles.

But it does. At least 90% of the world's territorial, social and economical problems are addressed in a peaceful fashion, using all sorts of institutions designed for this purpose – from the UN to village councils. You just don’t hear about it because no bombs explode and nobody dies.

Duh

oh really ?

I think the whole point of terrorism is to resolve a desperate cause. I don't think asking for 2 weeks vacation or hot water in the city is a "desperate" cause

I give you a F for that one. Very weak. Borderline insulting.

Terorism happens because terrorists ague in immoral ways. They say "losing" a house or some land, or even some human rights, justifies the death of innocents. They then use these arguments to justify actions whose only function is to jump the political queue. They scream like a three year old having tantrums to have their own way, but cowardly use the dieing shreakes of the maimed and injured to make their horrible noise.

And how is that different from "bully" throwing a tantrum when they don't have the whole world at their feet and need to bomb innocent civilians to have it their way.

Not a characteristic of terrorism only. I give you a C- for that one.

This again is not true. Even in the most totalitarian states there are - albeit difficult - alternatives.

But terrorists do not attack totalitarian states. They attack democratic states were there are institutions they could easily and readily use to argue their cause. They do not use these institutions because their arguments are so immorally and illogically thrown together. They believe it is right to fight for their cause despite, not only, any legitimate claims others may have for an alternative, but more importantly, despite the rights of innocents to have a life.

Yes they do and did attack dictatorship. I guess SA is not a totalitarian regime in your book, and neither is Egypt. Once again you are missing part of the story and demonstrating your ignorance on the subject. Early Islamists in the 60s and 70s targeted Islamic countries corrupted by the West. That strategy failed so they went International instead and it obviously works.

Terrorism, like war, is a political move. Some "weak" countries will go to wars over little justification to distract their population from real issues at home. Too many obvious examples

The use of the word "bully" is a valued judgement describing those who have power, and displaying a childish and naive inability to recognise in any given situation there will always be those who have more power than oneself. That this power is exercised certainly is not synonymous with the act of bullying. In democratic countries this power comes as a result of the authority given to people or institutions via of the votes of the people.

The true bully is the terrorist who screams against authority and kills innocents with the sole purpose of achieving his own ends, despite the votes of the people.

The word "terrorism" as demonstrated earlier in this thread is also a "valued judgement". The real naive suckers here are those who fail to understand their ennemy and throw a tantrum everytime they get a chance about innocents being killed while doing the same on another front.

You give far too much significance to the terrorist. He is a bug, an illness - a cancer - that will be removed.

All of the advances in the Irish or the Palestinian examples have been created and debated and agreed upon by hard working, diligent, peaceful politicians and civil servants - despite the unholy irritations of terrorism - not because.

Yes it is as much as colonialism and wars are.

No you are wrong, once again, the ghosts of terrorism has achieved that, not the political process in itself. Only when the "bully" is forced to seat at the table, he will start to listen. Before that, he needs to be bombed to get the message. That's how terrorism works, and sadly as it is, it does, because we humans will only react to violence, not logic when it comes to resolve a desperate and passionate cause. It's in our blood, and there is no logic that will stop that.

I think you are missing part of the picture. From your explanation, it seems to me that you are looking at terrorism from a 9/11/2001 standpoint and ignore the whole cause of it from the 50s and early 60s or even prior to that. Your narrow view of it, give you a distorted explanation. Read, and learn more about it. Reading the Khoran after 911 is not going to give you any hints.

Butterfly is of the type who slavishly follow folks such as Neville Chamberlin - you know, the appeasiers and enablers.  Believe it, TM, Butterfly has already given you his best shot!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you respond to the replies of your "Chemical allegations" link ?

as usual, you run away like a little girl and fail to respond when you get "caught" by the lies of your own links

Priceless

ok stop crying, I will reply to your arguments even though they are getting weakers and going into circles.

...

I think you are missing part of the picture. From your explanation, it seems to me that you are looking at terrorism from a 9/11/2001 standpoint and ignore the whole cause of it from the 50s and early 60s or even prior to that. Your narrow view of it, give you a distorted explanation. Read, and learn more about it. Reading the Khoran after 911 is not going to give you any hints.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the problem, I suppose when trying to have a serious discussion on an important subject on an anonymous web forum such as Thaivisa, someone will begin to adopt an arrogant academic position, brandishing insults such as pseudo-intellectual without having any knowledge of the background or occupation of the person accused. Usually these insults represent a clear lack of knowledge of the subject matter in the case of the accuser.

A consequence, when an argument is reduced to this level is that one of the debaters bows out, considering discussions on the level of childish reposts unworthy of the subject. Insulting opinions based on supposition and lack of knowledge by Butterfly, unfortunately has made me reach this conclusion.

One of the interesting features of Thaivisa is the variation in backgrounds found within its members: from coke drinking teenage web café dreamers to rather elderly ex-servicemen or academics who have seen somewhat more of life and the world than that gained by playing Command and Conquer.

I’ve studied Terrorism all my adult life and have been physically engaged in fighting it since 1972. Perhaps there is something to learn from a piece I wrote for another website (notice how many times I mention 911 or the Koran):

Terrorism has been practiced throughout history and throughout the world.

The ancient Greek historian Xenophon (c. 431–c. 350 BC) wrote of the effectiveness of psychological warfare against enemy populations.

Roman emperors such as Tiberius (reigned AD 14–37) and Caligula (reigned AD 37–41) used banishment, expropriation of property, and execution as means to discourage opposition to their rule.

The Spanish Inquisition used arbitrary arrest, torture, and execution to punish what it viewed as religious heresy. The use of terror was openly advocated by Robespierre as a means of encouraging revolutionary virtue during the French Revolution, leading to the period of his political dominance called the Reign of Terror (1793–94).

After the American Civil War (1861–65) defiant Southerners formed a terrorist organization called the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate supporters of Reconstruction.

In the latter half of the 19th century, terrorism was adopted by adherents of anarchism in Western Europe, Russia, and the United States. They believed that the best way to effect revolutionary political and social change was to assassinate persons in positions of power.

From 1865 to 1905 a number of kings, presidents, prime ministers, and other government officials were killed by anarchists' guns or bombs.

The 20th century witnessed great changes in the use and practice of terrorism. Terrorism became the hallmark of a number of political movements stretching from the extreme right to the extreme left of the political spectrum. Technological advances such as automatic weapons and compact, electrically detonated explosives gave terrorists a new mobility and lethality. Terrorism was adopted as virtually a state policy, though an unacknowledged one, by such totalitarian regimes as those of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. In these states arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution were applied without legal guidance or restraints to create a climate of fear and to encourage adherence to the national ideology and the declared economic, social, and political goals of the state.

Terrorism has most commonly become identified, however, with individuals or groups attempting to destabilize or overthrow existing political institutions. Terrorism has been used by one or both sides in anti-colonial conflicts (Ireland and the United Kingdom, Algeria and France, Vietnam and France/United States), in disputes between different national groups over possession of a contested homeland (Palestinians and Israel), in conflicts between different religious denominations (Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland), and in internal conflicts between revolutionary forces and established governments (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Argentina).

Terrorism's public impact has been greatly magnified by the use of modern communications media. Any act of violence is certain to attract television coverage, which brings the event directly into millions of homes and exposes viewers to the terrorists' demands, grievances, or political goals. Modern terrorism differs from that of the past because its victims are frequently innocent civilians who are picked at random or who merely happen into terrorist situations. Many groups of terrorists in Europe hark back to the anarchists of the 19th century in their isolation from the political mainstream and the unrealistic nature of their goals. Lacking a base of popular support, extremists substitute violent acts for legitimate political activities. Such acts include kidnappings, assassinations, skyjackings, bombings, and hijackings.

The Baader-Meinhof gang of West Germany, the Japanese Red Army, Italy's Red Brigades, the Puerto Rican FALN, al-Fatah and other Palestinian organizations, the Shining Path of Peru, and France's Direct Action were among the most prominent terrorist groups of the later 20th century.

All terrorist organizations need to raise funds to sustain their violent activities and resort to illegal means to finance their illegal acts. Drug trafficking comes at the top of this list of illegal money raising activities, followed by robbery, extortion, kidnapping, blackmailing and arms smuggling.

In recent years it has become increasingly evident that terrorism and drug trafficking are intertwined. The terms "narco-terrorism" and "narco-terrorists" have started being used to describe this interface between terrorist organizations and narcotics smugglers. This fact is illustrated by certain international documents. For instance, the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988) recognizes the links between illicit drug traffic and other organized criminal activities which undermine the stability, security and legitimacy of sovereign states.

Paragraph 5 of the UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)’s 1992 report points out that "illicit cultivation of narcotic plants and illicit trafficking in drugs continue to be a threat to the political, economic and social stability of several countries. Links appear to exist between illicit cultivation and drug trafficking and the activities of subversive organizations in some countries."

The 1993 INCB report draws attention to the organic connections between drug cartels and terrorist organizations, and also to the globalization of drug smuggling. The successive INBC reports point out that these drug cartels concentrate their activities in ethnically and economically troubled regions of the world. It is no coincidence that terrorist organizations thrive in the very same regions.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights (25 June 1993) stresses that "the acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations as well as linkage in some countries to drug trafficking are activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of states and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments, and the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism."

The Final Communique of the Council of Europe Pompidou Group 2nd Pan-European Ministerial Conference (Strasbourg, 4 February 1994) underlines the fact that "considering the continuous increase in and the spread of drug trafficking incidents, the involvement of violent organizations in such activities constitute a serious threat to the contemporary society" (Art.9), and thus, "it is vital for the security forces to combat terrorism effectively" (Art.15).

The UN Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, adopted at the 49th session of the General Assembly, underlines the concern by the international community at the growing and dangerous links between terrorists groups, drug traffickers and their paramilitary gangs which have resorted to all types of violence, thus endangering the constitutional order of States and violating basic human rights. This Declaration also emphasizes the desirability of closer cooperation and coordination among States in combating crimes closely connected with terrorism, including drug trafficking, unlawful arms trade, money laundering and smuggling of nuclear and other potentially deadly materials.

I think TM just dropped a WMD!

Now, that's a mushroom cloud!

That's sound, that, TM...

Here's one part - http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedi...th_century.html

/edit - And another:

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedi..._terrorism.html

One more:

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedi...rafficking.html

This is the problem, I suppose when trying to have a serious discussion on an important subject on an anonymous web forum such as Thaivisa, someone will begin to adopt an arrogant academic position, brandishing insults such as pseudo-intellectual without having any knowledge of the background or occupation of the person accused. Usually these insults represent a clear lack of knowledge of the subject matter in the case of the accuser.

A consequence, when an argument is reduced to this level is that one of the debaters bows out, considering discussions on the level of childish reposts unworthy of the subject. Insulting opinions based on supposition and lack of knowledge by Butterfly, unfortunately has made me reach this conclusion.

blah blah blah

irrelevant rant

blah blah blah

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, chill out. I was being a prick because you sounded too much naive in your arguments. Sorry I hurt your feelings, but your arguments were extremly weak and naive to say the least. I just called on you that and then you become a sissy queen. I do appreciate your arguments even though we disagree and sometimes they also lack substance. At least you are well written so it's a pleasure to read you. But please, copying/paste rants from whoever insane dude wrote that is not making your points any stronger. Actually it's called distraction

So if you studied Terrorism all your life like you claim, why is it that you are failing to see the obvious ? that it does work. You keep reverting to arguments how much "evil" these animals are blah blah etc... that's not the question. War and occupation is evil, BFD. Killing innocents in wars is also "evil", BFD. That's not the issue, the issue is how they are winning and how to prevent "terrorism" from happening again. What is the solution ? So far your answers have been nothing more than "they are evil, they need to be eliminated etc...", you are trying to demonize "terrorism" so you can further an agenda of more violence to fight terrorism. This is where we disagree.