IvanDobsky Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Peter King (R-New York), yeah, there's a guy worth taking seriously on the subject of anti-terrorism..... In the 1980s, King actively supported terrorists within the Irish Republican movement,...King said: "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry."...."If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it"..... and asserted that the "British government is a murder machine". He is in the position to know about the information he shared. Whatever you wish to dig up about his past is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant to people who lived through those times in the UK. He supported terrorists then and is now responsible for homeland security. Peter King is what we call a hypocrite. He would cut down a giant redwood then stand on the stump and preach conservation. You completely missed the point. If you want to post evidence that King does not tell the truth, then fine - that would be a valid challenge to the validity of what he reported. His being less than upstanding in your opinion concerning how he treated the citizens of the UK (which, BTW, I agree with you) is a different issue. I beg to differ. His support of terrorists then casts doubt on the veracity of anything he does now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmj Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I am sorry but no one will convince me that a black op was done Osama was shot in the head and then buried at sea within 24 hours come on people - you dont hunt down the most wanted man in history and then do the above its a fairy tale THINK what happened when Saddam was found pictures video trials even a video of the hanging PLUS pictures of his dead sons in living colour all shot up This time Ossama empty room some blood on the floor body gone sea burial come on this is the the biggest con yet Lets see if Osama releases another video, somehow I think it will be a very long wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I am sorry but no one will convince me that a black op was done Osama was shot in the head and then buried at sea within 24 hours come on people - you dont hunt down the most wanted man in history and then do the above its a fairy tale THINK what happened when Saddam was found pictures video trials even a video of the hanging PLUS pictures of his dead sons in living colour all shot up This time Ossama empty room some blood on the floor body gone sea burial come on this is the the biggest con yet All very plausible. I think in a day or two there will be some pictures. And the conspiracy theories will continue to grow and spread, but it isn't as though the US govt could risk him popping up on a video with a newspaper dated today? or could they? However, just as likely they wanted to avoid the kind of shamozzle that Saddam's trial and hanging caused. Could the practicably announce to the world, "We have arrested OBL" without causing chaos. In this day and age, where on earth would they put him? US soil, guantanamo? Lies or not, it is just better not to have to deal with the issues of having the world believe you have him captive. At least this way, there is a certain finality to the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanDobsky Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 No, my comment was not meant for you. Level the playing field refers to using enhanced interrogation techniques against an enemy that has absolutely no scruples (terrorists). Therefore I do not accept the charge that Americans are becoming the enemy. To paraphrase another poster, we do not fly planes into buildings and strap bombs onto children to target the innocent. OK thank you but we fundamentally disagree on a couple of points, one of them being that where you see "enhanced interrogation techniques", I see torture. True that you "do not fly planes into buildings" nor "strap bombs onto children to target the innocent." but imagine the perspective of much of the Muslim world when so many innocents have been killed and labeled "collateral damage" . Over 70000 by the US government's own estimates in Iraq alone. It's extremely difficult for the US to claim the moral high-ground when the above two points are taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I am sorry but no one will convince me that a black op was done Osama was shot in the head and then buried at sea within 24 hours come on people - you dont hunt down the most wanted man in history and then do the above its a fairy tale THINK what happened when Saddam was found pictures video trials even a video of the hanging PLUS pictures of his dead sons in living colour all shot up This time Ossama empty room some blood on the floor body gone sea burial come on this is the the biggest con yet All very plausible. I think in a day or two there will be some pictures. And the conspiracy theories will continue to grow and spread, but it isn't as though the US govt could risk him popping up on a video with a newspaper dated today? or could they? However, just as likely they wanted to avoid the kind of shamozzle that Saddam's trial and hanging caused. Could the practicably announce to the world, "We have arrested OBL" without causing chaos. In this day and age, where on earth would they put him? US soil, guantanamo? Lies or not, it is just better not to have to deal with the issues of having the world believe you have him captive. At least this way, there is a certain finality to the issue. "I trust no one, not even myself." Joseph Stalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I used innocent aussies as a reference, many nationalities have been tortured, by both american and al quaeda. Let's clear something up here. I stated: Americans are tortured either way by the scum that you pity. to which you responded The scum that I pity includes an aussie that has been kept in prison and tortured, found to have had nothing to do with terrorism and has received compensation. So now you refer to innocents as scum. Well that's lovely. Clearly I was speaking about terrorists who torture Americans as being scum. You accused me of referring to "innocents as scum", adding "Well that's lovely". What I said was clear, which you attempted to obfuscate. Now you claim that you "used innocent aussies as a reference." If you are going to post, do so honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I used innocent aussies as a reference, many nationalities have been tortured, by both american and al quaeda. Let's clear something up here. I stated: Americans are tortured either way by the scum that you pity. to which you responded The scum that I pity includes an aussie that has been kept in prison and tortured, found to have had nothing to do with terrorism and has received compensation. So now you refer to innocents as scum. Well that's lovely. Clearly I was speaking about terrorists who torture Americans as being scum. You accused me of referring to "innocents as scum", adding "Well that's lovely". What I said was clear, which you attempted to obfuscate. Now you claim that you "used innocent aussies as a reference." If you are going to post, do so honestly. You don't want to respond to anything else in my post? A question, not an accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saraburioz Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 No, I'm not going to pick as I fall in neither of your self-serving categories. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a conspiracy theorist nor right-winger. I hate all politicians, regardless of race, gender, religion or party. They have "single-handedly" destroyed my country, without remorse. I have no comment on who felled the Twin Towers as I have insufficient reliable information to come to a conclusion. I was a cop for over 20 years. A homicide detective for 13. I am far from gullible, and just as far from paranoid. I am, however, quite capable setting aside emotions for an appropriate period of time to allow logical thought. Buildings the height of the Twin Towers do not fall into their own footprints. Not once, let alone twice. Building #7, the one you never hear about in the news, also fell the same day--into its own footprint. It had not, however, been hit by an airplane. No forensics at one of the largest crime scenes in history. If this had happened at a celebrity murder scene "out of respect for the victims and because we know who did it," would you trust the official police statement? And, finally, if there is no such thing as a conspiracy, why are there more statutory laws making them illegal, than any other crime? A conspiracy simply requires two or more people coming together to accomplish a goal that is illegal. Happens every day. As much as I love my country and respect my fellow Americans, I also know my government officials are lying sacks of pathetic sh!t. And here they use a perfect excuse to get rid of the evidence, once again, telling us we can trust them. Go ahead, bud. You trust 'em. that's it all about ... thanks for the post and Obama will stand up some day and say we'll take CAIR ... oops! Wow - really? Why on earth don't the Americans get to the bottom of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 No, my comment was not meant for you. Level the playing field refers to using enhanced interrogation techniques against an enemy that has absolutely no scruples (terrorists). Therefore I do not accept the charge that Americans are becoming the enemy. To paraphrase another poster, we do not fly planes into buildings and strap bombs onto children to target the innocent. OK thank you but we fundamentally disagree on a couple of points, one of them being that where you see "enhanced interrogation techniques", I see torture. True that you "do not fly planes into buildings" nor "strap bombs onto children to target the innocent." but imagine the perspective of much of the Muslim world when so many innocents have been killed and labeled "collateral damage" . Over 70000 by the US government's own estimates in Iraq alone. It's extremely difficult for the US to claim the moral high-ground when the above two points are taken into consideration. Two points. Enhanced interrogation vs. torture. Enhanced interrogation is for the purpose of securing information to save lives. Torture serves no purpose other than to inflict pain. Regarding the innocent Muslim lives lost - America did not look for this fight. If we did nothing, the torture (beheadings for example) and murder of innocents by terrorists would continue. Clear back to Lockerbie, Scotland to the present, Muslims have always been involved. This fact translates into the existence of a Muslim problem. Innocent Muslims also died on September 11, 2001, at the hands of the now deceased Bin Laden. It is not 'difficult' at all for the U.S. to claim the moral high-ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
featography Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 It's about time! Obama'a the man. I say scrap all the cold war hardware and built a few thousand drones. Obama is going to make a speech at 10:30 I firmly believe that bush could have got him early in the game but held the delta force guys back so that bush and his buddies could milk a few billion from the defence department. I smell manure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Let's clear something up here. I stated: Americans are tortured either way by the scum that you pity. to which you responded The scum that I pity includes an aussie that has been kept in prison and tortured, found to have had nothing to do with terrorism and has received compensation. So now you refer to innocents as scum. Well that's lovely. Clearly I was speaking about terrorists who torture Americans as being scum. You accused me of referring to "innocents as scum", adding "Well that's lovely". What I said was clear, which you attempted to obfuscate. Now you claim that you "used innocent aussies as a reference." If you are going to post, do so honestly. You don't want to respond to anything else in my post? A question, not an accusation. You appear to believe in at least some degree of socialism. I do not. I'm a libertarian. When you modified the clear meaning of my post, I lost interest. What else is there to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
featography Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 CNN reports that Osama was killed in a mansion outside of Islamabad by the U.S. /via@mpoppel: CNN's @EdHenry In a mansion outside Islamabad is hardly in hiding. Are we expected to believe the Pakistanis knew nothing about it. Maybe they let the address slip when Cameron handed over the 600k+ GBP! Some odd billion $ given to Pakistan to eliminate terrorism in their country since 9/11, 3 billion $ set aside for them for 2012, Osama in a $2mil mansion heavily secured with 8-12 ft walls, with guards, with no internet, no phone lines in a city of residences that pale in size, 1 mile from the Pakistani military acadamy likened to US West Point, hiding in plain sight. Did the Pakastani military/govt know he was there all along. MOST likely. They didn't like drones because US was getting closer to him by the week, without American casualties. Now we will hear how great the Chosen One is because Osama was taken out on Obama's watch. Had this been done with Bush still in office, the world and the US would be crying for a 3rd term for him. This American says, Obama didnt take him out, a Navy Seal team did, who are members of the same US joint military organizations that a few weeks ago Obama threatened to stop monthly income checks to if he didnt get his way with the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valdezugar Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 SAffer ... don't tell me ... you hauled ass before the "Swart Gevaar" can take over everything right? Nelson Mandela was jailed for treason, not for violent activity. And the armed struggle started when he was in prison; there were others who led the ANC at the time and campaigned for an armed struggle. Or are you saying the burning of dom passe is violence? Amazing the <deleted> people spout on an open forum. Next you'll be telling us how your Thai GF there has five degrees and comes from a rich family, and you're the first farang she's even spoken to. Does her family have a trilingual gardener too? Ghandi ran the brits out of India with nonviolence. MLK changed America for the better with nonviolence. Those are two examples of success at changing the world through nonviolence. I have a much harder task of finding where violence ever produced sustainable change for the better. An eye for and eye leaves everyone blind - Ghandi Nelson Mandela, however, did use violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Glad they finally got the guy, I was worried I would have to go do it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrobert Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) No, I'm not going to pick as I fall in neither of your self-serving categories. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a conspiracy theorist nor right-winger. I hate all politicians, regardless of race, gender, religion or party. They have "single-handedly" destroyed my country, without remorse. I have no comment on who felled the Twin Towers as I have insufficient reliable information to come to a conclusion. I was a cop for over 20 years. A homicide detective for 13. I am far from gullible, and just as far from paranoid. I am, however, quite capable setting aside emotions for an appropriate period of time to allow logical thought. Buildings the height of the Twin Towers do not fall into their own footprints. Not once, let alone twice. Building #7, the one you never hear about in the news, also fell the same day--into its own footprint. It had not, however, been hit by an airplane. No forensics at one of the largest crime scenes in history. If this had happened at a celebrity murder scene "out of respect for the victims and because we know who did it," would you trust the official police statement? And, finally, if there is no such thing as a conspiracy, why are there more statutory laws making them illegal, than any other crime? A conspiracy simply requires two or more people coming together to accomplish a goal that is illegal. Happens every day. As much as I love my country and respect my fellow Americans, I also know my government officials are lying sacks of pathetic sh!t. And here they use a perfect excuse to get rid of the evidence, once again, telling us we can trust them. Go ahead, bud. You trust 'em. that's it all about ... thanks for the post and Obama will stand up some day and say we'll take CAIR ... oops! Wow - really? Why on earth don't the Americans get to the bottom of it? "...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (Italics mine.) Sadly, it has. This is not Obama speaking about the dead from September 11. It is from an articulate man. It is the last lines of the Gettysburg Address from one of the last great presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Edited May 3, 2011 by happyrobert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I am sorry but no one will convince me that a black op was done Osama was shot in the head and then buried at sea within 24 hours come on people - you dont hunt down the most wanted man in history and then do the above its a fairy tale THINK what happened when Saddam was found pictures video trials even a video of the hanging PLUS pictures of his dead sons in living colour all shot up This time Ossama empty room some blood on the floor body gone sea burial come on this is the the biggest con yet Lets see if Osama releases another video, somehow I think it will be a very long wait... I think the point is that after what happened with Saddam no one wanted to repeat that distasteful scene again. And there was little pretense of Saddam being overtly religious in most ways, while Bin laden had devote, though misguided followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAffer Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 No, my comment was not meant for you. Level the playing field refers to using enhanced interrogation techniques against an enemy that has absolutely no scruples (terrorists). Therefore I do not accept the charge that Americans are becoming the enemy. To paraphrase another poster, we do not fly planes into buildings and strap bombs onto children to target the innocent. OK thank you but we fundamentally disagree on a couple of points, one of them being that where you see "enhanced interrogation techniques", I see torture. True that you "do not fly planes into buildings" nor "strap bombs onto children to target the innocent." but imagine the perspective of much of the Muslim world when so many innocents have been killed and labeled "collateral damage" . Over 70000 by the US government's own estimates in Iraq alone. It's extremely difficult for the US to claim the moral high-ground when the above two points are taken into consideration. Two points. Enhanced interrogation vs. torture. Enhanced interrogation is for the purpose of securing information to save lives. Torture serves no purpose other than to inflict pain. Regarding the innocent Muslim lives lost - America did not look for this fight. If we did nothing, the torture (beheadings for example) and murder of innocents by terrorists would continue. Clear back to Lockerbie, Scotland to the present, Muslims have always been involved. This fact translates into the existence of a Muslim problem. Innocent Muslims also died on September 11, 2001, at the hands of the now deceased Bin Laden. It is not 'difficult' at all for the U.S. to claim the moral high-ground. 70000 collateral damage compared to Lockerbie? You seem to value some lives more than others, don't you? And why was it necessary for USA to invade Iraq again? What have the 70000 civillians lost their lives for? If Thais have a warped sense of logic, USA has a warped sense of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 CNN reports that Osama was killed in a mansion outside of Islamabad by the U.S. /via@mpoppel: CNN's @EdHenry In a mansion outside Islamabad is hardly in hiding. Are we expected to believe the Pakistanis knew nothing about it. Maybe they let the address slip when Cameron handed over the 600k+ GBP! Some odd billion $ given to Pakistan to eliminate terrorism in their country since 9/11, 3 billion $ set aside for them for 2012, Osama in a $2mil mansion heavily secured with 8-12 ft walls, with guards, with no internet, no phone lines in a city of residences that pale in size, 1 mile from the Pakistani military acadamy likened to US West Point, hiding in plain sight. Did the Pakastani military/govt know he was there all along. MOST likely. They didn't like drones because US was getting closer to him by the week, without American casualties. Now we will hear how great the Chosen One is because Osama was taken out on Obama's watch. Had this been done with Bush still in office, the world and the US would be crying for a 3rd term for him. This American says, Obama didnt take him out, a Navy Seal team did, who are members of the same US joint military organizations that a few weeks ago Obama threatened to stop monthly income checks to if he didnt get his way with the budget. Throughout the Middle East and eastern parts of Asia, all Muslims houses are surrounded by 8ft-12ft walls. There was extensive satellite cabling and computer hardware in the property. In most citys in the world the rich people have residences that make the rest of ours pale in to insignificance. I like the video of the dude from Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) 70000 collateral damage compared to Lockerbie? You seem to value some lives more than others, don't you? And why was it necessary for USA to invade Iraq again? What have the 70000 civillians lost their lives for? If Thais have a warped sense of logic, USA has a warped sense of morality. You really keep missing the point. America did not go looking for Muslims. They came, and continue to come, gunning for us. As Bin Laden proclaimed, death to all Americans everywhere. But you keep looking at the numbers rather than the terrorists. Where is your logic? If Muslims proclaimed death to you and your family, would you not defend yourselves? And what do Thais have to do with this? They certainly defended themselves against the Burmese invasions. Do you feel that was wrong too? Edited May 3, 2011 by venturalaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanDobsky Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 OK thank you but we fundamentally disagree on a couple of points, one of them being that where you see "enhanced interrogation techniques", I see torture. True that you "do not fly planes into buildings" nor "strap bombs onto children to target the innocent." but imagine the perspective of much of the Muslim world when so many innocents have been killed and labeled "collateral damage" . Over 70000 by the US government's own estimates in Iraq alone. It's extremely difficult for the US to claim the moral high-ground when the above two points are taken into consideration. Two points. Enhanced interrogation vs. torture. Enhanced interrogation is for the purpose of securing information to save lives. Torture serves no purpose other than to inflict pain. Regarding the innocent Muslim lives lost - America did not look for this fight. If we did nothing, the torture (beheadings for example) and murder of innocents by terrorists would continue. Clear back to Lockerbie, Scotland to the present, Muslims have always been involved. This fact translates into the existence of a Muslim problem. Innocent Muslims also died on September 11, 2001, at the hands of the now deceased Bin Laden. It is not 'difficult' at all for the U.S. to claim the moral high-ground. The Cambridge definition of the word torture is "the act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something or to give information, or to be cruel to a person or animal" If enhanced interrogation uses 'water-boarding' then it is torture. The 1988 Lockerbie disaster was a disgraceful slaughter of innocents but was it any worse than the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian passenger jet in 1986? I guess not. It may even have been retaliation for that but I guess we'll never know. America/UK and others certainly looked for the fight in Iraq which had no connection to Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan offered on two occasions to hand the abhorrent Bin Laden over to the US in September and October 2001. Thousands of lives could have been saved had Bush accepted the Taliban's offer. You mention a 'muslim problem' but it would require a thorough study of US/UK/USSR foreign policy over the last 66 years to explain why it exists and even longer for us to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAffer Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) SAffer ... don't tell me ... you hauled ass before the "Swart Gevaar" can take over everything right? Nelson Mandela was jailed for treason, not for violent activity. And the armed struggle started when he was in prison; there were others who led the ANC at the time and campaigned for an armed struggle. Or are you saying the burning of dom passe is violence? Amazing the <deleted> people spout on an open forum. Next you'll be telling us how your Thai GF there has five degrees and comes from a rich family, and you're the first farang she's even spoken to. Does her family have a trilingual gardener too? Ghandi ran the brits out of India with nonviolence. MLK changed America for the better with nonviolence. Those are two examples of success at changing the world through nonviolence. I have a much harder task of finding where violence ever produced sustainable change for the better. An eye for and eye leaves everyone blind - Ghandi Nelson Mandela, however, did use violence. No, I would call planting bombs as being violent. You do know that the treason was the official charge for terrorism, right? "Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela..." It just goes to show that violence is sometimes condoned, and it is not unreasonable to think that many OBL followers feel that he was a freedom fighter, no? Swart Gevaar? That is very off the point. The point is that non-violence seldom works in practice- even the renowned Mandela used voilence. About the Thai wife stuff you wrote...? <deleted>? Get a life, bud. I don't know about the Thais, but I personally have a gardener that speaks 5 languages, sure... what's the point?? Edited May 3, 2011 by SAffer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 OK thank you but we fundamentally disagree on a couple of points, one of them being that where you see "enhanced interrogation techniques", I see torture. True that you "do not fly planes into buildings" nor "strap bombs onto children to target the innocent." but imagine the perspective of much of the Muslim world when so many innocents have been killed and labeled "collateral damage" . Over 70000 by the US government's own estimates in Iraq alone. It's extremely difficult for the US to claim the moral high-ground when the above two points are taken into consideration. Two points. Enhanced interrogation vs. torture. Enhanced interrogation is for the purpose of securing information to save lives. Torture serves no purpose other than to inflict pain. Regarding the innocent Muslim lives lost - America did not look for this fight. If we did nothing, the torture (beheadings for example) and murder of innocents by terrorists would continue. Clear back to Lockerbie, Scotland to the present, Muslims have always been involved. This fact translates into the existence of a Muslim problem. Innocent Muslims also died on September 11, 2001, at the hands of the now deceased Bin Laden. It is not 'difficult' at all for the U.S. to claim the moral high-ground. The Cambridge definition of the word torture is "the act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something or to give information, or to be cruel to a person or animal" If enhanced interrogation uses 'water-boarding' then it is torture. The 1988 Lockerbie disaster was a disgraceful slaughter of innocents but was it any worse than the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian passenger jet in 1986? I guess not. It may even have been retaliation for that but I guess we'll never know. America/UK and others certainly looked for the fight in Iraq which had no connection to Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan offered on two occasions to hand the abhorrent Bin Laden over to the US in September and October 2001. Thousands of lives could have been saved had Bush accepted the Taliban's offer. You mention a 'muslim problem' but it would require a thorough study of US/UK/USSR foreign policy over the last 66 years to explain why it exists and even longer for us to understand it. What is your source for the statement that Afghanistan offered to hand over Bin Laden on two occasions and that Bush did not accept the Taliban's offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAffer Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 70000 collateral damage compared to Lockerbie? You seem to value some lives more than others, don't you? And why was it necessary for USA to invade Iraq again? What have the 70000 civillians lost their lives for? If Thais have a warped sense of logic, USA has a warped sense of morality. You really keep missing the point. America did not go looking for Muslims. They came, and continue to come, gunning for us. As Bin Laden proclaimed, death to all Americans everywhere. But you keep looking at the numbers rather than the terrorists. Where is your logic? If Muslims proclaimed death to you and your family, would you not defend yourselves? And what do Thais have to do with this? They certainly defended themselves against the Burmese invasions. Do you feel that was wrong too? Not all muslims called for the death of America. Of the 70000+ civilians murdered by your regime, I wonder how many you think were gunning for you? Burma and Thailand share a common border, it is understandable that in their history they would have faught wars. Iraq ... America- kinda far apart don't you think? "If Muslims proclaimed death...", you might want to re-write that not to include all Muslims, mate, 'cos it's simply false. Oh, but wait a minute, America based it's War on terror on false accusations and untruths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 70000 collateral damage compared to Lockerbie? You seem to value some lives more than others, don't you? And why was it necessary for USA to invade Iraq again? What have the 70000 civillians lost their lives for? If Thais have a warped sense of logic, USA has a warped sense of morality. You really keep missing the point. America did not go looking for Muslims. They came, and continue to come, gunning for us. As Bin Laden proclaimed, death to all Americans everywhere. But you keep looking at the numbers rather than the terrorists. Where is your logic? If Muslims proclaimed death to you and your family, would you not defend yourselves? And what do Thais have to do with this? They certainly defended themselves against the Burmese invasions. Do you feel that was wrong too? Not all muslims called for the death of America. Of the 70000+ civilians murdered by your regime, I wonder how many you think were gunning for you? Burma and Thailand share a common border, it is understandable that in their history they would have faught wars. Iraq ... America- kinda far apart don't you think? "If Muslims proclaimed death...", you might want to re-write that not to include all Muslims, mate, 'cos it's simply false. Oh, but wait a minute, America based it's War on terror on false accusations and untruths. I never said 'all' Muslims. But it has been Muslims behind all of the terrorist attacks. Always Muslims. Why? As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, America did not go Muslim hunting. But the Muslim Bin Laden did proclaim death to all Americans. You have your belief that America is evil. Perhaps you were a Bin Laden supporter for he certainly would have agreed with your analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) What is your source for the statement that Afghanistan offered to hand over Bin Laden on two occasions and that Bush did not accept the Taliban's offer? After the US started bombing Afghanistan, an official claimed that they would hand over Bin Ladin to a third country when his guilt was proved. However, Mullah Mohammed Omar - the leader of Afghanistan - denied that any such deal would take place. Typical radical Muslim BS. Edited May 3, 2011 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creck Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) SAffer ... don't tell me ... you hauled ass before the "Swart Gevaar" can take over everything right? Nelson Mandela was jailed for treason, not for violent activity. And the armed struggle started when he was in prison; there were others who led the ANC at the time and campaigned for an armed struggle. Or are you saying the burning of dom passe is violence? Amazing the <deleted> people spout on an open forum. Next you'll be telling us how your Thai GF there has five degrees and comes from a rich family, and you're the first farang she's even spoken to. Does her family have a trilingual gardener too? Ghandi ran the brits out of India with nonviolence. MLK changed America for the better with nonviolence. Those are two examples of success at changing the world through nonviolence. I have a much harder task of finding where violence ever produced sustainable change for the better. An eye for and eye leaves everyone blind - Ghandi Nelson Mandela, however, did use violence. "a trilingual gardener" of course - Thai, English and Latin plant names, such guys are very common. Usually, they are head cook too, so also have a smattering of French. edit to remove unwanted control codes Edited May 3, 2011 by creck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Not all muslims called for the death of America. Don't be ridiculous. It is very obvious that the Muslims "that call for the death of America" are the ones that he is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby nz Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I never said 'all' Muslims. But it has been Muslims behind all of the terrorist attacks. Always Muslims. Why? As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, America did not go Muslim hunting. But the Muslim Bin Laden did proclaim death to all Americans. You have your belief that America is evil. Perhaps you were a Bin Laden supporter for he certainly would have agreed with your analysis. The US did go into Iraq (a muslim country) without Iraq being any threat to the US in fact it was a former friend and alli in the Iran Iraq war. And the US proclaimed death to Bin Laden, another former friend when they trained and supplied the Talaban with weapons when Russia was in Afganastan. Now we see them and NATO bombing Libya, another former friend seen recently shaking hands with the British PM and French President. Now Syria is being handed sanctions. Perhaps it dosent pay to be a friend of the US. Dont have to be a Bin Laden supporter to see what the, almost bankrupt, US is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 You have rather distorted idea of the word "friend". It is hard to avoid dealing with creeps when one is a major world power and pretty much every country does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAMSOBAD Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Here we go again...Bash America for killing a murderer that was wanted in most countries in the world for terrorist charges. Osama bin Laden and al Queda took responsibility for the 2 embassy bombings in Africa... The USS Cole and 9/11 and 7/11... But some morons still claim the CIA did it all. Pick a hero then pick a villian and stick with it You cannot blame America for OBL...Hitler...Stalin...etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts