PDA

View Full Version : Anti-american feelings?


ShockV1.89
07-02-2003, 07:57 PM
http://www.americanstateterrorism.com/iraqgenocide/Genocide2.html (do not click on it if a little bit of violence and harsh language offends you)

Now, I believe that it's websites and publications like this one that foster so much anti-americanism in the world. Read through this, and see if you can pick up on this guys slightly twisted report of what happened in Iraq.

See it? What do you think of this article? I'll post my opinion later.

RoguePhotonic
07-02-2003, 08:43 PM
Well what do people expect?...the occupation of a country is a violent thing....

Jah Warrior
07-02-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Now, I believe that it's websites and publications like this one that foster so much anti-americanism in the world.

shock mate, the problem isnt that people are anti-american. The problem is that your current administration is arrogant and stupid. Pre-bush, there was not that much that people could complain about (except kyoto), but bush is acting like a playground bully and the rest of the world wont stand for it. Everything about bush and the things he does is antagonising teh rest of the world. We see it butit seems the american public is blind to it.

Couple of months ago there was a TV show about why america is hated these days and there were polls taken from a number of countries, 75% of the world regards bush as a greater threat to world peace than Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

heres a link to a site with the show available for download (big file) its very interesting.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwta/2997248.stm

I aint anti-american, i'm anti right-wing. american people are great, but face it your government is a joke. a scary joke.

ShockV1.89
07-02-2003, 11:14 PM
You know what? It is a joke right now. But that's no reason to label the entire country and government and military as "arrogant satanic baby killing demons" as that fool did in his essay, as well as placing a huge, rather uneducated twist on events unfolding in Iraq.

It's this twist that I cant stand. Read this quote from the section in which he describes the events concerning the van that didnt stop at the checkpoint a few days after the truck bombs hit.

Only one or two of the soldiers were horrified and remorseful when they saw all the butchered, bloodied children. Ryan Dupre [the gunner] and the rest of the U.S. Army filth simply sneered at their mangled victims.

Now come on now... I'm sorry, these are not demons from hell. These are human beings, many no older than me (21). They have morals. Perhaps a few sneered and were truly evil. This exists everywhere. But the entire US military? No...

Similar twists and exaggerations on the facts appeared elsewhere in this essay.

It's this twist that I have a huge problem with. It doesnt bother me that people dont agree with my governments actions. I dont agree with many of them myself! But people from other countries read this filth and get this view of the American military as "demonic, baby killing monsters who laugh as they slaughter children."

Jah Warrior
07-03-2003, 12:58 AM
The american military is not to blame in the slightest, after all they are doing a job that the government sent them to do and as should be expected they are doing it. And like you say they are just american people underneath the camo and american people are great folk.

The miltary cannot be held accountable for the decisions of a bad government.

You guys really need the democrats back in power unlikely as it may be. The republicans seem to go around blowing everyone up and the democrats come back and fix the economy and the international relations.

Clinton was the best thing to happen to the states in years, shame he cant have a 3rd 4th or 5th term.

I see it like this:- before bush seized power the u.s was the leader of the free world and now the government over there is "DICTATING" over the free world. It really does not feel like he wants to work WITH us rather than command us.


btw that article is baised bullsh!t even me a borderline communist can see that!

FunClown
07-03-2003, 11:40 AM
Discounting 95% of the text. I think the site provides a good service to those who want to see the real Iraqi war. I believe they are correct in saying it is treated as a video game. Because thats what the military want you to believe.

The US bombed the aljazeera offices in a residential area of Baghdad, just as they did with Afghanistan. They don't want the truth to get out about the war. So in that respect, I think the website is good for people who want to see pictures of the real war, what is really going on.

The miltary cannot be held accountable for the decisions of a bad government.

Wasn't it the US president who told the Iraqis not to use chemicals even if ordered?

I don't think this really applies in this war, since it seems a bit of a hipocracy.

Similar twists and exaggerations on the facts appeared elsewhere in this essay.

Be careful what you call facts. You are really only relying on what you have been told as well. Likewise, it is only their take on their facts ie what they have been told. I hope you don't rely only on the mainstream media, I would say to watch Aljazeera as well. Despite what has been said I believe them to be neutral to the war on Iraq. However, their offices were bombed, so their capacity to tell you what is going on is very diminished. All I can say is how convenient? It was in a residential area to.

Here are some websites to look at.

Aljazeera accused of running 'shock and awe' campaign (http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=1313&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258)

Aljazeera Office Hit (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6256606%255E25777,00.html)

NYSE boots Aljazeera (http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/030326/1048700880_2.html)

NBC Fires Journalist for Giving Interview with Iraqi TV (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200304/01/eng20030401_114341.shtml)

Pro-US Arabic-language news network to be launched in Middle East (http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID=16009)

Extremely good link. Was given to Australian Senators. Is a PDF file

Media under fire : reporting conflict in Iraq (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2002-03/03cib21.pdf)

PS: Obligalitory Disclaimer: I'm not anti-american, I have done research into this matter and have taken what I believe an objective view. What I found was that the US military and government as well as to an extent the western mainstream [commercial] media largely controlled what we were and are allowed to see from the war in Iraq.

Thus, this is what limits our opinions to the facts [what we believe happened] in Iraq. Whoever, was their to show an alternative view or opinion was either bombed (Aljazeera) or sacked (Peter Arnett, Politzer prize winning journalist from the Vietnam war). What happened to Aljazeera and Peter Arnett are facts and both were labelled as anti-american.

Jah Warrior
07-03-2003, 12:27 PM
there was something else i wanted to mention.

GREED.

what more can i say?

It is blatantly obvious that while the american government was "elected"? to serve the interests of the american people the rest of the world is affected just as much by the u.s government as the american people are. As long as the government goes around riding roughshod over any nation that does not conform to the american ideal and leeching the wealth of the rest of the world there will always be anti-amercian feeling.

I for one dont want a right wing government that i have no power to influence having control over the world i live in. With every passing day they are pushing us closer and closer to an East vs West war of epic proportions.

come on america you got rid of Nixon who was a fool, open your eyes and see what bush is doing to your country, he may be doing what can be seen as being right for america, however he is damaging global relations to the nth degree.

The Count
07-03-2003, 07:20 PM
There was never so much anti American feelings# until Bush became president, I mean who wants to support an obnoxious moron, however I will admit too many ignorant people are mindlessly jumping on the anti Bush bandwagon.

Dagobahn Eagle
07-03-2003, 11:21 PM
You know what? It is a joke right now. But that's no reason to label the entire country and government and military as "arrogant satanic baby killing demons" as that fool did in his essay, as well as placing a huge, rather uneducated twist on events unfolding in Iraq.

Well, after reading these posts, there is nothing I can add. What I would have said would be "the government sucks, and I do not like right-wing capitalism (I am a liberal socialist), but the people Rule." With a capital R. USA in a nutshell.

My biggest issue with the states is that it is slightly ignorant when it comes to geography (11% of US adults could not find the USA on a map :eek:). However, they (by far) make up for that with their diversity. Yes, they have a racist past, but name one country that is not racist.

C'jais
07-04-2003, 12:03 AM
Though it is needless to say so, the person who made that page is an idiot.

His rhetoric is as bad as his web design.



Demonic babykillers? Please.

<JOTD>Jedi Hunter
07-06-2003, 01:08 AM
I think the war was needed. Clinton was just too afraid to do it. Bush stood up and acted like a man. Took that bastard out of power. Though I don't agree with why he did it (oil of course). I do like that the people of Irag are free from him. As is the rest of this world. Anti amercanism doesn't matter to most of us americans. Because we love our country, and that is all that matters. If any of you non americans lived here, you'd love it too. We're powerful, we have powerful allies. We are virtually unstopable. But, do we conquer other countries? No, we aided Iraq, as we did the rest of you. Could you imagine if they launched one of their missles at Australia or England or Italy? I couldn't. I grow enraged at the thought. Keep that in mind before you bash us. We protected you as much as we did us.

SkinWalker
07-06-2003, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter
Anti amercanism doesn't matter to most of us americans. Because we love our country, and that is all that matters.

You sound like you don't get out much. By 'out' I mean the country of course. As one who occasionally travels overseas, I can tell you that anti-American sentiments affect me a great deal. And as one with many non-American friends, I'd say the same.

Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter
We're powerful, we have powerful allies. We are virtually unstopable. But, do we conquer other countries? No, we aided Iraq, as we did the rest of you.

Small difference between aided and conquer. While I'd like to agree with you, and do to an extent, I also understand that the rest of the world might not have reason to. Bombing the sh*t out of their infrastructure, destroying their military ability, killing several thousand civilians in the process.... I'd say they're about as conquered as they can be.

Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter
Could you imagine if they launched one of their missles at Australia or England or Italy? I couldn't. I grow enraged at the thought. Keep that in mind before you bash us. We protected you as much as we did us.

And this is evidence of how well the Bush administration's propaganda machine works. The intent of the admin was to convince your average citizen, who was more than willing to remain ignorant of such things, that Iraq posed a threat. It did not. Iraq was not in the least bit capable of launching a missile at anyone beyond its own borders.

There was no nuclear capability. There was no delivery capability of chemical or biological weapons. There seems to be no evidence of any WMDs in the country.

The sad truth is that through the power-hungry advances of the Bush Administration, we've squandered all of the good will that we had directed toward us from nearly every country in the world after 9/11. We basically told the UN to **ck off. As we've been doing for 30 years.

It isn't hard to see why there are anti-American sentiments when we allow our government to engage in terrorist activities that we condemn the rest of the world for.

<JOTD>Jedi Hunter
07-06-2003, 01:55 PM
Though I truely respect your views on the matter. You provided very interesting points. I do not like being called ignorent.

The civilian loss in the war is tragic, but that is the price you pay. I remain glad he is not in power. For my own reasons. Which I will not state here, because someone might take it upon themselves to call me ignorent. Which I find highly offensive.

Jah Warrior
07-06-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter
The civilian loss in the war is tragic, but that is the price you pay.


oh my...

try telling that to the orphans in Iraq, the parents who have lost children, the brothers & sisters that are now alone, the children who have lost limbs, those that have no home due to allied bombings, need i go on?

All this in the name of plundering the IRAQI's natural resources.

bush and Blair should stand trial for what they have done. They simply did Hussein's work for him...


Seriously bush is literally waving a red flag at a bull by throwing down the gauntlet to the terrorists. With the American economy in its current state it would only take one large scale mainland u.s terrorist strike to utterly destroy the u.s economy.

Frankly if i got the opportunity i would assasinate bush, and i aint kidding.

SkinWalker
07-06-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter
I do not like being called ignorent. ... Which I will not state here, because someone might take it upon themselves to call me ignorent. Which I find highly offensive.

I used the word "ignorant" in its actual definition, not its colloquial one. Ignorant: Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.

The colloquial definition is "ignorant = stupid," which, ironically, is an ignorant definition.

If the "average citizen" were to be left ignorant uninformed of the issues, it would be easier for a government to have its way with the populace.

If you truly find the word or description of "ignorant" offensive, you need only to educate yourself.

<JOTD>Jedi Hunter
07-06-2003, 02:26 PM
My mistake, I thought you were taking a shot at me. Sorry about that. You know you're very interesting. I really enjoy reading your opinions. So many valid points with many facts to back them up. Upon rereading your statement, I think my views have changed a bit. You make valid points. Anti Americanism is a problem. And we need to fix this. The war on Iraq I still believe was wrong. But I remain pleased that he's out of power.

daring dueler
07-06-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter


The civilian loss in the war is tragic, but that is the price you pay. I remain glad he is not in power. For my own reasons. Which I will not state here, because someone might take it upon themselves to call me ignorent. Which I find highly offensive.

eccept for the fact you said it was for oil;, i couldnt agree with you more. loss of life happens in war, but if we hadnt done that so many more than who were casualties of war woulda died because of saddam.

my evaluation-not ignorant.

ZBomber
07-06-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by daring dueler
eccept for the fact you said it was for oil;, i couldnt agree with you more. loss of life happens in war, but if we hadnt done that so many more than who were casualties of war woulda died because of saddam.

my evaluation-not ignorant.

I guess you've been brushing off your magicness on me, because I'm agreeing with everything your saying today. :D

El Sitherino
07-06-2003, 10:59 PM
America invaded Iraq with no absolute just cause. Simple as that.
I live in america but I really dispise our government leaders. Especially congress and Bush.

FunClown
07-07-2003, 10:29 AM
If the "average citizen" were to be left ignorant uninformed of the issues, it would be easier for a government to have its way with the populace.

Thats exactly what I found in my research. Since the US government and military largely controls what comes out of Iraq, they can choose what you are told and get to see. Thus, peoples opinions are based on this data which is largely skewed.

This is in contrast to Vietnam where you were able to see the results of what happened. Especially on the Allied side.

Anyone who didn't conform to the governments view would just be labelled anti-american. Aljazeera was bombed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Taking Aljazeera out of the picture would mean you have a lot more control over what people see and hear. In a way, the governments want us to be ignorant.

A pulitzer prize winning journalist was also sacked and labelled anti-american. Both in the early 1990's Gulf conflict and the most recent.

We must also remember it is very easy to balk at civilian casualties. But if it happened to one of us, I'm sure revenge of the government/country who did it would come to mind. We mustn't view others with a superiority complex.

Homuncul
07-07-2003, 01:13 PM
try telling that to the orphans in Iraq, the parents who have lost children, the brothers & sisters that are now alone, the children who have lost limbs, those that have no home due to allied bombings, need i go on?

I find this very untouching

This was WAR broth, not some charity game. People die their, sometimes good sometimes bad, but not the one who lost more civilians is considered a loser. Stop judging everything by the number, stop judging at all. U.S never blamed civilians of Iraq for attack of september, never did a normal Iraqi cevilian blamed U.S. for striking for no reason. Civilians die always and everywhere, but there is only one criterion we can use to consider such things, an international right.

Jah Warrior
07-07-2003, 01:17 PM
Ok how would you take it if a foreign country invaded your homeland and killed your family? would you turn around and say oh well sh!t happens and after all its war? I didnt think so...:rolleyes:

If you think its ok to kill civilians then thats your look out, I on the other hand have morals and a conscience.

For the record i think you will find that there are plenty of Iraqis that are extremely angry with the west for this war and for killing their citizens.

besides what has broth (soup) got do do with anything

Homuncul
07-07-2003, 01:45 PM
For the record i think you will find that there are plenty of Iraqis that are extremely angry with the west for this war and for killing their citizens.

I think you'll find quite a lot americans (especially those who lived the september or families of those who didn't) who hate Iraqis. Or you can find a lot europeans doing the same thing.

Ok how would you take it if a foreign country invaded your homeland and killed your family? would you turn around and say oh well sh!t happens and after all its war? I didnt think so...

Revenge is one thing. I would probably revenge, and then I'll go to jail. But really to resolve the conflict no emotions can help

If you think its ok to kill civilians then thats your look out, I on the other hand have morals and a conscience.

I didn't say it's OK, I say it's inevitable. But my compassion towartds families of these people doesn't mean a thing. As does not mean HOW many innocent people dyed in the war, but that the war took place and war means victims. A solely civilian dying in a war would be the same tragedy as if thousands dyed. Trying to compare such things in numbers isn't moral.

Jah Warrior
07-07-2003, 02:14 PM
ok one by one now:-

I think you'll find quite a lot americans (especially those who lived the september or families of those who didn't) who hate Iraqis. Or you can find a lot europeans doing the same thing.

Assuming you mean september 11th, It is widely known that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it, in case you hadnt noticed it was Al Qaeda which are primarily Saudi Arabian in origin. So why the comparison? no logic there. If people are hating Iraq because of the the two towers then that shows how ignorant and misguided they are.

Revenge is one thing. I would probably revenge, and then I'll go to jail. But really to resolve the conflict no emotions can help

So you agree then.

I didn't say it's OK, I say it's inevitable. But my compassion towartds families of these people doesn't mean a thing. As does not mean HOW many innocent people dyed in the war, but that the war took place and war means victims. A solely civilian dying in a war would be the same tragedy as if thousands dyed. Trying to compare such things in numbers isn't moral.

Again we agree, The comparison of a single death compared to thousands is pointless. The fact that even one person died to allegedly save these people from Hussein is just as digusting as if a thousand or a million died, hence the war is wrong.

bush and Blair must answer for their crimes against humanity as should Hussein. We are led to believe that bush and Blair are christians, what do you think god's take on the situation would be? Going by the letter of the bible they will burn in hell without doubt.

The undeniable truth is that they are responsible for killing civillians just as saddam has done, whether it was with the intent of doing good or not is by the by, the fact remains they killed INNOCENT civilians and should be held accountable. The bible renounces violence at every level, christ himself turned the other cheek after all.

i hate to have to repeat myself, but collateral damage is a concept invented by those that simply have no regard for sanctity of human life.

SkinWalker
07-07-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
I think you'll find quite a lot americans (especially those who lived the september or families of those who didn't) who hate Iraqis. Or you can find a lot europeans doing the same thing.


September 11th shouldn't even be a part of the equation when talking about the War on Iraq. Iraq had zero to do with it.

Unfortunately, however, 9/11 gets cited time and again when proponants of the invasion attempt to justify their feelings. This, I suppose is natural... we want an enemy we can take our revenge out on... Bin Laden is well-hidden and the terrorists directly responsible died in the attacks.

But that doesn't change that 9/11 is not part of the equation... we keep putting it there and the math is bad.

griff38
07-08-2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter
My mistake, I thought you were taking a shot at me. Sorry about that. You know you're very interesting. I really enjoy reading your opinions. So many valid points with many facts to back them up. Upon rereading your statement, I think my views have changed a bit. You make valid points. Anti Americanism is a problem. And we need to fix this. The war on Iraq I still believe was wrong. But I remain pleased that he's out of power.


Congrats to you my friend, that takes balls.

[/B][/QUOTE]
ShockV1.89 http://www.americanstateterrorism.c.../Genocide2.html (do not click on it if a little bit of violence and harsh language offends you)

Now, I believe that it's websites and publications like this one that foster so much anti-americanism in the world. Read through this, and see if you can pick up on this guys slightly twisted report of what happened in Iraq.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think it's the websites & publications that foster anger to the US its the actions they report. Don't slay the messengers.
This person or persons obviously was very outraged at what is happening in the name of the USA.
And I have to tell you, most of the info is true. Many of those photos were posted in this forum by me as they happened.

ShockV1.89
07-08-2003, 01:55 AM
What is true? The pictures? (which cant be denied). Or the authors description of what happened?

That's really what this thread is about. People twisting information to promote a certain viewpoint.

Read some of the text. Listen to the rhetoric he uses. "Demonic American baby killers laughing as they kill women and children with their satanic helicopters."

Perhaps you are intelligent enough to look past the coating into the real story. But not a lot of people are. That's my real beef here. The war in Iraq really was a waste, and had a lot of unnecessary casualities, this is true. But this guy makes it sound as though orders came right down from the president, saying "Kill those women and children. Aim for them!"

It presents an awful picture of the US military, who are just taking orders, and it doesnt really need that. People have a big enough problem with them as it is.

Homuncul
07-08-2003, 05:46 AM
OK, you two 9/11 wasn't the best example, surely I can find at least one veteran or a familiy that lost their kids in the 1t war with Hussein and that'll be enough. In fact Al Qaeda had dealings with Saddam and that should be also enough.

So you agree then.

No I'm not agreed, this is the way I would do and become a terrorist myself literally. I say that such approach won't solve any problem, revenge will come up again and again and things between U.S and Iraq would become like with Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately for muslims - revenge is in their blood, but we have more reason than that. I'm not saying that I 'll forgive, that's the worst thing I will ever do. I just say that however egoistically it may sound you and I must restrain ourselves from counting victims in wars and judge it only by them.

hence the war is wrong.

the War is always wrong, but it happens, sometimes countries have no other choice. What U.S. did was pure economics and that's what's wrong with it. But Saddam's dictatorship is a good justification for me.

Mr.Joshua
07-08-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Jah Warrior
The american military is not to blame in the slightest, after all they are doing a job that the government sent them to do and as should be expected they are doing it. And like you say they are just american people underneath the camo and american people are great folk.

The miltary cannot be held accountable for the decisions of a bad government.

You guys really need the democrats back in power unlikely as it may be. The republicans seem to go around blowing everyone up and the democrats come back and fix the economy and the international relations.

Clinton was the best thing to happen to the states in years, shame he cant have a 3rd 4th or 5th term.

I see it like this:- before bush seized power the u.s was the leader of the free world and now the government over there is "DICTATING" over the free world. It really does not feel like he wants to work WITH us rather than command us.


btw that article is baised bullsh!t even me a borderline communist can see that!

Sorry but Clinton wasn't the best thing that happened to our country. He made us the laughing stock of the world. He weakened our defenses, or do you not remember the bombing of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center? You think the WTC was bombed because of Bush? Sorry but that plan went into action long before George was elected. Clinton weakened our defense of our borders. It was easier to get into this country through both Mexico and Canada than it was for an American to visit other countries.

And what did Clinton do after the first bombing of the WTC and the bombing of the USS Cole? Yippy, he looked so nice and kind in his foriegn policy. And the terrorists took advantage of his hospitatlity. And as payback he launched a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan, do any of you even remember this? No? Why? Because it served NO PURPOSE. It accomplished nothing.

You think Clinton was solely responsible for the economic turn around in this country? That's like actually believing Al Gore fathered the internet. Anyone with a hint of economic knowledge knows of the fluctuations that are bound to happen in any open market. And don't forget, it was during clinton's administration that the dot com crash hit.

The only thing Clinton did was improve our health care system.

I mean come on, if he was so great why was there such a drastic turn around in the voting of this country. And I'm not talking about the Presidential Election debacle. I'm talking about Congress. The republican power base in congress nearly doubled.

Clinton wasn't a good president, he just filled a void. And frankly, I was for going into Iraq, if for nothing else than to get rid of a boil on the Earth named Saddam Hussein. He may not be dead, but he doesn't have the power he had before. And Al-Qaeda doesn't have the power they had before either. Say it's for Oil if you want to, say whatever you like, but no one's going to be able to convince me, and several friends I have that are Iraqi exiles, that the world is not a better place without him in power.

My only hope is that we can solidify their infastructure and give them hope for the future soon.

And if you think you can reason with terrorists, or make peace with terrorists, watch this video clip. Warning, this is a VERY graphic video that aired on al-jazeera, see what they did to this REPORTER, that's right a REPORTER, who are supposed to have freedom to report anything anywhere, who terrorists had used in the past to get their messages out, and look what they did to him and made him say.
Daniel Pearl Video (http://www.fallenknightsclan.com/StrangelandDotCom_Pearl.ram)

El Sitherino
07-08-2003, 12:00 PM
just so you know bush was in office for many months before the world trade center attack.

that's adequate time to make a plan for an attack.

Mr.Joshua
07-08-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
just so you know bush was in office for many months before the world trade center attack.

that's adequate time to make a plan for an attack.

Oh really? The pilots they trained had been doing so for years. Know what the heck you're talking about. That plan went into action LONG before GW was in office. Some of the terrorists had been living in Florida for 5 years. And that doesn't explain the FIRST bombing of the WTC in the early 90's. Please, Bush's foriegn policy can never be blamed for anything pre and including 9/11.

C'jais
07-08-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Jah Warrior
I on the other hand have morals and a conscience.

Jah, don't be so quick to take the moral high ground. I'm sure Homuncul has both a conscience and morals ;) :)

Joshua: I don't think Clinton "weakened your defenses" so that terrorists could slip by unnoticed. Am I wrong in saying you think he's responsible for 9/11 due to "lax" security?

You must remember that border and anti-terror security had always been this low, and was more or less only raised drastically upon 9/11. If Bush had been in charge at that time, terrorists could, and would, still haven't got inside the country. All this talk about "weakenening defenses" sounds more like trying to attach a scapegoat to 9/11, when it's entirely unreasonable to blame Clinton, Bush or whoever.

I think you spend far too much on your military anyway, BTW - you do not need fear an invasion of your country anytime soon, and while all that hardware provides thousands of jobs, it's only serving to "liberate" the middle east currently.

While your country certainly did seem more friendly during the Clinton administration, one must not forget what it has done as well - bombing the medicine factory, and then sweeping it under the rug afterwards, for example. Oh, and Clinton had said numerous times that he thought military action was needed in Iraq as well.

All that, however, pales in comparison to what Bush is doing now, IMHO.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59217

In the light of the US' rage against an international court, this link becomes even more ridiculous.

griff38
07-09-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
What is true? The pictures? (which cant be denied). Or the authors description of what happened?

Yes the pictures are true, and they say alot more than his words.

That's really what this thread is about. People twisting information to promote a certain viewpoint. [/B]

True his words are extreme but No different than calling some guy in a Bradley shooting at Iraqis in pajamas a Hero.

Read some of the text. Listen to the rhetoric he uses. "Demonic American baby killers laughing as they kill women and children with their satanic helicopters."

Perhaps you are intelligent enough to look past the coating into the real story. But not a lot of people are. That's my real beef here. The war in Iraq really was a waste, and had a lot of unnecessary casualities, this is true. But this guy makes it sound as though orders came right down from the president, saying "Kill those women and children. Aim for them!" [/B]

I dont read that at all, the message I get is that our military is full of amoral individuals who find it easier to explain away killing their fellow human beings than admit they were really put in a no win situation.

[i]It presents an awful picture of the US military, who are just taking orders, and it doesnt really need that. People have a big enough problem with them as it is. [/B]

Just taking orders? That defense was used by the Nazis at Nuremberg. It didn't keep any of them from the hangmans noose.
This tiny website which by way you haved "empowered" by pointing it out to others does show only 1 side of the story. While describing how some "individuals" were doing this he clearly left out the stories of Marines and Soldiers horrifed they had killed the innocents that we were there to save. But every major news outlet in the west does that and avoids the stories you hate.
So I really don't think you have made a good argument against this guy.
Shock my guess is ( and I am sure you will correct me if i am wrong) that someone you care alot about is in the military and you feel this is a personal attack on him or her. It's obvious that our entire military does not participate like the individuals sited. And most people with common sense realize this too.

ShockV1.89
07-09-2003, 02:24 PM
It's obvious that our entire military does not participate like the individuals sited. And most people with common sense realize this too.

But that's just it, the author of that website would have you believe that anyone even mildly affiliated with the US Military is guilty of crimes against humanity.

Read some of the letters written in by readers. There was one there written by a fella who manufactures munitions here in the states. He was damned as a baby killer just as much as the rest of the US Military.

Yes, I have friends in the military. My brother in law is an Air Marshal, and I have a friend on a submarine somewhere out there. And yes, I do feel these are personal attacks on them, because he has attacked the entire US military. It's fine to criticize the actions of certain soldiers or units. But to damn the entire military? No, I dont feel that's justified at all.

I can tell the author of this page is one of those who would love to see another Mogadishu....

SkinWalker
07-09-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
In fact Al Qaeda had dealings with Saddam and that should be also enough.

There is no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein had any substantial dealings with Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Unfortunately for muslims - revenge is in their blood, but we have more reason than that.

I think this is a human condition, rather than a Muslim one. If you doubt it, come visit me in Dallas and I'll show you the locations of a dozen or so drive-by shootings that kids have perpetrated and have been victims of. The reason kids shoot other kids: "they started it." HUGE parallels with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict with American street-gang crimes.

Originally posted by Homuncul
I just say that however egoistically it may sound you and I must restrain ourselves from counting victims in wars and judge it only by them.

This somehow seems callous coming from you, Homoncul. What then is the unacceptable number of civilian casualties in order to make a populace "free?" If we kill 80% of a population so the other 20% can be free, is this right? 50/50? 20/80? Who then can say that 4,000 killed, which is the number that it is expected to reach, is okay? I agree that there are going to be civilian casualties... but they must be counted, included and considered. Above all, they must be honored. I think these failings are partly the cause of the current violence against my country's troops.

Originally posted by Homuncul
What U.S. did was pure economics and that's what's wrong with it. But Saddam's dictatorship is a good justification for me.

I cannot disagree with these two sentances. My discontention with my government is that they weren't truthful in their mission to gain public support... they lied about the true reasons. What else are they willing to lie about?

El Sitherino
07-09-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
they lied about the true reasons. What else are they willing to lie about? exactly. if i'm gonna be screwed over in the end I'd like to atleast know about it.

Kain
07-09-2003, 09:52 PM
I hate Bush
I hate this war
But screw the people who made that site.
The soldiers are merely carrying out their orders to defend us civies back Home.
Yea, I feel bad for Iraq when they say civilian casualty, but the scenes of cheering and flag burning on 9-11 are okay? Did they give a hoot and a nanny when 1000's of our civilians died? No. The simple reason is because humans are ignorant and so self-concieted and self-destructive it sickens me to hear people like that site's makers use the freedom of speech that our soldiers are 'murdering' for! AND THAT ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *** OF A ************************************************** ************************************* MOCKERY OF OUR FLAG WITH THE STARS FORMING A NAZI IS SO ****ING DISGUISTING!! THE MAKERS OF THAT SITE SHOULD GET DROPPED INTO HUSSEIN'S HOUSE AND SEE HOW WELL THEY LIKE THE RECEPTION!!! ****

Homuncul
07-10-2003, 04:48 AM
What else are they willing to lie about?

Anything it considers beneficial not to talk into public. But that I'm afraid is a trade of every country, somewhere more, somewhere less.

I think this is a human condition, rather than a Muslim one. If you doubt it, come visit me in Dallas and I'll show you the locations of a dozen or so drive-by shootings that kids have perpetrated and have been victims of. The reason kids shoot other kids: "they started it." HUGE parallels with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict with American street-gang crimes.

My old school once turned into fire camps of rappers (I mean Rap, Yo!) and metalists. Many were injured just because of a single person challenging another single person. It happens with us, but here we are not neccesarily tought from birth that revenge is the only way (sometimes people come to it on their own). Muslims are.

This somehow seems callous coming from you, Homoncul. What then is the unacceptable number of civilian casualties in order to make a populace "free?" If we kill 80% of a population so the other 20% can be free, is this right? 50/50? 20/80? Who then can say that 4,000 killed, which is the number that it is expected to reach, is okay? I agree that there are going to be civilian casualties... but they must be counted, included and considered. Above all, they must be honored. I think these failings are partly the cause of the current violence against my country's troops.

There is no such thing as "unacceptable number" in these matters (for me). And count, consideration, and honor is what we owe them. But every time someone says: "look at thousands of dead children there", and it follows that with this statement one justifys his opinion about U.S. being wrong, I can't stay offline. There are facts of how many american, british soldiers died during the war, does it then mean that we have to say: "The war was good, we lost some hundreds of soldiers to their thousands, we 've lost few civilians there (reporters) to their thousands of civilians". I'm only for judging the war correctly and not through a facet of how many civilians died on both sides, but that they died and probably more could've dyed.

How many civilians died in Hiroshima? How many during WW2 itself? they died, they are remembered but it's not the criterion to call war "good" fo one side and "bad" for another. Many leaders through history considered wars as a good mechanism for broadening of their lands or developing of new technology or correcting the number of population. World is not perfect, nor it should be I think, and wars are it's reality. What WE think about it doesn't mean a thing unless we have power to dictate what's right. I don't have such power, international right has. If you're not agreed with it, take your fortune and come to change it, I'll be very thankful for this.

El Sitherino
07-10-2003, 05:40 PM
During the point in time of the Hiroshima bombing there were around 1 million people living there. Everyone in the city died. I know this because my opa was in japan at this time, He was in rehabilitation after being shot.He stayed with a family that had relatives in Hiroshima. Also had he not left a few days before the bombing he would have been killed from the fallout.

FunClown
07-11-2003, 04:58 AM
During the point in time of the Hiroshima bombing there were around 1 million people living there. Everyone in the city died. I know this because my opa was in japan at this time, He was in rehabilitation after being shot.He stayed with a family that had relatives in Hiroshima. Also had he not left a few days before the bombing he would have been killed from the fallout.

Some Australian POWs actually survived one of the nuclear bombs.