Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: omega3000 on 01 February 2013, 22:27:24
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21293598
Hope its not anywhere near cem :(
-
nope.. :(
-
and if any group want to attack this embassy , why use a bomber ? embassy is highly protected not much chance to damage..
so many questions and I cant see the logic for this type of attack..
-
The bomber couldn't hope to get past xray. Maybe he was hoping the ambassador would come personally to meet Didem Tuncay
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3518/hotlinkv.jpg) who was due apparently "to have tea with him". She was badly injured in the blast.
-
The logic? ??? ???
Before Cem explains, I will quickly outline the problem for those who cannot see it:
Well Turkey was the centre of the Otterman Empire, an Empire that equalled the one from Rome, and later centred on Byzantium - later named Constantinople, then with the Otterman's in 1453, today's Istanbul. A Muslim country, sitting between the West and East, Christian and Muslim countries, that is now more secular than most after the Otterman Empire died just under 100 years ago. Turkey has allowed Western allies (Christian) to base their aircraft on their airbases and to launch attacks on Middle Eastern (Muslim)targets.
The upshot to this is that many Middle Eastern, and elsewhere, Muslims are no doubt pretty pissed off and want Turkey to decide against the West, while Turkey (correct me Cem if am wrong!) as I see it as a Westerner, wants closer ties with Europe. Within Turkey and outside there is much conflict politically, and now with violence flaring as in this attack on the infidel American Embassy, an outstanding symbol of Western Imperialism that Muslims of extreme desires will focus their hate on. This attack is obviously yet another token gesture of Muslim anger;)
As an add on I would also state to those worried about immigration in Britain, and especially London as per another thread, worry instead that the Western military forces under the direction of political masters, still see fit to invade Muslim countries and wreak havoc. Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries. Hate is building constantly against us in the west, just as much as hatred of the German's built up as they committed to war across Europe and the Soviet Union. If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
God, in Europe we should have learnt by now war achieves nothing!! ::) ::) ::) :(
-
nope.. :(
Glad to here it :y
Be sure to keep your head down and keep safe :y
-
nope.. :(
Glad to hear it :y
Be sure to keep your head down and keep safe :y
thanks Al.. :y
-
Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.
If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
So which countries are we talking about Lizzie? 'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me.... ::)
Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did? ??? or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert! :-\
From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? ???
-
Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.
If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
So which countries are we talking about Lizzie? 'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me.... ::)
Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did? ??? or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert! :-\
From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? ???
Firstly TigerHayes I would answer with Iraq and Afghanistan, were Western armies have fought for decades / a century and only stirred up further hatred of the West. Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself. Coupled to that all the other Middle Eastern states that the west have muddled with.
In answer to "NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did?" well no, of course not. But what I mean is the constant "mistakes" in attacking civilian targets and killing women and children, let alone innocent men, makes the west appear to be like the German's when they fought wars on other peoples lands. The Germans were generally the enemy to most of the populations they ran across from the start, whilst the Western forces are trying to be a friend to all, but becoming enemies of many as innocents are killed "by mistaken" military action, and of course the alleged torturing of prisoners as the Nazis would have done. The result is the same; widespread distrust and animosity that sows the wind for future conflict as wars often have in the past!
What is wrong in trying to broker peace if that avoids further war? Let's give peace a chance as, being brutally frank, the west have been losing the war since the recent episode started after 9/11; or was that really the First Gulf War in 1990/91? All the west has done, yet again, is stir up hatred and mistrust. After the killing of Bin Laden, THE big target, a ceasefire should have ensued with a chance given for peace talks. As Winston Churchill once famously said "It is far better to jaw jaw than war war!"
The west will never win with its current policy of fighting a war with hidden terrorists / freedom fighters involved and not a full traditional battlefield of enemy combatants. It must find a new way of winning Islamic minds who believe the USA is the Great Satan, and Britain the Little Satan.
The French may have started to win the first round of their battle, but their war has only just begun with a lot more to do and suffer. The French President has admitted that there is still a long way to go, and he is right.
What do I suggest? I would pull back all troops to man a well patrolled border throughout Europe to prevent any potential terrorists in, whilst putting all our efforts into diplomacy. The Afghans are virtually ready to take on their own security, so for now keep the west out and let them get on with it.
We certainly must find a better answer than so far we have failed to do in the west. ;)
Remember, war has been the final cause of all the great empires downfalls. Let war not be the downfall of the west in it's entirety!
-
Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.
If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
So which countries are we talking about Lizzie? 'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me.... ::)
Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did? ??? or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert! :-\
From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? ???
Nope, it is like the useful fool socialists wanted to let communism spread all over the world as it was no threat, fortunately the Americans and the Western World fought where necessary to stop it happening. The same socialists have the same attitude to Islam and can't see any threat to Western civilization either. Most civilizations are destroyed from within and Europe has no divine right to carry on advancing technologically. After the fall of the Roman empire Europe and especially the UK went backwards for 100's of years where we lost their technologies in the dark age.
If you don't want this country by 2066 being a majority Muslim state then you have got to do your bit to stop it by supporting a ban on immigration (vote UKIP) and start breeding. An average Muslim family in the UK has 8.2 children and an average Christian family has 1.6 where you need 2.11 for the Christian population to just stay static!
Once a country is majority Muslim then the Middle East shows that it tends to be ethically cleansed of other religions. This is currently happening in Egypt, Iraq and Syria and Africa, hence the French intervention in Mali. 80% of Imams are radical extremists as this is what has motivated then to become an Imam in the first place! So the chances of this country being in control of moderate Muslims once they are the majority is slim. Moderate Mulims won't necessarily support it but they won't go against the Imams either.
Remember this will lead to the banning of pork, alcohol, mixed education, women's equality, music and most current TV programs for starters. Most OOFers will be too old for this to affect them, but it will your children and grand children.
To show how peaceful the religion is, were there mass riots by Christians and death threats over the Film "The Life of Brian", which some Christians thought was blasphemous? Now consider the response to "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, the Danish Mohammed cartoons in Denmark and the Muslim film released in America last year. As a Christian you are taught to love thy neighbour. Radical Muslims are taught to kill the infidel. As one Imam put it: Christians love life, we love death.
The majority of moderate Muslims are like moderate Christians and just want to get on with life and raise their families etc, but the radical Muslims have a very different agenda as we have seen with 7/7 and numerous other thwarted attacks.
Appeasers are like Churchill said: "They feed all their friends to the crocodiles, hoping it will eat them last"
In 1970 the world's population was 20% Western countries and 15% Muslim. By 2005 it was 15% Western countries and 20% Muslims. The US strategically expects to be the lone major Christian Western country by 2100. I have not read it yet, but a book "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn used to have a column in the DT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone)
Here is a lecture Mark Steyn gave on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM)
-
The logic? ??? ???
Before Cem explains, I will quickly outline the problem for those who cannot see it:
Well Turkey was the centre of the Otterman Empire, an Empire that equalled the one from Rome, and later centred on Byzantium - later named Constantinople, then with the Otterman's in 1453, today's Istanbul. A Muslim country, sitting between the West and East, Christian and Muslim countries, that is now more secular than most after the Otterman Empire died just under 100 years ago. Turkey has allowed Western allies (Christian) to base their aircraft on their airbases and to launch attacks on Middle Eastern (Muslim)targets.
The upshot to this is that many Middle Eastern, and elsewhere, Muslims are no doubt pretty pissed off and want Turkey to decide against the West, while Turkey (correct me Cem if am wrong!) as I see it as a Westerner, wants closer ties with Europe. Within Turkey and outside there is much conflict politically, and now with violence flaring as in this attack on the infidel American Embassy, an outstanding symbol of Western Imperialism that Muslims of extreme desires will focus their hate on. This attack is obviously yet another token gesture of Muslim anger;)
As an add on I would also state to those worried about immigration in Britain, and especially London as per another thread, worry instead that the Western military forces under the direction of political masters, still see fit to invade Muslim countries and wreak havoc. Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries. Hate is building constantly against us in the west, just as much as hatred of the German's built up as they committed to war across Europe and the Soviet Union. If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
God, in Europe we should have learnt by now war achieves nothing!! ::) ::) ::) :(
very good Lizzie :y :y :y
I would add some extra things but these are highly political so I will pm you the details.. :y :y
-
Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.
If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
So which countries are we talking about Lizzie? 'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me.... ::)
Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did? ??? or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert! :-\
From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? ???
Firstly TigerHayes I would answer with Iraq and Afghanistan, were Western armies have fought for decades / a century and only stirred up further hatred of the West. Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself. Coupled to that all the other Middle Eastern states that the west have muddled with.
In answer to "NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did?" well no, of course not. But what I mean is the constant "mistakes" in attacking civilian targets and killing women and children, let alone innocent men, makes the west appear to be like the German's when they fought wars on other peoples lands. The Germans were generally the enemy to most of the populations they ran across from the start, whilst the Western forces are trying to be a friend to all, but becoming enemies of many as innocents are killed "by mistaken" military action, and of course the alleged torturing of prisoners as the Nazis would have done. The result is the same; widespread distrust and animosity that sows the wind for future conflict as wars often have in the past!
What is wrong in trying to broker peace if that avoids further war? Let's give peace a chance as, being brutally frank, the west have been losing the war since the recent episode started after 9/11; or was that really the First Gulf War in 1990/91? All the west has done, yet again, is stir up hatred and mistrust. After the killing of Bin Laden, THE big target, a ceasefire should have ensued with a chance given for peace talks. As Winston Churchill once famously said "It is far better to jaw jaw than war war!"
The west will never win with its current policy of fighting a war with hidden terrorists / freedom fighters involved and not a full traditional battlefield of enemy combatants. It must find a new way of winning Islamic minds who believe the USA is the Great Satan, and Britain the Little Satan.
The French may have started to win the first round of their battle, but their war has only just begun with a lot more to do and suffer. The French President has admitted that there is still a long way to go, and he is right.
What do I suggest? I would pull back all troops to man a well patrolled border throughout Europe to prevent any potential terrorists in, whilst putting all our efforts into diplomacy. The Afghans are virtually ready to take on their own security, so for now keep the west out and let them get on with it.
We certainly must find a better answer than so far we have failed to do in the west. ;)
Remember, war has been the final cause of all the great empires downfalls. Let war not be the downfall of the west in it's entirety!
phew.. a real historian .. no need for me :y :y :y :y
-
Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.
If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
So which countries are we talking about Lizzie? 'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me.... ::)
Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did? ??? or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert! :-\
From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? ???
Nope, it is like the useful fool socialists wanted to let communism spread all over the world as it was no threat, fortunately the Americans and the Western World fought where necessary to stop it happening. The same socialists have the same attitude to Islam and can't see any threat to Western civilization either. Most civilizations are destroyed from within and Europe has no divine right to carry on advancing technologically. After the fall of the Roman empire Europe and especially the UK went backwards for 100's of years where we lost their technologies in the dark age.
If you don't want this country by 2066 being a majority Muslim state then you have got to do your bit to stop it by supporting a ban on immigration (vote UKIP) and start breeding. An average Muslim family in the UK has 8.2 children and an average Christian family has 1.6 where you need 2.11 for the Christian population to just stay static!
Once a country is majority Muslim then the Middle East shows that it tends to be ethically cleansed of other religions. This is currently happening in Egypt, Iraq and Syria and Africa, hence the French intervention in Mali. 80% of Imams are radical extremists as this is what has motivated then to become an Imam in the first place! So the chances of this country being in control of moderate Muslims once they are the majority is slim. Moderate Mulims won't necessarily support it but they won't go against the Imams either.
Remember this will lead to the banning of pork, alcohol, mixed education, women's equality, music and most current TV programs for starters. Most OOFers will be too old for this to affect them, but it will your children and grand children.
To show how peaceful the religion is, were there mass riots by Christians and death threats over the Film "The Life of Brian", which some Christians thought was blasphemous? Now consider the response to "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, the Danish Mohammed cartoons in Denmark and the Muslim film released in America last year. As a Christian you are taught to love thy neighbour. Radical Muslims are taught to kill the infidel. As one Imam put it: Christians love life, we love death.
The majority of moderate Muslims are like moderate Christians and just want to get on with life and raise their families etc, but the radical Muslims have a very different agenda as we have seen with 7/7 and numerous other thwarted attacks.
Appeasers are like Churchill said: "They feed all their friends to the crocodiles, hoping it will eat them last"
In 1970 the world's population was 20% Western countries and 15% Muslim. By 2005 it was 15% Western countries and 20% Muslims. The US strategically expects to be the lone major Christian Western country by 2100. I have not read it yet, but a book "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn used to have a column in the DT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone)
Here is a lecture Mark Steyn gave on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM)
It is only called the "dark ages" because today we know so little about those times.
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950
-
Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.
If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
So which countries are we talking about Lizzie? 'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me.... ::)
Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did? ??? or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert! :-\
From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? ???
If you don't want this country by 2066 being a majority Muslim state then you have got to do your bit to stop it by supporting a ban on immigration (vote UKIP) and start breeding. An average Muslim family in the UK has 8.2 children and an average Christian family has 1.6 where you need 2.11 for the Christian population to just stay static!
Once a country is majority Muslim then the Middle East shows that it tends to be ethically cleansed of other religions. This is currently happening in Egypt, Iraq and Syria and Africa, hence the French intervention in Mali. 80% of Imams are radical extremists as this is what has motivated then to become an Imam in the first place! So the chances of this country being in control of moderate Muslims once they are the majority is slim. Moderate Mulims won't necessarily support it but they won't go against the Imams either.
Remember this will lead to the banning of pork, alcohol, mixed education, women's equality, music and most current TV programs for starters. Most OOFers will be too old for this to affect them, but it will your children and grand children.
To show how peaceful the religion is, were there mass riots by Christians and death threats over the Film "The Life of Brian", which some Christians thought was blasphemous? Now consider the response to "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, the Danish Mohammed cartoons in Denmark and the Muslim film released in America last year. As a Christian you are taught to love thy neighbour. Radical Muslims are taught to kill the infidel. As one Imam put it: Christians love life, we love death.
The majority of moderate Muslims are like moderate Christians and just want to get on with life and raise their families etc, but the radical Muslims have a very different agenda as we have seen with 7/7 and numerous other thwarted attacks.
Appeasers are like Churchill said: "They feed all their friends to the crocodiles, hoping it will eat them last"
In 1970 the world's population was 20% Western countries and 15% Muslim. By 2005 it was 15% Western countries and 20% Muslims. The US strategically expects to be the lone major Christian Western country by 2100. I have not read it yet, but a book "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn used to have a column in the DT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone)
Here is a lecture Mark Steyn gave on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM)
facts!
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! ;D
You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! ;D
You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?
ok.. let me ask you a question, do you really believe that those soldiers are there to stop Al Quaida ? ;)
-
Would anyone be surprised Cem if vast quantities of crude oil were suddenly discovered under the Afghan deserts? Of course not and what was Iraq all about? ::) So no, in answer to your question I don't believe it's all about chasing Al Quaida and their affiliates, but that is how Afghanistan started off, as the Afghan government at the time, the Taliban, allowed Al Quaida to operate, recruit and train in Afghanistan. :(
It's not just western armies fighting the Islamists either, take Somalia for example where African countries are taking the fight to Al Shabaab. Uganda has about 6,000 troops and apparently have lost about 2,700 men there!! :o Kenya has about 5,000 troops, Burundi about 4500 troops and Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Ghana, Zambia, Cameroon and Senegal all have troops there as well. Kenya and Uganda have both suffered terrorism as a result with bombings targeted at civilians in Nairobi and Kampala. >:(
A question for you Cem! :) Where does Iran fit into the puzzle? ???
-
Would anyone be surprised Cem if vast quantities of crude oil were suddenly discovered under the Afghan deserts? Of course not and what was Iraq all about? ::) So no, in answer to your question 1.I don't believe it's all about chasing Al Quaida and their affiliates, but that is how Afghanistan started off, as the Afghan government at the time, the 2.Taliban, allowed 3.Al Quaida to operate, recruit and train in Afghanistan. :(
It's not just western armies fighting the Islamists either, take Somalia for example where African countries are taking the fight to Al Shabaab. Uganda has about 6,000 troops and apparently have lost about 2,700 men there!! :o Kenya has about 5,000 troops, Burundi about 4500 troops and Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Ghana, Zambia, Cameroon and Senegal all have troops there as well. Kenya and Uganda have both suffered terrorism as a result with bombings targeted at civilians in Nairobi and Kampala. >:(
A question for you Cem! :) Where does Iran fit into the puzzle? ???
1. ;D so finishing Al Quaida is not the actual goal and your question to Lizzie
"Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?"
is meaningless.. :) Al quaida as a reason just fits and hides the main purpose..
2.Taliban is initially trained and armed by Americans against Russians ;D
3.There is no puzzle about Iran.. Iran stays at a very strategic point.. with its arms , rockets, fighter planes can effect oil flow in the gulf at any moment.. effects surrounding govts..besides they are totally anti west..
-
1. ;D so finishing Al Quaida is not the actual goal and your question to Lizzie
"Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?"
is meaningless.. :) Al quaida as a reason just fits and hides the main purpose..
I didn't say that.... Read what I said carefully Cem! ::)
"I don't believe it's all about chasing Al Quaida..." Emphasis on the word 'all' !! and I didn't say, that I don't believe that finishing Al Quaida is the 'goal' as you put it, so my question to Lizzie is meaningful and valid! ;)
But, I'm sure that there are other factors at work, like control of natural resources for one, Mali borders oil and gas rich Algeria, so it's conceivable that there is oil and gas under the sands of Mali. Look at the proximity of Afghanistan to Iran and then think of the military assets that NATO has there..... :-\ I'm sure that you can come up with some more Cem as you love a good conspiracy theory! ;)
All said and done though, the main job of the Western (and African) armies fighting these Islamic extremists is to stop them from consolidating power in any particular area, giving them space and time to recruit, plan and train for attacks on the free world! :)
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! ;D
You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?
If I have not made it already clear, is it justified that the West has troops in these Muslim countries? All the time they are there killing and maiming "innocents" they are gaining nothing but enemies of the west. Can any western army justify itself by being on foreign lands unless their is a clear threat to national interests i.e. Germany threatening Great Britain in 1940; the German's invading Russia in 1941? Unless there is a unambiguous threat to "Christian" lands then the West's armies have no business being there. After 9/11 the American's, and Britain, had sympathy from many quarters about such a terrorist attack on innocents. That all was thrown away by subsequent American actions in the Middle East, including the nonsense that was the invasion of Iraq. Going for Bin Laden should have been enough, but no typically of the USA they went in with a policy of all guns blazing. If America / West had been wise far more subtle actions should have ensued to use local and international diplomacy and Arab friends to track down and kill the threat. The ensuing wars of Iraq and Afghanistan just greatly increased the level of enemies for the West and has achieved little. Is London or New York, or even Paris now, any safer from terrorist attack? The answer is no!! That is due to all the enemies these wasteful, mindless wars, have created for us all. So YES TigerHayes, if we pull our troops out, and enter into peace talks with the opposing forces then YES we could gain a far more permanent peaceful solution to the one we have now!
Never forget the other piece of American history; the Vietnam War. The USA thought they could fight it after the French pulled out and avoid the Communists taking control of the whole the South China Sea area, even as far as Australia. The Americans went in eventually, after first having 'advisors' there, with ground troops from 1965 with full carpet bombing following. It cost trillions of dollars, 58 thousand US personnel and millions of Vietnamese lives, with eventually political pressure at home resulting in the US pulling out in 1973. The North Vietnamese then took over the whole country. But did the communists sweep in to the countries around the South China Sea as America originally feared? No! In fact the other countries all decided that they wanted a different political control than one from China. All that Western / American interference for what? Another war at great expense in all respects, but for no gain to the West. Just many enemies that still hate the Americans for killing their families in random carpet bombing attacks whilst trying to kill the elusive Viet Cong. And, yes most historians, including this one, now recognise how the longer the Americans fought the war, the more South Vietnamese supported the Viet Cong and Sheltered them as they had learnt to hate the Americans and just wanted the war to stop. The Communists ended up being their preferred option. That is exactly what is happening in these Muslim countries that the West is interfering in; originally politically indecisive people are being persuaded by what they see to hate Western forces. ;)
-
Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.
If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!
So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.
So which countries are we talking about Lizzie? 'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me.... ::)
Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did? ??? or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert! :-\
From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? ???
Nope, it is like the useful fool socialists wanted to let communism spread all over the world as it was no threat, fortunately the Americans and the Western World fought where necessary to stop it happening. The same socialists have the same attitude to Islam and can't see any threat to Western civilization either. Most civilizations are destroyed from within and Europe has no divine right to carry on advancing technologically. After the fall of the Roman empire Europe and especially the UK went backwards for 100's of years where we lost their technologies in the dark age.
If you don't want this country by 2066 being a majority Muslim state then you have got to do your bit to stop it by supporting a ban on immigration (vote UKIP) and start breeding. An average Muslim family in the UK has 8.2 children and an average Christian family has 1.6 where you need 2.11 for the Christian population to just stay static!
Once a country is majority Muslim then the Middle East shows that it tends to be ethically cleansed of other religions. This is currently happening in Egypt, Iraq and Syria and Africa, hence the French intervention in Mali. 80% of Imams are radical extremists as this is what has motivated then to become an Imam in the first place! So the chances of this country being in control of moderate Muslims once they are the majority is slim. Moderate Mulims won't necessarily support it but they won't go against the Imams either.
Remember this will lead to the banning of pork, alcohol, mixed education, women's equality, music and most current TV programs for starters. Most OOFers will be too old for this to affect them, but it will your children and grand children.
To show how peaceful the religion is, were there mass riots by Christians and death threats over the Film "The Life of Brian", which some Christians thought was blasphemous? Now consider the response to "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, the Danish Mohammed cartoons in Denmark and the Muslim film released in America last year. As a Christian you are taught to love thy neighbour. Radical Muslims are taught to kill the infidel. As one Imam put it: Christians love life, we love death.
The majority of moderate Muslims are like moderate Christians and just want to get on with life and raise their families etc, but the radical Muslims have a very different agenda as we have seen with 7/7 and numerous other thwarted attacks.
Appeasers are like Churchill said: "They feed all their friends to the crocodiles, hoping it will eat them last"
In 1970 the world's population was 20% Western countries and 15% Muslim. By 2005 it was 15% Western countries and 20% Muslims. The US strategically expects to be the lone major Christian Western country by 2100. I have not read it yet, but a book "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn used to have a column in the DT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone)
Here is a lecture Mark Steyn gave on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM)
It is only called the "dark ages" because today we know so little about those times.
Absolutely right! :y :y
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! ;D
You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... ::)
Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?
If I have not made it already clear, is it justified that the West has troops in these Muslim countries? All the time they are there killing and maiming "innocents" they are gaining nothing but enemies of the west. Can any western army justify itself by being on foreign lands unless their is a clear threat to national interests i.e. Germany threatening Great Britain in 1940; the German's invading Russia in 1941? Unless there is a unambiguous threat to "Christian" lands then the West's armies have no business being there. After 9/11 the American's, and Britain, had sympathy from many quarters about such a terrorist attack on innocents. That all was thrown away by subsequent American actions in the Middle East, including the nonsense that was the invasion of Iraq. Going for Bin Laden should have been enough, but no typically of the USA they went in with a policy of all guns blazing. If America / West had been wise far more subtle actions should have ensued to use local and international diplomacy and Arab friends to track down and kill the threat. The ensuing wars of Iraq and Afghanistan just greatly increased the level of enemies for the West and has achieved little. Is London or New York, or even Paris now, any safer from terrorist attack? The answer is no!! That is due to all the enemies these wasteful, mindless wars, have created for us all. So YES TigerHayes, if we pull our troops out, and enter into peace talks with the opposing forces then YES we could gain a far more permanent peaceful solution to the one we have now!
Never forget the other piece of American history; the Vietnam War. The USA thought they could fight it after the French pulled out and avoid the Communists taking control of the whole the South China Sea area, even as far as Australia. The Americans went in eventually, after first having 'advisors' there, with ground troops from 1965 with full carpet bombing following. It cost trillions of dollars, 58 thousand US personnel and millions of Vietnamese lives, with eventually political pressure at home resulting in the US pulling out in 1973. The North Vietnamese then took over the whole country. But did the communists sweep in to the countries around the South China Sea as America originally feared? No! In fact the other countries all decided that they wanted a different political control than one from China. All that Western / American interference for what? Another war at great expense in all respects, but for no gain to the West. Just many enemies that still hate the Americans for killing their families in random carpet bombing attacks whilst trying to kill the elusive Viet Cong. And, yes most historians, including this one, now recognise how the longer the Americans fought the war, the more South Vietnamese supported the Viet Cong and Sheltered them as they had learnt to hate the Americans and just wanted the war to stop. The Communists ended up being their preferred option. That is exactly what is happening in these Muslim countries that the West is interfering in; originally politically indecisive people are being persuaded by what they see to hate Western forces. ;)
pheeew..perfect.. I wouldnt want to be against you Lizzie ;D ;D :y :y :y :y
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950
When I mentioned Egypt Albiltz I wrote "Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself." That being in 1956, but British control in Egypt was never welcomed, and the way "natives" were treated, as recorded by many historians who have studied the British involvement in that country, was appalling. By the time of Suez the average Egyptian could not wait to be rid of the British occupation by it's military soon enough. All this when Egypt had been granted a form of independence by the British in 1922, and it being ratified in 1936 with Egypt being granted it's full independence as a sovereign state. However, British forces remained and tried to dictate the politics of the country. By 1956 the hero and saviour of Egypt had arrived in the form of Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser and nationalised the Canal. The rest his history, but put simply what followed was a disgusting act of deceit by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, who colluded with the State of Israel to stage an invasion by them to give Britain and France the excuse to invade Egypt with massed forces to "fight off" the Israeli's. All was guaranteed to anger Nasser and his people beyond imagination, but of course for once the Americans stepped in and demanded Britain and France withdraw. It was yet another attempt by Britain to interfere with the internal politics of a Muslim country, and of course today still represents how close Britain, America, The West, is to Israel who are the enemy of Palestine and Muslims generally.
So in Muslim eyes you have America and the West supporting Israel against the Arab states and Islam in general, whilst attacking Palestinian civilians. Are we then surprised we in the West have ended up with Muslim extremists attacking us? ::) ;)
Poor old Turkey, the subject of this thread, is suffering by being between both camps with very volatile internal politics balancing between secular and Muslim control, with the West hardly assisting them by staying out of the region! ;)
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950)
When I mentioned Egypt Albiltz I wrote "Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself." That being in 1956, but British control in Egypt was never welcomed, and the way "natives" were treated, as recorded by many historians who have studied the British involvement in that country, was appalling. By the time of Suez the average Egyptian could not wait to be rid of the British occupation by it's military soon enough. All this when Egypt had been granted a form of independence by the British in 1922, and it being ratified in 1936 with Egypt being granted it's full independence as a sovereign state. However, British forces remained and tried to dictate the politics of the country. By 1956 the hero and saviour of Egypt had arrived in the form of Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser and nationalised the Canal. The rest his history, but put simply what followed was a disgusting act of deceit by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, who colluded with the State of Israel to stage an invasion by them to give Britain and France the excuse to invade Egypt with massed forces to "fight off" the Israeli's. All was guaranteed to anger Nasser and his people beyond imagination, but of course for once the Americans stepped in and demanded Britain and France withdraw. It was yet another attempt by Britain to interfere with the internal politics of a Muslim country, and of course today still represents how close Britain, America, The West, is to Israel who are the enemy of Palestine and Muslims generally.
So in Muslim eyes you have America and the West supporting Israel against the Arab states and Islam in general, whilst attacking Palestinian civilians. Are we then surprised we in the West have ended up with Muslim extremists attacking us? ::) ;)
Poor old Turkey, the subject of this thread, is suffering by being between both camps with very volatile internal politics balancing between secular and Muslim control, with the West hardly assisting them by staying out of the region! ;)
Lizzie, it was an excellent history lesson :y :y :y :y :y
I hope your university deans are not like our admins ;D you may end up loosing the job :(
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950)
When I mentioned Egypt Albiltz I wrote "Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself." That being in 1956, but British control in Egypt was never welcomed, and the way "natives" were treated, as recorded by many historians who have studied the British involvement in that country, was appalling. By the time of Suez the average Egyptian could not wait to be rid of the British occupation by it's military soon enough. All this when Egypt had been granted a form of independence by the British in 1922, and it being ratified in 1936 with Egypt being granted it's full independence as a sovereign state. However, British forces remained and tried to dictate the politics of the country. By 1956 the hero and saviour of Egypt had arrived in the form of Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser and nationalised the Canal. The rest his history, but put simply what followed was a disgusting act of deceit by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, who colluded with the State of Israel to stage an invasion by them to give Britain and France the excuse to invade Egypt with massed forces to "fight off" the Israeli's. All was guaranteed to anger Nasser and his people beyond imagination, but of course for once the Americans stepped in and demanded Britain and France withdraw. It was yet another attempt by Britain to interfere with the internal politics of a Muslim country, and of course today still represents how close Britain, America, The West, is to Israel who are the enemy of Palestine and Muslims generally.
So in Muslim eyes you have America and the West supporting Israel against the Arab states and Islam in general, whilst attacking Palestinian civilians. Are we then surprised we in the West have ended up with Muslim extremists attacking us? ::) ;)
Poor old Turkey, the subject of this thread, is suffering by being between both camps with very volatile internal politics balancing between secular and Muslim control, with the West hardly assisting them by staying out of the region! ;)
Lizzie, it was an excellent history lesson :y :y :y :y :y
I hope your university deans are not like our admins ;D you may end up loosing the job :(
Thanks Cem :y :y :y
-
America and the west supporting Israel against a constant onslaught of terrorism from Muslim Palestinian extremists. ;)
The point I was making was that much of what is currently happening in the region is pretty much as a direct result of the "Arab spring".
At the time,some of us thought it may be akin to poking a stick in a hornets nest,others didnt. ::)
-
Let's be honest, the world would be a much better place without
fairy stories religion of any kind.
-
We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950
Sorry, I have just realised I have not answered your points fully Albitz. So here goes!
Yes, I was very much in favour of the "Arab Spring", as it was Arabs /Muslims fighting for a new democracy in both Egypt and Libya. In both cases they were being ruled by dictators and they needed democratic reform. Egypt is still though trying to sort it's democracy out, just as the British did 200 years ago. The difference with these revolutions were they were home grown, with Muslims fighting Muslims, and apart from some Western support in the air over Libya, they won all by themselves. No hate of the West ensued, and in fact only praise for their limited action, that should teach us something; the West should only give the help the countries people's want, and need, but no more. No full war involvement, no troops on the ground, and no internal "actions" by the West using it's "hidden" forces.
As for "Christians" being crucifying by Muslims; that is pure scaremongering, and probably propaganda by certain interested parties! It reminds me of when the British nation were "informed" during the early days of WW1 that German troops, the wicked Hun, were skewing babies on their bayonets, with even posters produced to support the claim, to encourage as many men as possible to join up!
Then there is "The rise of Muslim fundamentalism". Well, yes that is true! Why? It is simple to answer, the more the West invades Muslim countries and meddles in their politics, the more resentment builds up and creates fundamentalists out of moderate thinking people. If you have lost your family, or members of your family, along with friends due to "mistaken" allied attacks, what would you do? Free French, Poles, Jews, Russians, and others, all sought revenge for German atrocities. The more Germany committed, the more enemies they created who would rather die than let the Nazis do what they wanted! Yes, we rarely speak about it but before the extremists of the Islamic World came about, there were already those committed to die in fighting the German's. They would throw themselves into fighting the Hun at whatever costs to themselves.
So "Responsibility has been claimed by a Marxist,U.S. hating group." Not extremists of Muslim flavour this time then, how disappointing for some of you! But this was an act by yet another group who have a real niggle about American foreign policy. ::) ::) ::)
-
Oh yes. Muslims hate the US and Britain. Except the free housing and benefits bit, they seem quite fond of those.
I think all westerners should eff off back home where they came from, and the same for all easterners as well.
-
Oh yes. Muslims hate the US and Britain. Except the free housing and benefits bit, they seem quite fond of those.
I think all westerners should eff off back home where they came from, and the same for all easterners as well.
That certainly is a point of view Steve, and one I cannot / will not argue with! :y :y
As for the "Benefit" question, well if they are British why not? But if they cause crime and hate, what is the difference between them and white Christians who commit crime and hate in our communities, along with taking the piss. Take benefits away from both! :D ;)
-
Oh yes. Muslims hate the US and Britain. Except the free housing and benefits bit, they seem quite fond of those.
I think all westerners should eff off back home where they came from, and the same for all easterners as well.
That certainly is a point of view Steve, and one I cannot / will not argue with! :y :y
As for the "Benefit" question, well if they are British why not? But if they cause crime and hate, what is the difference between them and white Christians who commit crime and hate in our communities, along with taking the piss. :D ;)
Hopefully, the layabouts won't be taking the piss for too much longer, we can't afford it. But, as always, we are scared of tackling muslim wasters, because we may be seen as racist.
-
Oh yes. Muslims hate the US and Britain. Except the free housing and benefits bit, they seem quite fond of those.
I think all westerners should eff off back home where they came from, and the same for all easterners as well.
That certainly is a point of view Steve, and one I cannot / will not argue with! :y :y
As for the "Benefit" question, well if they are British why not? But if they cause crime and hate, what is the difference between them and white Christians who commit crime and hate in our communities, along with taking the piss. :D ;)
Hopefully, the layabouts won't be taking the piss for too much longer, we can't afford it. But, as always, we are scared of tackling muslim wasters, because we may be seen as racist.
Maybe, but that must change. All for one, one for all I say regardless of creed, colour, religion or gender. :y :y
-
On 7th August 1998 2 truck bombs exploded simultaneously outside the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Hundreds of innocent civilians were killed and thousands were injured, in very poor countries with no free healthcare or welfare system. The Nairobi bomb was particularly horrific as the US Embassy at the time was situated in the city centre. An adjacent office block housing a collage collapsed and the vast majority of the dead from there were young people, just starting out on the journey of life.... :'( Tanzania is a muslim country. ::)
The 7th August 1998 was the eighth anniversary of US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. They were stationed there with the agreement and by invitation from the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility and this was when the world became aware of Osama bin Laden.
By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement. I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent. :-\ I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive! :o War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so. :'( What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! >:(
Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs :-\
PS
I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie. I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate. The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust. The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.
-
On 7th August 1998 2 truck bombs exploded simultaneously outside the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Hundreds of innocent civilians were killed and thousands were injured, in very poor countries with no free healthcare or welfare system. The Nairobi bomb was particularly horrific as the US Embassy at the time was situated in the city centre. An adjacent office block housing a collage collapsed and the vast majority of the dead from there were young people, just starting out on the journey of life.... :'( Tanzania is a muslim country. ::)
The 7th August 1998 was the eighth anniversary of US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. They were stationed there with the agreement and by invitation from the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility and this was when the world became aware of Osama bin Laden.
By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement. I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent. :-\ I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive! :o War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so. :'( What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! >:(
Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs :-\
PS
I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie. I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate. The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust. The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.
A classic mistake many people make is thinking because they are reasonable, then everybody else will be to. History is littered with such people and their failures, where they have made this dangerous and in many cases futile / fatal assumption that had lead to the enslavement of the people by such ruthless masters. A few examples of people, governments and organisations that could / cannot be negotiated with are: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Pol Pot, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The same also applies to the Angry Brigade, Red Brigade and violent animal rights and environmentalists.
When evil people have evil aims and are determined to impose their will and enslave or destroy other people and their societies, then their violence has to be met with equal or greater violence or you lose. There is no other answer or way. I heard all of the answers before about how things should be sorted out by the League of Nations or the UN. Well how effective were the UN in Bosnia or Syria? They are toothless donkeys tigers.
-
today I have seen some news about an ordinary American citizen
for every 6 , 1 dont have health insurance (50 milion)
for every 17 , 1 have income lower than the legal lowest limit (18 million)
in the last crisis nearly 60% people go in debit to banks (mostly because of mortgages)
30 million people have no reading writing ability..
total USA debit (as of 2013 beginning) 17 000 000 000 000 US$
yearly tax income 2 250 000 000 000 US$
yearly expenses 3 570 000 000 000 US$
deficit 1 320 000 000 000 US$
obviously USA is bankrupt.. and no hope for future closing this debit and yearly deficit.. :-\
besides the last wars not only made USA bankrupt , it caused a big turmoil on markets (although house market is blamed) together some monetary operations of rich and many people lost their jobs in europe and many countries.. thats the other face of medalion... :(
I see only 2 solutions, nationalize fed , stop wars and stop spending on guns.. :-\
-
By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement. I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent. :-\ I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive! :o War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so. :'( What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! >:(
Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs :-\
PS
I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie. I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate. The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust. The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.
Drones are shooting at targets without being fired upon, with even a wedding reception being attacked, with heavy casualties, only quite recently. Other "mistaken" fire has also killed innocents on a fairly regular basis.
The local civilians killed by, I repeat, "mistaken" fire would certainly have relatives and friends who would use your word "offensive"! When war is being fought this is indeed what happens, and that is why it is wrong for western forces to be there as it always leads to animosity from those local innocents who have to pick up the pieces.
As for Vietnam, Saigon is not the whole country and is hardly representative of those districts that the main part of the appalling war was fought over. It is on record that the more the American forces attacked villages towards the North Vietnamese border, the more civilians decided to assist the Viet Cong as they saw them as the best choice in a war that was unnecessary and led to a bad situation for the Yanks. That all led to the Americans admitting defeat and pulling out, as they knew they could not continue what had become a terribly wasteful war that the American public could see no purpose in. Before you ask, I know of ex-American servicemen who are my friends that served in Vietnam and would never talk about what they experienced as they were far from happy with their country's involvement and actions. In simple terms they were ashamed.
-
On 7th August 1998 2 truck bombs exploded simultaneously outside the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Hundreds of innocent civilians were killed and thousands were injured, in very poor countries with no free healthcare or welfare system. The Nairobi bomb was particularly horrific as the US Embassy at the time was situated in the city centre. An adjacent office block housing a collage collapsed and the vast majority of the dead from there were young people, just starting out on the journey of life.... :'( Tanzania is a muslim country. ::)
The 7th August 1998 was the eighth anniversary of US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. They were stationed there with the agreement and by invitation from the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility and this was when the world became aware of Osama bin Laden.
By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement. I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent. :-\ I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive! :o War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so. :'( What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! >:(
Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs :-\
PS
I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie. I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate. The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust. The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.
A classic mistake many people make is thinking because they are reasonable, then everybody else will be to. History is littered with such people and their failures, where they have made this dangerous and in many cases futile / fatal assumption that had lead to the enslavement of the people by such ruthless masters. A few examples of people, governments and organisations that could / cannot be negotiated with are: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Pol Pot, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The same also applies to the Angry Brigade, Red Brigade and violent animal rights and environmentalists.
When evil people have evil aims and are determined to impose their will and enslave or destroy other people and their societies, then their violence has to be met with equal or greater violence or you lose. There is no other answer or way. I heard all of the answers before about how things should be sorted out by the League of Nations or the UN. Well how effective were the UN in Bosnia or Syria? They are toothless donkeys tigers.
Those leaders / countries could and were negotiated with. In the case of Hitler the big mistake by Chamberlain was he was too much a gentleman, and did not push the negotiations strongly enough. Hitler was a chancer, and if enough tough resistance had been offered from the start, in Munich 1938, then history could have been very different.
Joseph Stalin did negotiate well with especially the Americans, after of course he was fooled by Hitler into a Pact in 1939.
Saddam Hussein should have been left to his own devices, as there was no need for Western involvement in Iraq, so negotiations over so called weapons of mass destruction were never necessary, and led Bush and Blair into a war that many in Britain, then and now, did not want.
Iran is being held back, although not very easily, by negotiation with many sides involved under the banner of the UN. Iran knows one slip and the USA, let alone Russia and Israel, could well go on the attack.
North Korea is, admittedly another story, but again world pressure, including from their old sponsors the Chinese, is holding back on their reigns. Russia as well is having an effect behind the scenes, so again negotiations by UN countries are achieving that retarding on what N.Korea really wants, but will not get.
The other names you state are of course not countries, as the IRA were not. Negotiations may be too late for some, but there is an intention in certainly Afghanistan that working for a peaceful solution is possible. As I have said before though massive traditional military ground forces are no good in fighting these gorilla groups. As the British Army found in N.Ireland, what counted was intelligence and actions by specialised security forces. Then came the need for peace that the people wanted, and political negotiation did the rest, with the old enemies being given political power via the ballot box. That is how you act in Afghanistan to achieve long lasting peace, and a young democracy. ;) ;)
-
today I have seen some news about an ordinary American citizen
for every 6 , 1 dont have health insurance (50 milion)
for every 17 , 1 have income lower than the legal lowest limit (18 million)
in the last crisis nearly 60% people go in debit to banks (mostly because of mortgages)
30 million people have no reading writing ability..
total USA debit (as of 2013 beginning) 17 000 000 000 000 US$
yearly tax income 2 250 000 000 000 US$
yearly expenses 3 570 000 000 000 US$
deficit 1 320 000 000 000 US$
obviously USA is bankrupt.. and no hope for future closing this debit and yearly deficit.. :-\
besides the last wars not only made USA bankrupt , it caused a big turmoil on markets (although house market is blamed) together some monetary operations of rich and many people lost their jobs in europe and many countries.. thats the other face of medalion... :(
I see only 2 solutions, nationalize fed , stop wars and stop spending on guns.. :-\
Cem countries that have their own currencies can't go bankrupt as they can always print more. They can therefore debase their currency until it is worthless, like Germany did in the 1920's along with what investors get back for their debts denominated in that currency. The UK is even worse than the US with personal, industry and Government debts about 500% of GDP, the same as Japan! Most indebted is Ireland at about 650%, but currently out of the PIIGS they are the most likely to get through this through a combination of massive cuts in public service costs and low corporation tax, so there are many, particularly US companies, there so they have a positive balance of payments.
The only way the US and the UK can get through this without defaulting is by inflating the debts away. QE is a good way of creating inflation which is why the US and the UK are the main users of it. Japans new government has after 20 years of deflation made a 2% inflation target a top priority and their currency has dropped from 80 to 93 Yen to the US dollar and they may start seeing some growth at last.
The US will get out of their situation with cheap energy supplies from shale gas. Much high energy heavy industry that moved to Asia is now on-shoring back to the US in $30bn of investment. Japanese chemical industries and Europe's BASF have stated they cannot compete on price due to relative energy costs, so they either also on-shore to the US or stop production, either way Japan and Europe are going to lose these industries and jobs.
The UK is drifting into a Sterling crisis with no growth, no austerity to cut the deficit, rising taxes, rapidly rising energy costs (green subsidies, carbon trading and falling exchange rate with energy price in US dollars), falling output, high inflation and falling real wages. The current Government had its chance to sort the situation out, but they needed to dramatically cut public spending and reduce taxes, where the previous Government had increased both by over 30% in real terms. The current Chancellor in charge of the economy is a disaster, his only previous work experience has been entering the details of the deceased on a NHS database and refolding towels in a department store and it shows, he is totally out of his depth. This window of opportunity is now closed and it will be the markets that now decide the UK's fate! :o :o :o >:( >:( >:(
Unfortunately, it looks like the next Governor of the Bank of England is going to target growth by tracking nominal GDP rather than inflation. This will probably end in tears as the UK has a very bad track record with inflation with a peak of 28% in the 1970's. Over the next few years I wouldn't be surprised if this record is beaten! :o :o :o :o
-
:-X :-X
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-federal-reserve (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-federal-reserve)
-
today I have seen some news about an ordinary American citizen
for every 6 , 1 dont have health insurance (50 milion)
for every 17 , 1 have income lower than the legal lowest limit (18 million)
in the last crisis nearly 60% people go in debit to banks (mostly because of mortgages)
30 million people have no reading writing ability..
total USA debit (as of 2013 beginning) 17 000 000 000 000 US$
yearly tax income 2 250 000 000 000 US$
yearly expenses 3 570 000 000 000 US$
deficit 1 320 000 000 000 US$
obviously USA is bankrupt.. and no hope for future closing this debit and yearly deficit.. :-\
besides the last wars not only made USA bankrupt , it caused a big turmoil on markets (although house market is blamed) together some monetary operations of rich and many people lost their jobs in europe and many countries.. thats the other face of medalion... :(
I see only 2 solutions, nationalize fed , stop wars and stop spending on guns.. :-\
Cem countries that have their own currencies can't go bankrupt as they can always print more. They can therefore debase their currency until it is worthless, like Germany did in the 1920's along with what investors get back for their debts denominated in that currency. The UK is even worse than the US with personal, industry and Government debts about 500% of GDP, the same as Japan! Most indebted is Ireland at about 650%, but currently out of the PIIGS they are the most likely to get through this through a combination of massive cuts in public service costs and low corporation tax, so there are many, particularly US companies, there so they have a positive balance of payments.
The only way the US and the UK can get through this without defaulting is by inflating the debts away. QE is a good way of creating inflation which is why the US and the UK are the main users of it. Japans new government has after 20 years of deflation made a 2% inflation target a top priority and their currency has dropped from 80 to 93 Yen to the US dollar and they may start seeing some growth at last.
The US will get out of their situation with cheap energy supplies from shale gas. Much high energy heavy industry that moved to Asia is now on-shoring back to the US in $30bn of investment. Japanese chemical industries and Europe's BASF have stated they cannot compete on price due to relative energy costs, so they either also on-shore to the US or stop production, either way Japan and Europe are going to lose these industries and jobs.
The UK is drifting into a Sterling crisis with no growth, no austerity to cut the deficit, rising taxes, rapidly rising energy costs (green subsidies, carbon trading and falling exchange rate with energy price in US dollars), falling output, high inflation and falling real wages. The current Government had its chance to sort the situation out, but they needed to dramatically cut public spending and reduce taxes, where the previous Government had increased both by over 30% in real terms. The current Chancellor in charge of the economy is a disaster, his only previous work experience has been entering the details of the deceased on a NHS database and refolding towels in a department store and it shows, he is totally out of his depth. This window of opportunity is now closed and it will be the markets that now decide the UK's fate! :o :o :o >:( >:( >:(
Unfortunately, it looks like the next Governor of the Bank of England is going to target growth by tracking nominal GDP rather than inflation. This will probably end in tears as the UK has a very bad track record with inflation with a peak of 28% in the 1970's. Over the next few years I wouldn't be surprised if this record is beaten! :o :o :o :o
You certainly know about high finances Rods2 like I know history! Very impressive! 8) 8) 8) :y :y :y
-
:-X :-X
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-federal-reserve (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-federal-reserve)
ehem.. ;D
-
A classic mistake many people make is thinking because they are reasonable, then everybody else will be to. History is littered with such people and their failures, where they have made this dangerous and in many cases futile / fatal assumption that had lead to the enslavement of the people by such ruthless masters. A few examples of people, governments and organisations that could / cannot be negotiated with are: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Pol Pot, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The same also applies to the Angry Brigade, Red Brigade and violent animal rights and environmentalists.
When evil people have evil aims and are determined to impose their will and enslave or destroy other people and their societies, then their violence has to be met with equal or greater violence or you lose. There is no other answer or way. I heard all of the answers before about how things should be sorted out by the League of Nations or the UN. Well how effective were the UN in Bosnia or Syria? They are toothless donkeys tigers.
Those leaders / countries could and were negotiated with. In the case of Hitler the big mistake by Chamberlain was he was too much a gentleman, and did not push the negotiations strongly enough. Hitler was a chancer, and if enough tough resistance had been offered from the start, in Munich 1938, then history could have been very different.
Joseph Stalin did negotiate well with especially the Americans, after of course he was fooled by Hitler into a Pact in 1939.
Saddam Hussein should have been left to his own devices, as there was no need for Western involvement in Iraq, so negotiations over so called weapons of mass destruction were never necessary, and led Bush and Blair into a war that many in Britain, then and now, did not want.
Iran is being held back, although not very easily, by negotiation with many sides involved under the banner of the UN. Iran knows one slip and the USA, let alone Russia and Israel, could well go on the attack.
North Korea is, admittedly another story, but again world pressure, including from their old sponsors the Chinese, is holding back on their reigns. Russia as well is having an effect behind the scenes, so again negotiations by UN countries are achieving that retarding on what N.Korea really wants, but will not get.
The other names you state are of course not countries, as the IRA were not. Negotiations may be too late for some, but there is an intention in certainly Afghanistan that working for a peaceful solution is possible. As I have said before though massive traditional military ground forces are no good in fighting these gorilla groups. As the British Army found in N.Ireland, what counted was intelligence and actions by specialised security forces. Then came the need for peace that the people wanted, and political negotiation did the rest, with the old enemies being given political power via the ballot box. That is how you act in Afghanistan to achieve long lasting peace, and a young democracy. ;) ;)
This is the point I'm making as only tough resistance such people understand and this is almost always fighting and war as they will go the last mile with this as they think they can win. It is a psychopath, testosterone driven thing and the more ruthless a leader is, the more they tend to have of both. This makes them the most successful to ruthlessly make it to the top and the least suited when they are there to be a leader. Most people only go into a fight or war with the reasonable expectation of winning on their terms, be this the terrorist who would lose a conventional war, so will use surprise with a direct attack on an enemy's weakness and then drift away or indirectly using IEDs etc.
Once their is a commitment to war, aggressive skillful attack is normally the best form of defense using blitzkrieg where you bypass the strong points and mop those up later. Ironic that the British invented the tank and theorist Basil Liddell Hart wrote about such concepts, but it was the Germans that perfected it, with radio communications between tanks being one of the keys and in WWII in terms of effective equipment and field craft the British army never caught up with their German counterparts.
In a defensive situation, the Israelis showed in the Six-Day and Yom Kippur wars, how Blitzkrieg as such a flexible system of exploitation can turn around a poor situation very quickly.
-
What was it you said EMD...?
-
Cem countries that have their own currencies can't go bankrupt as they can always print more. They can therefore debase their currency until it is worthless, like Germany did in the 1920's along with what investors get back for their debts denominated in that currency. The UK is even worse than the US with personal, industry and Government debts about 500% of GDP, the same as Japan! Most indebted is Ireland at about 650%, but currently out of the PIIGS they are the most likely to get through this through a combination of massive cuts in public service costs and low corporation tax, so there are many, particularly US companies, there so they have a positive balance of payments.
The only way the US and the UK can get through this without defaulting is by inflating the debts away. QE is a good way of creating inflation which is why the US and the UK are the main users of it. Japans new government has after 20 years of deflation made a 2% inflation target a top priority and their currency has dropped from 80 to 93 Yen to the US dollar and they may start seeing some growth at last.
The US will get out of their situation with cheap energy supplies from shale gas. Much high energy heavy industry that moved to Asia is now on-shoring back to the US in $30bn of investment. Japanese chemical industries and Europe's BASF have stated they cannot compete on price due to relative energy costs, so they either also on-shore to the US or stop production, either way Japan and Europe are going to lose these industries and jobs.
The UK is drifting into a Sterling crisis with no growth, no austerity to cut the deficit, rising taxes, rapidly rising energy costs (green subsidies, carbon trading and falling exchange rate with energy price in US dollars), falling output, high inflation and falling real wages. The current Government had its chance to sort the situation out, but they needed to dramatically cut public spending and reduce taxes, where the previous Government had increased both by over 30% in real terms. The current Chancellor in charge of the economy is a disaster, his only previous work experience has been entering the details of the deceased on a NHS database and refolding towels in a department store and it shows, he is totally out of his depth. This window of opportunity is now closed and it will be the markets that now decide the UK's fate! :o :o :o >:( >:( >:(
Unfortunately, it looks like the next Governor of the Bank of England is going to target growth by tracking nominal GDP rather than inflation. This will probably end in tears as the UK has a very bad track record with inflation with a peak of 28% in the 1970's. Over the next few years I wouldn't be surprised if this record is beaten! :o :o :o :o
You certainly know about high finances Rods2 like I know history! Very impressive! 8) 8) 8) :y :y :y
Thank you Lizzie. :y :)
I have always had and interest in history, but with history I have tended to concentrate on 20th century military history and with economics it was a passing interest until 2007, when I realized that in my parents generation the biggest threat to their way of life was WWII, where as in ours, the most immediate is economic, so I decided to get a better understanding. I've still got along way to go and I'm always learning new things and I probably now know more than the average person.
-
A classic mistake many people make is thinking because they are reasonable, then everybody else will be to. History is littered with such people and their failures, where they have made this dangerous and in many cases futile / fatal assumption that had lead to the enslavement of the people by such ruthless masters. A few examples of people, governments and organisations that could / cannot be negotiated with are: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Pol Pot, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The same also applies to the Angry Brigade, Red Brigade and violent animal rights and environmentalists.
When evil people have evil aims and are determined to impose their will and enslave or destroy other people and their societies, then their violence has to be met with equal or greater violence or you lose. There is no other answer or way. I heard all of the answers before about how things should be sorted out by the League of Nations or the UN. Well how effective were the UN in Bosnia or Syria? They are toothless donkeys tigers.
Those leaders / countries could and were negotiated with. In the case of Hitler the big mistake by Chamberlain was he was too much a gentleman, and did not push the negotiations strongly enough. Hitler was a chancer, and if enough tough resistance had been offered from the start, in Munich 1938, then history could have been very different.
Joseph Stalin did negotiate well with especially the Americans, after of course he was fooled by Hitler into a Pact in 1939.
Saddam Hussein should have been left to his own devices, as there was no need for Western involvement in Iraq, so negotiations over so called weapons of mass destruction were never necessary, and led Bush and Blair into a war that many in Britain, then and now, did not want.
Iran is being held back, although not very easily, by negotiation with many sides involved under the banner of the UN. Iran knows one slip and the USA, let alone Russia and Israel, could well go on the attack.
North Korea is, admittedly another story, but again world pressure, including from their old sponsors the Chinese, is holding back on their reigns. Russia as well is having an effect behind the scenes, so again negotiations by UN countries are achieving that retarding on what N.Korea really wants, but will not get.
The other names you state are of course not countries, as the IRA were not. Negotiations may be too late for some, but there is an intention in certainly Afghanistan that working for a peaceful solution is possible. As I have said before though massive traditional military ground forces are no good in fighting these gorilla groups. As the British Army found in N.Ireland, what counted was intelligence and actions by specialised security forces. Then came the need for peace that the people wanted, and political negotiation did the rest, with the old enemies being given political power via the ballot box. That is how you act in Afghanistan to achieve long lasting peace, and a young democracy. ;) ;)
This is the point I'm making as only tough resistance such people understand and this is almost always fighting and war as they will go the last mile with this as they think they can win. It is a psychopath, testosterone driven thing and the more ruthless a leader is, the more they tend to have of both. This makes them the most successful to ruthlessly make it to the top and the least suited when they are there to be a leader. Most people only go into a fight or war with the reasonable expectation of winning on their terms, be this the terrorist who would lose a conventional war, so will use surprise with a direct attack on an enemy's weakness and then drift away or indirectly using IEDs etc.
Once their is a commitment to war, aggressive skillful attack is normally the best form of defense using blitzkrieg where you bypass the strong points and mop those up later. Ironic that the British invented the tank and theorist Basil Liddell Hart wrote about such concepts, but it was the Germans that perfected it, with radio communications between tanks being one of the keys and in WWII in terms of effective equipment and field craft the British army never caught up with their German counterparts.
In a defensive situation, the Israelis showed in the Six-Day and Yom Kippur wars, how Blitzkrieg as such a flexible system of exploitation can turn around a poor situation very quickly.
Indeed, and the British invented the concept of lighting war during 1918 which led Germany to call a ceasefire. It was of course Hitler's generals who perfected Blitzkrieg at the start of WW2! ;)
-
By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement. I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent. :-\ I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive! :o War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so. :'( What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! >:(
Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs :-\
PS
I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie. I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate. The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust. The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.
Drones are shooting at targets without being fired upon, with even a wedding reception being attacked, with heavy casualties, only quite recently. Other "mistaken" fire has also killed innocents on a fairly regular basis.
The local civilians killed by, I repeat, "mistaken" fire would certainly have relatives and friends who would use your word "offensive"! When war is being fought this is indeed what happens, and that is why it is wrong for western forces to be there as it always leads to animosity from those local innocents who have to pick up the pieces.
As for Vietnam, Saigon is not the whole country and is hardly representative of those districts that the main part of the appalling war was fought over. It is on record that the more the American forces attacked villages towards the North Vietnamese border, the more civilians decided to assist the Viet Cong as they saw them as the best choice in a war that was unnecessary and led to a bad situation for the Yanks. That all led to the Americans admitting defeat and pulling out, as they knew they could not continue what had become a terribly wasteful war that the American public could see no purpose in. Before you ask, I know of ex-American servicemen who are my friends that served in Vietnam and would never talk about what they experienced as they were far from happy with their country's involvement and actions. In simple terms they were ashamed.
I'm getting the feeling Lizzie that you think that NATO troops in Afghanistan are there on some sort of turkey shoot and fire at anything that moves! ::)
To be honest I find the drone programme a little sinister, but do you think that they hit targets indiscriminately? rather than acting on intelligence from the ground that a certain target will be at a certain place at a certain time. ??? I guess that one of the purposes is to isolate the Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders as people will be afraid to associate with them, and this puts ordinary people between a rock and a hard place. :-\ Offend the local Taliban commander and deal with his wrath? or run the risk of being blown to pieces by an American missile? :-\
Going back to Vietnam.
You are quite right that Saigon isn't the whole of Vietnam and I'm sure that there were people in South Vietnam who supported the North Vietnam forces and the Viet Cong, but to assert that a majority of South Vietnamese supported them and hated the Americans would be wrong in my opinion. :) And I wouldn't be at all surprised that your American friends are ashamed at the US forces action in Vietnam as they did some terrible things there, Agent Orange for one. :'( But the communists and Viet Cong were hardly Boy Scouts either and they did some terrible things to their own people! ::)
One of the most surprising things for me though, was the amount of American people who now live in Vietnam (North and South) and are largely accepted and welcomed by the Vietnamese people as they are seen to be helping to develop Vietnam. Not from the war as that is ancient history to them, but from the incompetence, corruption and mismanagement of the country by the communist government for 25 years or so after the war ended. ::)
Incidently, although Vietnam today is peaceful and relatively prosperous (some call it Little China!) it is far from free and is still ruled with an iron fist by the communists. Despite the economic reforms, if we were having this sort of conversation on a Vietnamese forum, in Vietnam, using a Vietnamese internet provider, we may well have had a knock on the door by now..... :(
Anyway what was that about Ankara??? ;D
-
By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement. I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent. :-\ I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive! :o War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so. :'( What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! >:(
Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs :-\
PS
I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie. I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate. The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust. The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.
Drones are shooting at targets without being fired upon, with even a wedding reception being attacked, with heavy casualties, only quite recently. Other "mistaken" fire has also killed innocents on a fairly regular basis.
The local civilians killed by, I repeat, "mistaken" fire would certainly have relatives and friends who would use your word "offensive"! When war is being fought this is indeed what happens, and that is why it is wrong for western forces to be there as it always leads to animosity from those local innocents who have to pick up the pieces.
As for Vietnam, Saigon is not the whole country and is hardly representative of those districts that the main part of the appalling war was fought over. It is on record that the more the American forces attacked villages towards the North Vietnamese border, the more civilians decided to assist the Viet Cong as they saw them as the best choice in a war that was unnecessary and led to a bad situation for the Yanks. That all led to the Americans admitting defeat and pulling out, as they knew they could not continue what had become a terribly wasteful war that the American public could see no purpose in. Before you ask, I know of ex-American servicemen who are my friends that served in Vietnam and would never talk about what they experienced as they were far from happy with their country's involvement and actions. In simple terms they were ashamed.
I'm getting the feeling Lizzie that you think that NATO troops in Afghanistan are there on some sort of turkey shoot and fire at anything that moves! ::)
To be honest I find the drone programme a little sinister, but do you think that they hit targets indiscriminately? rather than acting on intelligence from the ground that a certain target will be at a certain place at a certain time. ??? I guess that one of the purposes is to isolate the Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders as people will be afraid to associate with them, and this puts ordinary people between a rock and a hard place. :-\ Offend the local Taliban commander and deal with his wrath? or run the risk of being blown to pieces by an American missile? :-\
Going back to Vietnam.
You are quite right that Saigon isn't the whole of Vietnam and I'm sure that there were people in South Vietnam who supported the North Vietnam forces and the Viet Cong, but to assert that a majority of South Vietnamese supported them and hated the Americans would be wrong in my opinion. :) And I wouldn't be at all surprised that your American friends are ashamed at the US forces action in Vietnam as they did some terrible things there, Agent Orange for one. :'( But the communists and Viet Cong were hardly Boy Scouts either and they did some terrible things to their own people! ::)
One of the most surprising things for me though, was the amount of American people who now live in Vietnam (North and South) and are largely accepted and welcomed by the Vietnamese people as they are seen to be helping to develop Vietnam. Not from the war as that is ancient history to them, but from the incompetence, corruption and mismanagement of the country by the communist government for 25 years or so after the war ended. ::)
Incidently, although Vietnam today is peaceful and relatively prosperous (some call it Little China!) it is far from free and is still ruled with an iron fist by the communists. Despite the economic reforms, if we were having this sort of conversation on a Vietnamese forum, in Vietnam, using a Vietnamese internet provider, we may well have had a knock on the door by now..... :(
Anyway what was that about Ankara??? ;D
Due to the troubling 600 word limit I answer below TigerHayes: ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No, I am not suggesting that at all about NATO forces. But because of the severe difficulties of using a traditional army, away from a true battlefield, it is unavoidable that there will be the killing of the "innocents". That is why I am stating that our traditional forces should not be there, and instead diplomacy, along with intelligence and secret service actions, should be totally relied upon. In fact yesterday Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated that the Helmand province had become more dangerous for Afghans when the British arrived. It proves the fact that a foreign military force moving into foreign lands becomes a focus for "freedom fighters" or plain terrorists, what ever you may call them. Innocents then suffer.
As for "they hit targets indiscriminately?" no they do not. But, again when you fight a war such as this "mistaken" fire will happen and innocent lives will be lost. That is why our large military forces should not be there.
As for your points on Vietnam; well yes I would accept what you say as things have moved on since 1973, and the mechanics of communism has now had its full affect, which means the place is hardly a democracy. However, time and world change is counting against their communist masters, as even China moves towards a more enlightened way.
Anakara; well yes, now where were we on that! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ankara is fine.. 18 celicus and sunny.. :) I had a good walk looking at the cars that I can never buy ;D , after solving nasty office 2010 having disturbed my .net project >:(
-
Ankara is fine.. 18 celicus and sunny.. :) I had a good walk looking at the cars that I can never buy ;D , after solving nasty office 2010 having disturbed my .net project >:(
Very nice Cem. Wish it was here! ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;)