Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation?

Banned Account

jackiebaron wrote: »

Protection from whom, pray tell? The "Reds under the bed"?, "Swine flu"?, "The Nazis"?, "The Viet Cong"? Who? Who is a threat to Ireland that we need this mythical protection you yammer on about?

The secret cartel that plotted the downfall of the world's economic system? - Just a thought.

jackiebaron

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to say they are agressive about their sense of patriotism and national security.

They don't tend to get stuck in unless 1 of the following occurs;

1) Threat of the spread of comuinism.
2) A direct attack has been made on them.

Other then point 1, they have never instigated wars with other countries. I wouldnt refer to them as warlike, but do agree that they are agressive.

So when did Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Yemen, Panama, Grenada, Somalia or Serbia attack or threaten to attack them?

sxt

bigneacy wrote: »

America is not an oil rich country? :eek:

America is one of the top oil rich countries in the world. It is close allies with the top two oil rich countries in the world - Canada & Saudi Arabia.
America is the worlds third biggest oil producer, just behind Saudi Arabia and Russia (both USA Allies). Wars are governed by politics, and at the moment in America, politics are influenced immensely by religion, both foreign and domestic.

Hostile Middle East nations control less than 40% of the worlds Oil, and America's buying power far outweighs any political hard feelings those countries may have towards the US. America can buy oil until it runs out, and no matter what your buying or who's buying it, there will always be someone willing to sell it.

:

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/BP_reserves_global_550x375.gif

jackiebaron

Dravokivich wrote: »

There were links that Al'Quida were being harboured in Iraq.



Harbouring Al'Quida... yeah... I honestly didn't believe in the WMD's and thought that was a weak excuse...



Vietnam.. Russians spread commuinist influence...

Korea.. Russians spread commuinist influence...

Afghanistan... Taliban were harbouring Al'quida...

Iraq... were harbouring Al'quida...

Iraq were NOT harbouring Al-Qaeda. There is no evidence of this. IT is a complete and utter fabrication. Saddam Hussein loathed Al-Qaeda. Hussein was a secularist and despised the extreme Wahabbi slant of Bin Laden et al. As for Afghanistan harbouring Al-Qaeda....the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden to the US if they could provide evidence that he and his ilk were responsible for 9/11. The US refused this offer....why? Because they couldn't prove it. They wanted to invade and occupy the country and had planned to do so in January 2001, 8 months before the September 11 attacks.
As for your comments about wars being approved..wars of aggression have been deemed the "Ultimate Crime Against Humanity" following the Nuremberg Charter. A country may only engage in war if that country:
(a) is attacked
(b) believes it is under imminent threat of attack.

And by "imminent" they are pretty tight with this definition. The threatening country must be amassing tanks at your border and are not returning your phonecalls. It doesn't mean you can launch the missiles because you claim that some Fourth World nation will have the technology to throw a petrol-bomb at you in 4 years time.

So the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are wars of aggression, i.e. WAR CRIMES and the collective punishment and slaughter of over 1 million civilians there is a combined act of terrorism.

karma_

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

This country isn't 'particularly american-friendly', especially with the left. It's no where near the most extreme terrorist nations. These leftie liberal types sicken me preaching from their high horse, the same type would have sat back and let Hitler or Stalin conquer the world

The Left sat back?

Now I know your having a laugh, it was the left who were the first to take action against fascism in Europe, that's right the first! They went off to fight Franco in Spain, this was at a time when the rest of the World was doing nothing, and even our own little island was sending volunteers to fight for Franco.

And you bleat on about how the left preach from a high horse.

bigneacy

sxt wrote: »

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/BP_reserves_global_550x375.gif

Are you actually quoting an 8 year old picture? :eek:

Sykes

Last I heard, the Irish were pretty handy with the whole terrorism thing.

People in glass houses and all that?

karma_

Sykes wrote: »

Last I heard, the Irish were pretty handy with the whole terrorism thing.

People in glass houses and all that?

Last I heard, you were a sectarian bigot.

jackiebaron

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

America is not the most extreme Terrorist Nation. People love to jump on poor ol' America.

Firstly, we do rely on American protection to an extent. American companies contribute a massive amount of money and jobs on our little island, and whether you like it or not, a strong-ish America is good for us. We need America. I for one have no time for this 'neutrality' debate either. Letting planes use a runway is a small price to pay for good relations with America.

Secondly, as a poster said here, they are not a terrorist nation, they are just extremely aggressive when it comes to their patriotism, and it shows when they were attacked. They went into Afghanistan having been attacked.

I suppose some of the liberal army would prefer to see westerners and women mutilated in Afghanistan? America is imposing nothing on that country, except for some basic human rights. Women are getting to go to school now. But I suppose the Taliban should be let do what they want right??

Also, the US don't see themselves as some World Police. If they did, they would jump into conflicts in South America and Africa. They went into Iraq and Afghanistan having been attacked, and they were invited into the wars in Vietnam and Korea. They get involved with North Korea and Iran because Israel and South Korea have mutual protection agreements.

Such crap you write. "Women are getting to go to school now". There isn't a single bloody school open for business in Afghanistan. They've all been bombed to powder. The Taliban control every part of the country except for downtown Kabul and a little bit of Kandahar. School! Listening to music! Dancing! Shiny happy people! Don't make me laugh. You bleat on that the US attacked these countries because they themselves were attacked. Well, Newsflash, sparky: Neither Iraq NOR Afghanistan attacked the US. 19 Saudi, Egyptian and Yemeni extremists did. Got that?

Now back in 1993 the World Trade Centre was bombed by Al-Qaeda and something like 60 people died. Did Clinton go and blow a hole in the world? No. He treated it as exactly what it was...a criminal act of terrorism and what did he do in response? Launched an investigation and operation that netted the perpetrators, tried them, convicted them and jailed them. Using what? Good old fashioned police work. He didn't launch hundreds of thousand of troops into Morocco or Tahiti or some other completely unrelated place like the Smirking Chimp did.
Get your head out of your rectum.

bigneacy

Sykes wrote: »

Last I heard, the Irish were pretty handy with the whole terrorism thing.

People in glass houses and all that?

karma_ wrote: »

Last I heard, you were a sectarian bigot.

Chill lads!! Its true tho, Ireland had been destroyed by a full blown civil war since the Irish free state began... We of all people know how terrorism and bigotry can destroy a country.

Sykes

karma_ wrote: »

Last I heard, you were a sectarian bigot.

Oh dear, looks like I touched a nerve.

I always have a wee chuckle to myself when I listen to the Irish projecting their own twisted state onto other countries and other people.

Especially when they accuse others of terrorism and racism.

It's a bit like Gary Glitter telling us all how bad child abusers are.


With regards to the laughable Irish "intellectual" boycott of Israel I found this hit the spot.

"David Hirsh, a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, and an expert on anti-Semitism: “In Ireland, Green/Orange politics is largely now a thing of the past, but the Israel boycott allows those who are nostalgic for it to carry on playing the game.

In certain Irish imaginations, the Palestinians are drafted in to symbolize the Republicans and the Israelis are given the role of the Loyalists. The vulgar anti-imperialists bang on about their boycott of Israel, but none of this has anything to do with reality in the Middle East. It does, however, destroy the unity of the Irish Labor movement.

“All over the world, local issues are played out over the body of the Jewish state, in the language of the Israel boycott. In Britain the boycott is about colonial guilt. In South Africa it is about apartheid.

In Germany it is about the Holocaust. In the US it is about the Wild West. In Venezuela it is about the anti-imperialist rainbow. In Egypt and Iran it is about uniting people behind vile governments.”

So of course the “Irish intellectuals and artists” who Haaretz recently reported as declaring Israel well and truly boycotted were totally within their rights to do so. The conceit that the Irish are telling the Jews that they won’t be sending them any more intellectuals does sound like the first line of an insulting stereotypical joke – but still, it’s their right.

The Irish need to stop projecting. Sort out your own mess of a 'country' instead of putting your labels onto others.


The audacity to sit here after decades of terrorism and label other countries as terrorist is astounding.

karma_

Sykes wrote: »

Oh dear, looks like I touched a nerve.

I always have a wee chuckle to myself when I listen to the Irish projecting their own twisted state onto other countries and other people.

Especially when they accuse others of terrorism and racism.

It's a bit like Gary Glitter telling us all how bad child abusers are.


With regards to the laughable Irish "intellectual" boycott of Israel I found this hit the spot.



The Irish need to stop projecting. Sort out your own mess of a 'country' instead of putting your labels onto others.


The audacity to sit here after decades of terrorism and label other countries as terrorist is astounding.

Just stating a fact 'pal'. You didn't get banned from the politics forum for nothing. All anyone has to do if they want proof you're a rampant bigot is to have a wee gander through your previous posts.

Keep going though, you're entraining if nothing else.

Nodin

Sykes wrote: »

Last I heard, the Irish were pretty handy with the whole terrorism thing.

People in glass houses and all that?

Are you still whinging?

Sykes

karma_ wrote: »

Just stating a fact 'pal'. You didn't get banned from the politics forum for nothing. All anyone has to do if they want proof you're a rampant bigot is to have a wee gander through your previous posts.

Keep going though, you're entraining if nothing else.

You seem a bit dense. This is an Irish forum moderated by Irishmen. I come along and tell you lot the truth about Ireland and defend the likes of Israel against your rampant bigotry and racism - of course I'm going to get banned.

The mod has his "free Palestine" badge pinned to his proud little pigeon chest.

He's already exposed himself as a moron in private messages.


So don't take my banning from the politics forum to mean anything other than a biased decision by a moron.

Sykes

Nodin wrote: »

Are you still whinging?

Are you still projecting?

Calling other nations 'terrorists' when your lot were the grassroots for one of the world's most vicious terrorist campaigns?

karma_

Sykes wrote: »

You seem a bit dense. This is an Irish forum moderated by Irishmen. I come along and tell you lot the truth about Ireland and defend the likes of Israel against your rampant bigotry and racism - of course I'm going to get banned.

The mod has his "free Palestine" badge pinned to his proud little pigeon chest.

He's already exposed himself as a moron in private messages.


So don't take my banning from the politics forum to mean anything other than a biased decision by a moron.

Fighting racism and bigotry with more racism and bigotry. And you think I'm a 'bit dense'.

bigneacy

Sykes wrote: »

Are you still projecting?

Calling other nations 'terrorists' when your lot were the grassroots for one of the world's most vicious terrorist campaigns?

big brave man on boards.ie

Nodin

Sykes wrote: »

You seem a bit dense. This is an Irish forum moderated by Irishmen. I come along and tell you lot the truth about Ireland and defend the likes of Israel against your rampant bigotry and racism - of course I'm going to get banned.

The mod has his "free Palestine" badge pinned to his proud little pigeon chest.

He's already exposed himself as a moron in private messages.


So don't take my banning from the politics forum to mean anything other than a biased decision by a moron.

....cry me a river....

Rylan

Has anyone seen the 2 zeitgiest films. If not, they are worth a look. You can make up your own mind after watching them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHiuaGJ46zo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

af_thefragile

Rylan wrote: »

Has anyone seen the 2 zeitgiest films. If not, they are worth a look. You can make up your own mind after watching them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHiuaGJ46zo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

Only half of whats in those movie is true. The rest is bull crap.
Now if you don't know what half of it is true and what is not, you can very easily start believing in their bull****.

This on the other hand is a lot more accurate at what goes on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VovRTt0hAPk

Sykes

karma_ wrote: »

Fighting racism and bigotry with more racism and bigotry. And you think I'm a 'bit dense'.

And I thought it was supposed to be Americans that didn't get irony.

Everything I posted was basically a mirror image of what you and your tribe posted.

The moron Scoff told me I was banned for labelling Ireland as "anti-semitic" - yet the moron was unable to see that it was just a mirror of the Irish labelling Israel with all the vitriolic crap you've posted there. Outright racism, stereotyping, bigotry etc.

You lot just can't take it. Like the Arsenal team of fairies, you just don't like it up you.

You sit on this forum projecting all YOUR problems with racism and terrorism onto others. You use the like of Israel to continue your loyalist/republican war. This one is safer though, you just shout in the street in protest and make laughable decisions about boycotting the Jewish state of Irish intellectuals. I mean, you just couldn't make it up.

You're a joke. You as an individual and your 'country'.

Nodin

Sykes wrote: »

And I thought it was supposed to be Americans that didn't get irony.

Everything I posted was basically a mirror image of what you and your tribe posted.

The moron Scoff told me I was banned for labelling Ireland as "anti-semitic" - yet the moron was unable to see that it was just a mirror of the Irish labelling Israel with all the vitriolic crap you've posted there. Outright racism, stereotyping, bigotry etc.

You lot just can't take it. Like the Arsenal team of fairies, you just don't like it up you.

You sit on this forum projecting all YOUR problems with racism and terrorism onto others. You use the like of Israel to continue your loyalist/republican war. This one is safer though, you just shout in the street in protest and make laughable decisions about boycotting the Jewish state of Irish intellectuals. I mean, you just couldn't make it up.

You're a joke. You as an individual and your 'country'.

...you know a pet could give you a kind of non-judgemental attention....

karma_

Nodin wrote: »

...you know a pet could give you a kind of non-judgemental attention....

I doubt any animal would like to share a street with him, never-mind a house...

Nodin

karma_ wrote: »

I doubt any animal would like to share a street with him, never-mind a house...

Now thats being judgmental again. We've no idea what kind of life-trauma this poor persons suffered - locked in an attic, or just ignored by all around them, perhaps. Why they're nearly falling off the piled cushions when typing here just for a bit of human contact. They need fuzzy hugs.

Paddy Samurai

Terry wrote: »

They instill more fear into me than any other nation on the planet, so I would have to say yes.

If thats the criteria , i would have to say a definite NO.
I don't agree with alot of the stuff they do ,but i have never feared them.Personally given the way the world is ,overall i think they have done more good than bad.If US did'nt exist ,i think we would all be in worse shape,given some of the nutjobs that currently exist around the world.

Jeboa Safari

sxt wrote: »

If The U.S.A is not the most extreme terrorist nation, then maybe you can name an nation that is comparable and we can provide evidence...

Take your pic from several mid-east and African nations

karma_ wrote: »

The Left sat back?

Now I know your having a laugh, it was the left who were the first to take action against fascism in Europe, that's right the first! They went off to fight Franco in Spain, this was at a time when the rest of the World was doing nothing, and even our own little island was sending volunteers to fight for Franco.

And you bleat on about how the left preach from a high horse.

Some fought in the name of communism in Spain, I'll give you that. But what about ww2?
What about after the war? If America withdrew its protection of Europe, theres a good chance Stalin would have took control of the rest of the continent and imposed a Soviet style dictatorship on us

jackiebaron

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

The CIA didn't just pick up a load of random people on the street, cop the f*** on imo if you think that.... there was intelligence on these guys being members of cells... now get back in your Anti-Everything hippy tent....

They did just pick up random people. The majority of the inmates at Guantanamo were turned in by guys who didn't even know them. The US were offering rewards for information on "terrorists". Picture this....you're a peasant farmer in Afghanistan living on a dollar a day....and you hate the guy in the village who fancies your daughter. You tell the clueless American soldiers that he's a terrorist. They pay you the $5000 that they promised for any tips, which is more cash than you'll ever be able to spend in a place like Afghanistan...PLUS the idiot you hate gets to spend the rest of his life being tortured in Guantanamo Bay and never to see his wife again.
Now personally I think that's kind of scummy and unfair and you think it's ok so I guess you must be a fairly sick and sadistic individual.

Sykes

Did Karma_ really suggest that the left wing fought against Franco? did he really try and make out that the 'guardians of human rights' fought Franco on the basis of left wing ideals to free Spain of oppression purely on humanitarian grounds?

Oh dear, another deluded lefty to add to the list.

The Communists financed by the Soviets were fighting the civil war to install a communist state and expand the Soviet's influence.

af_thefragile

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

If thats the criteria , i would have to say a definite NO.
I don't agree with alot of the stuff they do ,but i have never feared them.Personally given the way the world is ,overall i think they have done more good than bad.If US did'nt exist ,i think we would all be in worse shape,given some of the nutjobs that currently exist around the world.

I really really doubt that.
If Russia won the cold war we'ld be eating Russian food, watching Russian TV and singing Russian songs.

Rest all would remain the same.

America became the superpower only after the WW2. Things weren't really any different before that. Infact many countries were better off as they weren't in serious debt slaving away for Nike, Tommy Hilfiger and all those brands.

The Aussie

Sykes wrote: »

You lot just can't take it. Like the Arsenal team of fairies, you just don't like it up you.

You sit on this forum projecting all YOUR problems with racism and terrorism onto others. You use the like of Israel to continue your loyalist/republican war. This one is safer though.

You lost me with your Arsenal Team sledge (came across as quite lame actually), but i do agree 100% with the projecting past history onto current problems.

Like the langer who tried the citizens arrest on Tony Blair for war crimes, would she do the same with Khaled Mash'al the Hamas leader.

jackiebaron

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

To remove a prick, the oil is a bonus Good job lads! Jolly good Hopefully, North Korea is next

Ah...I wondered when the true Beavis & Butthead would surface from behind this clown's locker-room bravado.

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

Rest all would remain the same.

Doubtful. Soviet Russia denied key civil liberties to its citizens, and tortured and killed many for disagreeing with the State within its own boundaries. I'd be wholly doubtful that we would be better off now in numerous respects.

af_thefragile wrote: »

America became the superpower only after the WW2. Things weren't really any different before that. Infact many countries were better off as they weren't in serious debt slaving away for Nike, Tommy Hilfiger and all those brands.

It's not about things being different before that, its about whether America through its influence in the world has counteracted some of the more sinister elements of other regimes. I'd have to say that without a doubt they have, even if the US has a questionable foreign policy of its own.

karma_

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Take your pic from several mid-east and African nations


Some fought in the name of communism in Spain, I'll give you that. But what about ww2?
What about after the war? If America withdrew its protection of Europe, theres a good chance Stalin would have took control of the rest of the continent and imposed a Soviet style dictatorship on us

Yes, there were communists there too, however it was the Socialists who were the main driving force in that conflict and stood apart from the communists, especially when the communists turned on them.

During WW2 the Socialists again fought alongside the allied forces.

Also, yes the US did protect Europe, or rather parts of it from the Soviets after the war ended. It was your stance that the Left did nothing during that period and that is blatantly wrong.

karma_

Sykes wrote: »

Did Karma_ really suggest that the left wing fought against Franco? did he really try and make out that the 'guardians of human rights' fought Franco on the basis of left wing ideals to free Spain of oppression purely on humanitarian grounds?

Oh dear, another deluded lefty to add to the list.

The Communists financed by the Soviets were fighting the civil war to install a communist state and expand the Soviet's influence.

Now there's a surprise, you're as ignorant as you are bigoted.

jackiebaron

yank_in_eire wrote: »

HA! What a bunch of pussies. You're all speaking English instead of German or Japanese because the US manned up and "got 'er done". Go USA!

\

Actually Russia did the heavy lifting. You milkshake slurping dummies joined the scrap in the dying seconds of the 12th round. The war had been all but won before you berks landed at Normandy (where only 1 in 10 of whom fired their weapons....the other 9 out of 10 froze).

Oh and I speak English AND German AND French AND Mandarin anyway.

af_thefragile

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about things being different before that, its about whether America through its influence in the world has counteracted some of the more sinister elements of other regimes. I'd have to say that without a doubt they have, even if the US has a questionable foreign policy of its own.

I doubt america has done anything to the world other than giving fast food, Hollywood and MTV and of course wars...

It only goes around terrorising nations which don't follow onto its policies and interests. In many places it helped replaced good rulers with terrible dictators (Chile: Pinochet, Indonesia: Suharto, Iraq: Saddam Hussein, Afganistan: Osama bin Laden).

I think people keep missing out on the fundamental question of why are these people becoming terrorists? And if you start digging into the reason as to why all this is happening, you'll either trace it back to the British colonialism (Palestine + Kashmir) or American foreign policy (everywhere else!).

Leave Cuba, Venzuela and Iran alone, they won't do any harm to anyone else.
Solve Kashmir problem (by doing what the people want for their country) and that'll solve India-Pakistan problems.
Give back Palestinians their lands and that'll solve most of the Islamic terrorism problems.

Yet we like to go on saying: "They are bad and we're good" or "they hate the west because of our freedom" or easier "the problem lies within Islam (or for liberal atheists, problem is with religion)" and other such crap filled rhetoric without ever speaking about the root of the problem. What has caused them to become terrorists? Most of these people are rational sensible men yet how can they end up doing such things?? We need to try to listen and understand the other side sometimes.

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

\

Actually Russia did the heavy lifting. You milkshake slurping dummies joined the scrap in the dying seconds of the 12th round. The war had been all but won before you berks landed at Normandy (where only 1 in 10 of whom fired their weapons....the other 9 out of 10 froze).

Oh and I speak English AND German AND French AND Mandarin anyway.

Actually they joined in 1941, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance

Sykes

The Aussie wrote: »

You lost me with your Arsenal Team sledge (came across as quite lame actually), but i do agree 100% with the projecting past history onto current problems.

Sorry mate, in England we have this thing called 'football'. Arsenal are one of the teams in the league. They're quite soft and delicate.

Like the langer who tried the citizens arrest on Tony Blair for war crimes, would she do the same with Khaled Mash'al the Hamas leader.

Well obviously the double standards and hypocrisy with the anti-Israel mob is legendary. It's hard to fathom how the left wing shills in Europe who operate under the guise of 'human rights' and see themselves as the guardians of humanity - aim their vitriol at a country with a PR democracy, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom for women, and ironically, freedom for unions to operate - yet don't give a hoot about gays being executed, women being stoned, religious minorities being persecuted etc. It's what makes the left wing one of the most morally bankrupt ideologies humanity has ever spawned.

The Irish angle is different though. They don't operate out of left wing ideals. There's a few different groups of lunatics. There's the ardent Catholics who still harp on about their hippy carpenter being killed by Jews apparently. Then there's the republican mob who've we've already discussed. I'm sure there are some small groups of lefties in amongst them who have no connection to republicanism or Catholicism, but the majority are religious bigots and nationalists.

speedboatchase

af_thefragile wrote: »

I think people keep missing out on the fundamental question of why are these people becoming terrorists? And if you start digging into the reason as to why all this is happening, you'll either trace it back to the British colonialism (Palestine + Kashmir) or American foreign policy (everywhere else!).

So what about Saudi Arabia? After all, they had 15 of the 19 hijackers. If anything, they should be thankful to America since SOCAL found their oil?

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

I doubt america has done anything to the world other than giving fast food, Hollywood and MTV and of course wars...

Then one is being naiive at best, about what exactly the nature of Soviet Russia, or other communist regimes in the world were like prior to their collapse.

af_thefragile wrote: »

It only goes around terrorising nations which don't follow onto its policies and interests. In many places it helped replaced good rulers with terrible dictators (Chile: Pinochet, Indonesia: Suharto, Iraq: Saddam Hussein, Afganistan: Osama bin Laden)

Nobody is saying that the US is a perfect country. However the US is a whole lot better than a lot of other countries. That's the point. It's the reason why the thread title is disingenuous.

Personally I would argue that in comparison to a lot of other countries, the US has stood on the side of what is right more than on the side of what is wrong.

There are numerous countries more extreme, more brutal, and more damaging to the cause of human rights than the US has ever been in the world. People don't seem too interested in demanding that Iran and Saudi Arabia do away with their human rights abuses. Why is that?

af_thefragile wrote: »

I think people keep missing out on the fundamental question of why are these people becoming terrorists? And if you start digging into the reason as to why all this is happening, you'll either trace it back to the British colonialism (Palestine + Kashmir) or American foreign policy (everywhere else!).

If you're suggesting that British colonialism caused Palestinians to become terrorists, then one needs to review the history of the region from roughly 1860 to 1948. Under the early British mandate, Palestinians and Jews got on well in the region often working together on the Jaffa orange groves for example. It is only when mass immigration of Jews to the region occur that hostilities, including many pogroms against Jewish people in settlements began that the conflict began to arise. In response groups such as the Haganah, Irgun, and the Shern gang on the Jewish side started terrorising Palestinians, and other Arabs living in the region.

I know very little about Kashmir, but to say the least your assessment on the origins of the Israel - Palestine conflict is wrong.

af_thefragile

speedboatchase wrote: »

So what about Saudi Arabia? After all, they had 15 of the 19 hijackers. If anything, they should be thankful to America since SOCAL found their oil?

Saudi has been one of the closest ally to america ever since they found oil. There is billions dollars worth of Saudi oil money in american banks running their businesses. Even americans won't consider Saudi Arabia to be a threat.
And it is only because of the American backing that Saudi Arabia can continue to maintain its monarchy which has many aspects to it which aren't Islamic at all (beating women, no freedom of speech etc.).

Just because most of the hijackers were Saudi doesn't say anything about Saudi Arabia. They were Al-Qaeda members which is a completely separate entity.

karma_

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Actually they joined in 1941, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance

They certainly did, however it is true to say the USSR did the vast majority of the fighting against Germany, to say otherwise is incorrect.

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Actually they joined in 1941, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance

We're talking about the European Theatre here as this clown was stating that we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for Private Ryan. Sure there were a few grunts slogging it out in North Africa during Rommel and Montgomery's campaign but these forces were by no means a pivotal contingent.
As for the Pacific Theatre the Americans seem to forget that their campaign there would have had considerably greater difficulty were it not for the vast contributions of British, Commonwealth and local armies and militias such as in Burma, Indochina, China proper, Malaya, etc.

Jeboa Safari

karma_ wrote: »

They certainly did, however it is true to say the USSR did the vast majority of the fighting against Germany, to say otherwise is incorrect.

Don't believe I said otherwise. To downplay Americas impact in the war so much as to say compare it to joining in the dying seconds of the 12th round of a fight already won is also incorrect

jackiebaron

Sykes wrote: »

Umm, beating women is Islamic and appears in text. There's advice about how to hit the woman in the Hadiths I believe.

Apparently you can hit her without leaving marks.

Proof? Source? Evidence?

af_thefragile

Jakkass wrote: »

Then one is being naiive at best, about what exactly the nature of Soviet Russia, or other communist regimes in the world were like prior to their collapse.

Sure communism was bound to collapse at some point but america had its share of problems during that period as well. If you look at the amount of racism against black people there was. America was better off than Russia because of capitalism but my point is America has done nothing to make the world a better place. If Russia would have won the Cold War, probably over time after the collapse of communism, which was inevitable, they might have gained sense and become more capitalist like they are today. America only chases its own interests. It consumes the most amount of resources of the planet and pollutes the most. Oh and did I mention the wars?...

Nobody is saying that the US is a perfect country. However the US is a whole lot better than a lot of other countries. That's the point. It's the reason why the thread title is disingenuous.

Personally I would argue that in comparison to a lot of other countries, the US has stood on the side of what is right more than on the side of what is wrong.

There are numerous countries more extreme, more brutal, and more damaging to the cause of human rights than the US has ever been in the world. People don't seem too interested in demanding that Iran and Saudi Arabia do away with their human rights abuses. Why is that?

Yes USA is more "democratic" than many regimes in the Middle East but you can't ignore the fact USA supports many of these regimes and they only exist because of the American support they have.

And if you like America's developed infrastructure, that's because America uses up most resources of the planet and exploits third world countries the most.

US has only stood at the side of its interests. It supports dictators as long as they benefit them and once their work is done, it becomes the "nice guy" by removing the oppressor. There are a lot of tribal warfare going on in Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia and many other African countries. Why don't I see America doing anything to help the people there? Is it because there is no oil in Africa??

America seems to only have problem with countries that have lots of natural resources. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Pakistan... Hmm...

We in the west have a very different view of America than the rest of the world. And sometimes its necessary to listen to what the rest of the world is trying to say.

If you're suggesting that British colonialism caused Palestinians to become terrorists, then one needs to review the history of the region from roughly 1860 to 1948. Under the early British mandate, Palestinians and Jews got on well in the region often working together on the Jaffa orange groves for example. It is only when mass immigration of Jews to the region occur that hostilities, including many pogroms against Jewish people in settlements began that the conflict began to arise. In response groups such as the Haganah, Irgun, and the Shern gang on the Jewish side started terrorising Palestinians, and other Arabs living in the region.

I know very little about Kashmir, but to say the least your assessment on the origins of the Israel - Palestine conflict is wrong.

There was no need to allow such amounts of Jews to enter such a small bit of land. They didn't just enter the land but instead shoved out the Palestenians, destroying their homes and making their lives miserable. They could have given them any piece of land in America, most of it is empty and Jews have been in America for a long time so they'ld be much happier there themselves. Why that very land?!

Kashmir is a result of British Colonialism. It promised pakistan it'll let them have Kashmir and then never followed on its promise. The Ruler of Kashmir was Hindu but Kashmir was 80% muslim. The Ruler fled Kashmir after the muslims revolted to make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. The ruler being Hindu preferred India and so with India's help and the absence of any action by the British, Kashmir is still a part of India and the violence goes on...

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

We're talking about the European Theatre here as this clown was stating that we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for Private Ryan. Sure there were a few grunts slogging it out in North Africa during Rommel and Montgomery's campaign but these forces were by no means a pivotal contingent.
As for the Pacific Theatre the Americans seem to forget that their campaign there would have had considerably greater difficulty were it not for the vast contributions of British, Commonwealth and local armies and militias such as in Burma, Indochina, China proper, Malaya, etc.

Might have been a stupid comment, but your comparison to joining in the dying seconds of a fight is equally stupid.
Could also be living in a Soviet dominated Europe if not for US aswell

af_thefragile

Sykes wrote: »

Umm, beating women is Islamic and appears in text. There's advice about how to hit the woman in the Hadiths I believe.

Apparently you can hit her without leaving marks.

NO it doesn't.

Its only in one Hadith which is a blatant misinterpretation of its meaning.

Go ask any Islamic scholar.

Also how do you hit someone without leaving a mark?
Can you explain that??

20goto10

God bless the United States of Ameri-caw!!

thebaz

it is the extreme right wing Republicans that are the problem - Sarah Pallin and her feckin Tea Party - but Obama and the Democrats are just that - democrats - it amazes me how the Republicans poll so highly , I know the Bush administration tinkered with the polls - strangely eneogh very little public outcry