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

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

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

Ah, I see. So to make a wildly presumptuous, flippant and childish remark about how if it wasn't for the Americans we'd all be speaking German, is alright,...but to reply with a counter-statement, that you find be an understatement of their efforts, is just not cricket, eh?

Sykes

af_thefragile wrote: »

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??

So I said it was in the Hadiths, you then bluntly stated it isn't, followed by an admission that it is?

My, my - seems I know more about your religion than you do.

Go swat up pal, then come back to me.

20goto10

Ireland sent troops to Lebanon, Cyprus, Chad to name but a few. What business was it of ours? None. Does that make us terrorists? Are you only considered a terrorist nation if your army is really good at killing? Do we escape the accusations just because we're small and so **** that we have to resort to "having the Craic" with the enemy because to engage the enemy would mean certain death.

Sykes

=af_thefragile;67935596


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?!

Educated at the Hamas academy, eh?

Even coming from an Islamist, this is mind-bogglingly stupid and a bastardisation of fact, reality and history .

af_thefragile

^Were you educated at a right wing Evangelical school?
That is the very reason of all the troubles in the Middle East. I think sometimes you need to wonder if could had been prevented.

Sykes wrote: »

So I said it was in the Hadiths, you then bluntly stated it isn't, followed by an admission that it is?

My, my - seems I know more about your religion than you do.

Go swat up pal, then come back to me.

Its a Hadith that says you could tap her with a toothbrush stick in only a very extreme situation.
That does not equal beating.

I think you need to check your sources mate. I don't think FOX news and the Sun are that credible...

Sykes

20goto10 wrote: »

Ireland sent troops to Lebanon, Cyprus, Chad to name but a few. What business was it of ours? None. Does that make us terrorists? Are you only considered a terrorist nation if your army is really good at killing? Do we escape the accusations just because we're small and so **** that we have to resort to "having the Craic" with the enemy because to engage the enemy would mean certain death.

Why Israel allowed an enemy state to provide troops, I don't know.

There were many incidents of UNIFIL troops on the border "not seeing" i.e turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's activity.

Given the previous relationships that the IRA had with Hezbollah and the general Irish attitude to Jews and Israel - I was really scratching my head over that decision.

The Aussie

20goto10 wrote: »

Ireland sent troops to Lebanon, Cyprus, Chad to name but a few. What business was it of ours? None. Does that make us terrorists? Are you only considered a terrorist nation if your army is really good at killing? Do we escape the accusations just because we're small and so **** that we have to resort to "having the Craic" with the enemy because to engage the enemy would mean certain death.

I read somewhere, and a rough quote is "the only difference in between a peace keeping force and an occupying Force is if its your army they are Peace keepers if its your land they are the occupying force"

dr.bollocko

OK folks this thread has somewhat lost its way. I have now banned the troll Sykes and some posters who, unfortunately, fed him. In future I would remind you that the report post feature allows us to act to remove such posters and upsetting posts.
Now we're re-opening this one however the previous personal abuse and hot-headedness stops from here on out. Lets try and keep on topic.

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

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 denying that America like any other country had problems. That isn't the point of what I am posting. Nor am I making a defence against racism in the slightest. Rather what I am saying is that America by and large has had a much more positive influence on the world than negative, even if it has screwed up as a state in the past.

By the by, I'd have to say that without American influence brutal communist regimes would have never fallen at the same rate that they did.

af_thefragile wrote: »

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.

There we go. QED. America is not the most extreme terrorist State.

Personally, I wholly disagree with the American support of Saudi Arabia, but I guess right now if the US stopped supporting Saudi Arabia it would have more devastating impacts than good. Perhaps the US should be using it's influence with the Saudi government to influence its policies away from being a totalitarian Islamic regime.

Iran is an entirely different kettle of fish.

af_thefragile wrote: »

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.

America's infrastructure has little or no impact except of course in respect to the Internet.

af_thefragile wrote: »

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??

Would you really support the US participating in war in Africa or are you just saying this a rhetorical piece. By the by, the US has as far as I know assisted in placing sanctions on Sudan even under the Bush Administration, and indeed the US as far as I know did go to war in Somalia. That is if you are complaining that the US hasn't been an equal opportunity war-monger.

af_thefragile wrote: »

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

North Korea? Oh wait...

On that note though, Pakistan at present like Afghanistan is a trouble area due to the huge influence of the Taliban. Iraq was a repressive regime.

As for whether or not the US should have gone into either country, that is a totally different debate. Coming up with faux ulterior motives doesn't really help though.

af_thefragile wrote: »

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.

Admittedly. I'd rather be influenced by America than by Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea for example.

af_thefragile wrote: »

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?!

Apart from the fact that the Jews were despised and hated all over Europe, and more likely than not pretty much anywhere else.

As for why that land. You know why that land had an attachment to the Jewish people.

af_thefragile wrote: »

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...

There is both Pakistani Kashmir, and Indian Kashmir for as much as I know. As India, isn't defacto a Hindu state, it shouldn't be that difficult for a majority Islamic area to come under Indian rule. There are nearly 140mn Muslims in India, it's hardly that radical an idea.

2nd attempt to post! :rolleyes:
Ignoring the religious bollocks...
The USA will do anything to preserve "The American way of life", if any country attempts to withold resources (eg oil) that the USA needs, then they are at risk of being invaded to preserve those resources.

af_thefragile

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody is denying that America like any other country had problems. That isn't the point of what I am posting. Nor am I making a defence against racism in the slightest. Rather what I am saying is that America by and large has had a much more positive influence on the world than negative, even if it has screwed up as a state in the past.

By the by, I'd have to say that without American influence brutal communist regimes would have never fallen at the same rate that they did.

Probably but still you or me would be no different without America than we are today. That is my point.

There we go. QED. America is not the most extreme terrorist State.

Personally, I wholly disagree with the American support of Saudi Arabia, but I guess right now if the US stopped supporting Saudi Arabia it would have more devastating impacts than good. Perhaps the US should be using it's influence with the Saudi government to influence its policies away from being a totalitarian Islamic regime.

Iran is an entirely different kettle of fish.

US has always had strong relations with the House of Saud. You can not deny that. They supported Saudi all throughout and in return Saudi put its oil money in american accounts and used American corporation to build their infrastructure. Saudi has no military power of its own. Instead it has American military bases. And Saudi would never want to get rid of its American support, which is why it doesn't stick its nose much in the Israel-Palestine issue.
There are many people/organisations who'ld like to see the House of Saud gone and some other form of more proper Islamic rule in Saudi. Without American backup Saudi wouldn't last very long.

And about Iran, well in all fairness I really can't say much about them till I've actually lived there and seen for myself what's actually going on and not a media portrayal of Iran.
America makes Hugo Chavez sound like a nut (and did many other 'popular' leaders who didn't agree with America's foreign policies) and from what I've found out, Chavez seems like a very reasonable man who's quite popular among the people of his country. So Iran, hmm... I won't blindly believe what the media says about it.

America's infrastructure has little or no impact except of course in respect to the Internet.



Would you really support the US participating in war in Africa or are you just saying this a rhetorical piece. By the by, the US has as far as I know assisted in placing sanctions on Sudan even under the Bush Administration, and indeed the US as far as I know did go to war in Somalia. That is if you are complaining that the US hasn't been an equal opportunity war-monger.

I would like if USA could go to Africa and stop the killing there. Placing sanctions only makes things worse. What you need is a just government. Though that's another debate.

USA went to Somalia, its still as bad as it was before. It doesn't care about these countries anymore as they're of no or very minor interest to them at the moment.

There is fairly good evidence that Afghanistan is more than just "fighting terrorists". There's a lot of oil and natural gas around that area, if only the Taliban can be got rid of so they can peacefully exploit another country (and I will leave out the Poppy trade which has once again flourished in the areas the Taliban have been removed off). Everyone knows about the oil in Iraq.

North Korea? Oh wait...

Well it is right at the doorstep of Russia and China. South Korea is good to them. If only they can stop North Korea from interfering...

I'm not saying america is all evil. I'm saying America never does things for a 'just cause'. America always has interests and only acts according to them. As Henry Kessinger said "America has no friends, only intersts".
Sometimes the interests bring good things to the people. A lot of times it doesn't make things any better or at times make them worse.

On that note though, Pakistan at present like Afghanistan is a trouble area due to the huge influence of the Taliban. Iraq was a repressive regime.

As for whether or not the US should have gone into either country, that is a totally different debate. Coming up with faux ulterior motives doesn't really help though.

Pakistan has always tried to help America. It has become a troubled area since America invaded Afghanistan. Before the area was composed of various tribes who used to live their lives their way on their own terms and everyone was happy just leaving them alone. Second problem with Pakistan is its corruption and America once again supporting the most corrupt and incompetent person a country could have as its leader.

Maybe they're not ulterior motives but they're "interests" and you can not deny america has other interests as well than just "fighting terrorism". Believing America is in Afghanistan "fighting terrorists" is very naive. In fact America's very presence in Afghanistan is just causing more people to dislike america and become terrorists. As long as American troops are present in Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism will exist. You cannot just go to a country with a completely social structure and way of life to yours and impose your system on them. That will only result in radicalisation of people.

I've said this before, I'll say it again, the only way peace can be achieved is by recognising and accepting the differences among people and just let them be.

Admittedly. I'd rather be influenced by America than by Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea for example.

That is your personal view and how most people feel in the west.
But opinions are very different in other parts of the world.

Why is why I say just let the citizens of the country deal with their own troubles until they (which doesn't mean a few important people) ask for your help.

Apart from the fact that the Jews were despised and hated all over Europe, and more likely than not pretty much anywhere else.

As for why that land. You know why that land had an attachment to the Jewish people.

They could go to America. They knew going to Palestine would lead to conflict but well, the Zionist lobby is very strong in America.

There is both Pakistani Kashmir, and Indian Kashmir for as much as I know. As India, isn't defacto a Hindu state, it shouldn't be that difficult for a majority Islamic area to come under Indian rule. There are nearly 140mn Muslims in India, it's hardly that radical an idea.

So seems to be the case but the reality seems something else.
India Kashmir is 99% muslim now and a lot of them would prefer Pakistan over India even though India's economy is stronger and all, Pakistan being a Islamic state is more favorable to them. Or they'ld like their own independent state. But Kashmir is a very valuable asset to India which it wouldn't like to lose.

Cromwellian Conquest

It's worth noting of course that at no time in the history of this world, have the Palestinians ever had a country or state. In fact, they never had a government until recently. They didn't have a capital, they didn't have their own currency, language or culture. They are mainly Arabs from the surrounding countries and territories. Arafat claimed to be Palestinian, but was in fact Egyptian. Hamas names their armed wing after a 'palestinian fighter' - he was actually Syrian.

So the Palestinians migrated into the area of palestine just as many Jews did too.

What we do know is that Jews pre-date Palestinian and Islam in the region. What we do know is that Jews did have their own country, their own capital, their own government, their own currency etc.

What we also know is that it was only under Israel that the Palestinian got some autonomy and a government.

Modern day Jordan is basically Palestine.

af_thefragile

Cromwellian Conquest wrote: »

It's worth noting of course that at no time in the history of this world, have the Palestinians ever had a country or state. In fact, they never had a government until recently. They didn't have a capital, they didn't have their own currency, language or culture. They are mainly Arabs from the surrounding countries and territories. Arafat claimed to be Palestinian, but was in fact Egyptian. Hamas names their armed wing after a 'palestinian fighter' - he was actually Syrian.

So the Palestinians migrated into the area of palestine just as many Jews did too.

What we do know is that Jews pre-date Palestinian and Islam in the region. What we do know is that Jews did have their own country, their own capital, their own government, their own currency etc.

What we also know is that it was only under Israel that the Palestinian got some autonomy and a government.

Modern day Jordan is basically Palestine.

True there wasn't really a 'state of Palestine' but there was no need of that. Everyone lived together happily back then till the British took over.

That land always belong to the muslim arabs ever since the beginning of the Caliphate till the formation of the state of Israel (counting out the brief moments during the Crusades when the christians had control of small parts of the land).

Yes Jews lived there (who were arabs themselves) along with the muslims peacefully but they never had autonomy over any areas. So the Jews didn't own that land for 1400 years and yet that land belongs to the Jews who mostly come from Europe and force the palestinians out from their homes to make room for themselves??

Cromwellian Conquest

af_thefragile wrote: »

That land always belong to the muslim arabs ever since the beginning of the Caliphate till the formation of the state of Israel

And that is where the common mistake is made. Muslims lived there, they did not own it. They didn't run it, they didn't govern it.

The land was taken from the Jews by the Romans.

Jews have lived there continuously for 3,500+ years. That's pre-dates Islam by 2,000 years.

Just because by the 19th century more Muslims lived there than Jews, doesn't give Muslims the right to claim the land for themselves. Having a high birth rate and the advantage of surrounding countries populated by your own people, does still not make the land yours.

Much of the land was bought by Jews when it was still swamp and desert. It was under them that the land began to flourish and more Arabs started to come in.

The land of Israel is for the Jews. Anyone with an understanding of history knows this. Jews are tied to it, and it is tied to Jews.

It was a natural and right that the UN decided to give both people a country out of Palestine. Palestinians would get the lion's share of about 78% including what is now Jordan - and Jews would get 22%

The Arabs wanted 100% and would not allow Jews their own state. They went to war and lost.

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

Probably but still you or me would be no different without America than we are today. That is my point.

My point, is that this point is absolutely absurd given any scrutiny.

af_thefragile wrote: »

US has always had strong relations with the House of Saud. You can not deny that. They supported Saudi all throughout and in return Saudi put its oil money in american accounts and used American corporation to build their infrastructure. Saudi has no military power of its own. Instead it has American military bases. And Saudi would never want to get rid of its American support, which is why it doesn't stick its nose much in the Israel-Palestine issue.
There are many people/organisations who'ld like to see the House of Saud gone and some other form of more proper Islamic rule in Saudi. Without American backup Saudi wouldn't last very long.

I think that Saudi Arabia is a deplorable state in comparison to the USA. One cannot blame America for how Saudi Arabia treats its citizens. That said, I would prefer if the US weren't supporting them. However, the US should be using its position more in relation to Saudi Arabia to encourage change in respect to the law system that they have there and to throw away this Islamic theocratic totalitarian system that they have in place.

af_thefragile wrote: »

And about Iran, well in all fairness I really can't say much about them till I've actually lived there and seen for myself what's actually going on and not a media portrayal of Iran.
America makes Hugo Chavez sound like a nut (and did many other 'popular' leaders who didn't agree with America's foreign policies) and from what I've found out, Chavez seems like a very reasonable man who's quite popular among the people of his country. So Iran, hmm... I won't blindly believe what the media says about it.

I would believe what the State itself encourages though in respect to religious freedom and tolerance it is poor at best. In respect to respecting human rights including those at women, it is poor at best.

Comparison with the USA, none.

af_thefragile wrote: »

I would like if USA could go to Africa and stop the killing there. Placing sanctions only makes things worse. What you need is a just government. Though that's another debate

How exactly do you suggest that the US should do that without an invasion?

af_thefragile wrote: »

USA went to Somalia, its still as bad as it was before. It doesn't care about these countries anymore as they're of no or very minor interest to them at the moment.

Results cannot be guaranteed.

af_thefragile wrote: »

There is fairly good evidence that Afghanistan is more than just "fighting terrorists". There's a lot of oil and natural gas around that area, if only the Taliban can be got rid of so they can peacefully exploit another country (and I will leave out the Poppy trade which has once again flourished in the areas the Taliban have been removed off). Everyone knows about the oil in Iraq.

The primary reason for going into Afghanistan is not resources. Remember that little thing that happened on the 11th of September 2001?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Well it is right at the doorstep of Russia and China. South Korea is good to them. If only they can stop North Korea from interfering...

North Korea is an an abominable dictatorship. Dare I say it, maybe even worse than Saudi Arabia.

af_thefragile wrote: »

I'm not saying america is all evil. I'm saying America never does things for a 'just cause'. America always has interests and only acts according to them. As Henry Kessinger said "America has no friends, only intersts".
Sometimes the interests bring good things to the people. A lot of times it doesn't make things any better or at times make them worse.

Then I am assuming that you voted no to the poll? - In comparison to the other States that I have listed that are far worse?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Pakistan has always tried to help America. It has become a troubled area since America invaded Afghanistan. Before the area was composed of various tribes who used to live their lives their way on their own terms and everyone was happy just leaving them alone. Second problem with Pakistan is its corruption and America once again supporting the most corrupt and incompetent person a country could have as its leader.

Pakistan is a mess primarily like a lot of other things in that region due to Islamic extremism versus moderates. Unfortunately cleaning up that mess is going to be a long process. Particularly when extremists happen to get their hands on considerable weapons. This seems to be a much bigger issue.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Maybe they're not ulterior motives but they're "interests" and you can not deny america has other interests as well than just "fighting terrorism". Believing America is in Afghanistan "fighting terrorists" is very naive. In fact America's very presence in Afghanistan is just causing more people to dislike america and become terrorists. As long as American troops are present in Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism will exist. You cannot just go to a country with a completely social structure and way of life to yours and impose your system on them. That will only result in radicalisation of people.

I believe that America is in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, which has been a blight on Afghanistan for decades, and also a region known for harbouring militants. That was the primary reason why the US invaded. I don't know if it was the best idea in retrospect, but I have to say if I was George Bush, and I had that much political pressure to bring the perpetrators of this horrific act to justice, I would have probably made the same decision.

af_thefragile wrote: »

I've said this before, I'll say it again, the only way peace can be achieved is by recognising and accepting the differences among people and just let them be.

I just wish that Islamic extremists would have adopted this way of thinking before acting. 9/11, Madrid, 7/7, 21/7 (nearly), Bali, Sharm El Sheikh, London & Glasgow (nearly), Time Square (nearly).

I can't "respect" differences amongst people who wish to deny other people their rights and liberties. Whether that is decking a woman up in a burqa without her permission in Afghanistan, cutting off peoples hands for stealing, etc etc..

af_thefragile wrote: »

That is your personal view and how most people feel in the west.
But opinions are very different in other parts of the world.

I'd suspect that a lot of people in other parts of the world greatly wish for freedoms and liberties that they currently are being denied.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why is why I say just let the citizens of the country deal with their own troubles until they (which doesn't mean a few important people) ask for your help.

I don't know about this. Sometimes I think States have to be bullied to get into line in respect to human rights and civil liberties.

af_thefragile wrote: »

They could go to America. They knew going to Palestine would lead to conflict but well, the Zionist lobby is very strong in America.

They can't now. By the by you know as well as I do why they wanted to live in Israel. Don't be naiive. Personally, I don't see what would be so wrong with allowing Jews and Palestinians to live alongside. That was the original intention of Theodor Herzl in Der Judenstaat.

af_thefragile wrote: »

So seems to be the case but the reality seems something else.
India Kashmir is 99% muslim now and a lot of them would prefer Pakistan over India even though India's economy is stronger and all, Pakistan being a Islamic state is more favorable to them. Or they'ld like their own independent state. But Kashmir is a very valuable asset to India which it wouldn't like to lose.

I'm not sure about the idea of states being Islamic by law. Islamic in the sense of a majority being Muslim sure. Islamic by law is entirely different.

af_thefragile

Cromwellian Conquest wrote: »

And that is where the common mistake is made. Muslims lived there, they did not own it. They didn't run it, they didn't govern it.

The land was taken from the Jews by the Romans.

Jews have lived there continuously for 3,500+ years. That's pre-dates Islam by 2,000 years.

Just because by the 19th century more Muslims lived there than Jews, doesn't give Muslims the right to claim the land for themselves. Having a high birth rate and the advantage of surrounding countries populated by your own people, does still not make the land yours.

Much of the land was bought by Jews when it was still swamp and desert. It was under them that the land began to flourish and more Arabs started to come in.

The land of Israel is for the Jews. Anyone with an understanding of history knows this. Jews are tied to it, and it is tied to Jews.

It was a natural and right that the UN decided to give both people a country out of Palestine. Palestinians would get the lion's share of about 78% including what is now Jordan - and Jews would get 22%

The Arabs wanted 100% and would not allow Jews their own state. They went to war and lost.

^That is what the Zionists say.


Jerusalem is considered sacred by the Muslims (hence they build the mosque) and it was always under Muslim control ever since the Caliphate came into existence.

Saying Jews lived there before and so own a right to build their state there forcing out the inhabitants is a ridiculous argument.

Its like saying all the protestants should be kicked out of the North because it originally belonged to the catholics.

And the Arabs didn't lose the war, the resistance is still going on and its quite strong.

Hamas says if Israel will go back to its original border alloted to it, It'll stop all the fighting but Israel continues to push out the Palestenians out of their lands.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

There is both Pakistani Kashmir, and Indian Kashmir for as much as I know. As India, isn't defacto a Hindu state, it shouldn't be that difficult for a majority Islamic area to come under Indian rule. There are nearly 140mn Muslims in India, it's hardly that radical an idea.

It came under Indian rule without any consultation. A plebiscite was recommended by the UN decades ago and has never been carried out.

Cromwellian conquest wrote:

Much of the land was bought by Jews when it was still swamp and desert. It was under them that the land began to flourish and more Arabs started to come in..

The kahanist version of events.

According to the 1946 survey carried out for the UN, prior to the rejected partition agreement approximately 80% of the farmland was in Arab hands, and most of that private ownership, with a similar share of the agricultural output.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0887282113/thehomeofalle-20

Overall 7 to 8% of the total land area was in Jewish ownership.

philologos

You've attributed the second quote to me incorrectly. If you could alter that it would be much appreciated.

Nodin

soz. Tis done.

Cromwellian Conquest

Nodin wrote: »

The kahanist version of events.

According to the 1946 survey carried out for the UN, prior to the rejected partition agreement approximately 80% of the farmland was in Arab hands, and most of that private ownership, with a similar share of the agricultural output.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0887282113/thehomeofalle-20

Overall 7 to 8% of the total land area was in Jewish ownership.

Let's for arguments sake take this laughable story you've posted as factual.

The UN decided to split 'Palestine' with Arabs getting 78% of the land.

If as you say they had about 80% of the farm land, I make that a pretty accurate splitting of the land, wouldn't you say?

steo2009

sxt wrote: »

In your opinion?

Maybe the usa have zero tolerance way.

af_thefragile

Jakkass wrote: »

My point, is that this point is absolutely absurd given any scrutiny.

Maybe you're right. Well, we can only speculate.

I think that Saudi Arabia is a deplorable state in comparison to the USA. One cannot blame America for how Saudi Arabia treats its citizens. That said, I would prefer if the US weren't supporting them. However, the US should be using its position more in relation to Saudi Arabia to encourage change in respect to the law system that they have there and to throw away this Islamic theocratic totalitarian system that they have in place.

A lot of people would like US to do that. But I can assure you US wont because that'll be against its interests. For things to change in Saudi, the monarchic House of Saud needs to go or change into a more democratic model which is just not going to happen as the House of Saud is good friends to America and America wouldn't want to lose a friend. Not until they've got oil atleast.

I would believe what the State itself encourages though in respect to religious freedom and tolerance it is poor at best. In respect to respecting human rights including those at women, it is poor at best.

Comparison with the USA, none.

You cannot view the whole world through one lens. I mentioned it people are different and you can't paint one system of values over different people and chose them to accept it. That would lead to a very Orwellian state if everyone became copies of one another. We in the west might see women in these countries and think they're oppressed. But we need to consider they have been living this way for many years and would rather not want you to interfere with their way of life.

Yes things in USA are very different and not everyone wants to live in USA.

If the people are happy in their way of life, let them be. If the people are having trouble with their way of life, let them sort it out themselves. You as an outsider have little insight into their way of life and cannot dictate them as to how to lead their life.

How exactly do you suggest that the US should do that without an invasion?

Maybe an invasion that doesn't include bombing the crap out of the country and killing thousands of civilians.

Results cannot be guaranteed.



The primary reason for going into Afghanistan is not resources. Remember that little thing that happened on the 11th of September 2001?

That does not justify america bombing the crap out of the country. 3000 people died on 9/11. How many died in Afghanistan due to the war?

North Korea is an an abominable dictatorship. Dare I say it, maybe even worse than Saudi Arabia.

I don't see it invading any country or sending people to blow up places in america.

Then I am assuming that you voted no to the poll? - In comparison to the other States that I have listed that are far worse?

Maybe they are. Still I don't see them invading other countries and bombing the crap out of them. What kills more people, a suicide bomber or aerial bombing?

Pakistan is a mess primarily like a lot of other things in that region due to Islamic extremism versus moderates. Unfortunately cleaning up that mess is going to be a long process. Particularly when extremists happen to get their hands on considerable weapons. This seems to be a much bigger issue.

Have you been to Pakistan? I presume all you know about Pakistan is what you've gotten from the media.
It really isn't like that. Most of pakistani people are just living their lives. Like the bloke you'ld see at the newsagents. Then there are the tribal pakistani people who have their way of life which may seem extreme to us but its how they've been living for many years. Its their way of life. Yes they all carry guns and when disputes occur, they will kill one another and their women dress cover themselves up and don't study much. All of this is their way of life and their problems to deal with. They are not the ones who blow themselves up.

You are confusing the tribal pakistani people who follow a slightly extreme version of Islam (which suits them) with Al-Qaeda trained militant terrorists which is a different entity.

Al-Qaeda is a network of different Islamist organisations which trains people to fight for its political ideologies. Totally different. People from all around the world make up Al-Qaeda. Its a global problem and is not located in certain locations.

I believe that America is in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, which has been a blight on Afghanistan for decades, and also a region known for harbouring militants. That was the primary reason why the US invaded. I don't know if it was the best idea in retrospect, but I have to say if I was George Bush, and I had that much political pressure to bring the perpetrators of this horrific act to justice, I would have probably made the same decision.

How do you know Taliban has been a blight on Afghanistan?
Afghan people always lived that way throughout history. Just the Taliban people were a bit more hardline and extreme in their following of religion.
The did bring political stability to the region for a good while as well.
And don't forget this is the same Taliban which was praised by USA when it was fighting off the Soviets. Back then they were brave heros. Now they've become fanatical terrorists. Attitudes change with time or should I say change of interests...

I just wish that Islamic extremists would have adopted this way of thinking before acting. 9/11, Madrid, 7/7, 21/7 (nearly), Bali, Sharm El Sheikh, London & Glasgow (nearly), Time Square (nearly).

Note what I said about Al-Qaeda above.
They are not just located in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi. They are everywhere. They are in USA, in UK, in France, in Indonesia, in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, literally everywhere!

You can not destroy Al-Qaeda by destroying taliban. The only way to destroy Al-Qaeda is to destroy their ridiculous ideology and stop naive young muslims from getting influenced by them. This can only be done through tolerance and dialog. When America drops bombs on people in Pakistan/Afghanistan, its mostly civilians who die and its the families of these killed civilians who get enraged by america's constant attacks and decide to take up arms against it.

If america was just "fighting terrorism" it should have been intelligent enough to realise this and stop pursuing its goals of 'exterminating' the terrorists because that is just not possible.

I can't "respect" differences amongst people who wish to deny other people their rights and liberties. Whether that is decking a woman up in a burqa without her permission in Afghanistan, cutting off peoples hands for stealing, etc etc..

You don't need to.
Its their matters. You don't need to stick your nose in it. They don't like outsiders interfering with their way of life and telling them how to live. The only way you can remove the extreme elements from them is to clear the misconceptions they've developed within the religion they follow and this can be only done through peaceful means. Bombing them and ordering them to submit to your way of thinking will just not work.

I'd suspect that a lot of people in other parts of the world greatly wish for freedoms and liberties that they currently are being denied.

Yes they do. They also wish you don't bomb their homes and kill their families.

I don't know about this. Sometimes I think States have to be bullied to get into line in respect to human rights and civil liberties.

The rulers needs to be bullied, not the people. And bullied is a wrong word. If a ruler is a tyrant, then sure you should help the people out but you cannot do this on your own. You can help the people in fighting off the ruler but you can't go in there, bomb the crap out of the country and then hand it back to the people in a completely ruined and desperate state.

Sorry you lost your homes, your families, your businesses, your wealth but sure you've got your freedom and liberty now!

They can't now. By the by you know as well as I do why they wanted to live in Israel. Don't be naiive. Personally, I don't see what would be so wrong with allowing Jews and Palestinians to live alongside. That was the original intention of Theodor Herzl in Der Judenstaat.

I'm sure he meant peace but unfortunately it didn't work out and they need to question why...

I'm not sure about the idea of states being Islamic by law. Islamic in the sense of a majority being Muslim sure. Islamic by law is entirely different.

For the muslims of those lands, Islam is their way of life hence you can't split religion from law. Pakistan was formed on Islamic fundamentals and Islamic laws. Now the rulers don't follow any of those laws and principles is a separate matter...

af_thefragile

Bloody hell my posts are getting bigger and taking longer to type...

I think we're discussing too many topics at one time...

piby

Terry wrote: »

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

Honestly?! I am genuinely more afraid of Iran, North Korea and even to some degree China.

There are serious problems with the US and at times I'm just as critical of their domestic and foreign policies as anyone else. However it's all well and good being ideological but sometimes you have to be pragmatic and if I had to choose one I'd rather have America as the dominant force in the world as opposed to a long long list of other countries.

FreudianSlippers

The Highwayman wrote: »

Israil

I'd like to thank you, but... spelling

Nodin

Cromwellian Conquest wrote: »

Let's for arguments sake take this laughable story you've posted as factual.

Its thoroughly documented and was examined by all parties at the time. Thus "laughable story" is not applicable.

Cromwellian Conquest wrote: »

The UN decided to split 'Palestine' with Arabs getting 78% of the land.

If as you say they had about 80% of the farm land, I make that a pretty accurate splitting of the land, wouldn't you say?

You missed

Overall 7 to 8% of the total land area was in Jewish ownership.

This is supposed to be about Ameica ????

Orange69

The utter stupidity of the anti-America brigade is astounding. Its one of the few remaining western nations with a pair of balls!

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

This is supposed to be about Ameica ????

WHERE IS THIS AMEICA OF WHICH YOU SHOUT?

Nodin

Orange69 wrote: »

The utter stupidity of the anti-America brigade is astounding. Its one of the few remaining western nations with a pair of balls!

Yes, having wars with third world countries marks one out as a manly nation.

Orange69

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, having wars with third world countries marks one out as a manly nation.

It sure beats pandering to them like a bunch of pussies.

Nodin

Orange69 wrote: »

It sure beats pandering to them like a bunch of pussies.

You might explain to me how not blocking land reform in a country and not training torturers and the leaders of the death squads is "pandering"....

Feel free to include an explanation of how letting people choose their own form of government is "pandering" also.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

WHERE IS THIS AMEICA OF WHICH YOU SHOUT?

It's a lot colser than the muddle east, that's for sure.

Anyway, The USA empire has only a limited shelf life, when china decides to call in all the debt or has offloaded it's Dollar pile, its Meiriceá slán.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a lot colser than the muddle east, that's for sure.

Anyway, The USA empire has only a limited shelf life, when china decides to call in all the debt or has offloaded it's Dollar pile, its Meiriceá slán.

Or

欢迎新霸主

depending.

The Highwayman

OisinT wrote: »

I'd like to thank you, but... spelling

oops

Israel

Orange69

Nodin wrote: »

You might explain to me how not blocking land reform in a country and not training torturers and the leaders of the death squads is "pandering"....

Feel free to include an explanation of how letting people choose their own form of government is "pandering" also.

I think it might be time for the US to implement a regime change and 're-education' program in Ireland... Far too many unemployed, multi-cult loving pinko liberals as far as I can see.. :rolleyes:

The Highwayman

Cromwellian Conquest wrote: »

It's worth noting of course that at no time in the history of this world, have the Palestinians ever had a country or state. In fact, they never had a government until recently. They didn't have a capital, they didn't have their own currency, language or culture. They are mainly Arabs from the surrounding countries and territories. Arafat claimed to be Palestinian, but was in fact Egyptian. Hamas names their armed wing after a 'palestinian fighter' - he was actually Syrian.

So the Palestinians migrated into the area of palestine just as many Jews did too.

What we do know is that Jews pre-date Palestinian and Islam in the region. What we do know is that Jews did have their own country, their own capital, their own government, their own currency etc.

What we also know is that it was only under Israel that the Palestinian got some autonomy and a government.

Modern day Jordan is basically Palestine.

Staight out of the IDF handbook

dr.bollocko

The Highwayman wrote: »

Staight out of the IDF handbook

It's at best pointless to antagonise the sitebanned re-regges. Makes them re-appear all the quicker.

spaceman67

Most of you are extremely Anti USA, are you sure??? seems like you barking at the wrong tree. Think what would you do if US would pull all the investment that put in Irleand ? I am pretty sure you find some golden boys in Pakistan or Palestine or other nice places that will be willing to invest in Ireland )))), not to mention probably they will be lots of tourist coming from all of these countries to see green country , so far Americans and their dollars do not stink huh ?

FreudianSlippers

There is a difference between US companies and the country itself. It's not like the US can just "pull" its investment out of Ireland. Plus wtf does Pakistan or Palestine have anything to do with this?

American tourists are super annoying too btw.

Orange69

spaceman67 wrote: »

Most of you are extremely Anti USA, are you sure??? seems like you barking at the wrong tree. Think what would you do if US would pull all the investment that put in Irleand ? I am pretty sure you find some golden boys in Pakistan or Palestine or other nice places that will be willing to invest in Ireland )))), not to mention probably they will be lots of tourist coming from all of these countries to see green country , so far Americans and their dollars do not stink huh ?

You are trying to persuade people who really have no concept of reality. They are essentially PC brigade fanbois who think its cool and progressive to be liberal and hate America. Ask any of them to visit Pakistan or some such place and you will rapidly get a different opinion.

These people represent a disgusting rot that has set into western civilization that will eventually lead to its downfall.

FreudianSlippers

Orange69 wrote: »

You are trying to persuade people who really have no concept of reality. They are essentially PC brigade fanbois who think its cool and progressive to be liberal and hate America. Ask any of them to visit Pakistan or some such place and you will rapidly get a different opinion.

These people represent a disgusting rot that has set into western civilization that will eventually lead to its downfall.

What does using a PC have to do with hating the US. I don't like the US because the people are ignorant, religious zealots who believe it is their job to tell the rest of the world what to do and when to do it.
It has nothing to do with what type of computer I use.

Go troll elsewhere.

PS: I'd go to Pakistan. Just ruined your point there really, didn't I? Have you ever been out of your estate?

Orange69

OisinT wrote: »

What does using a PC have to do with hating the US. I don't like the US because the people are ignorant, religious zealots who believe it is their job to tell the rest of the world what to do and when to do it.
It has nothing to do with what type of computer I use.

Go troll elsewhere.

PS: I'd go to Pakistan. Just ruined your point there really, didn't I? Have you ever been out of your estate?

I live in NY and have done so for years. Americans are a reasonable and warm people, their only fault is that they are too tolerant and open. You call them ignorant and religious zealots but I suspect you have probably never met one. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

The question is then, have you ever left your estate?

PS: Its easy to say you would go to Pakistan, actually doing so is an entirely different matter.

Orange69

OisinT wrote: »

What does using a PC have to do with hating the US. I don't like the US because the people are ignorant, religious zealots who believe it is their job to tell the rest of the world what to do and when to do it.
It has nothing to do with what type of computer I use.

Go troll elsewhere.

PS: I'd go to Pakistan. Just ruined your point there really, didn't I? Have you ever been out of your estate?

BTW PC = Politically correct.. not personal computer :rolleyes:

Rubik.

Sarah Palin in the White House - the thought alone is enough to evoke worldwide terror.

FreudianSlippers

Orange69 wrote: »

I live in NY and have done so for years. Americans are a reasonable and warm people, their only fault is that they are too tolerant and open. You call them ignorant and religious zealots but I suspect you have probably never met one. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

The question is then, have you ever left your estate?

PS: Its easy to say you would go to Pakistan, actually doing so is an entirely different matter.

I'm in the US right now. Your witty points are falling faster than a house of cards!

huzzah!

Orange69

OisinT wrote: »

I'm in the US right now. Your witty points are falling faster than a house of cards!

huzzah!

Your location field says otherwise.. could it be that you are talking through your hole? :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

Orange69 wrote: »

Your location field says otherwise.. could it be that you are talking through your hole? :rolleyes:

I didn't update my location field while I'm away for 2 weeks.

If you want to compare locations, I've been to many countries and experienced many different cultures. I've lived in the US for a few years before and I've experienced firsthand the things I've mentioned that are wrong with this country at the moment.

Some places, like Portland (where I am currently - whether you feel like believing me or not :rolleyes:) are different: the majority of people are open-minded and would agree that the ignorant and religiously fundamental people in this country are the problems with this country. US was founded on isolationism and ought to stay that way.

Clawdeeus

OisinT wrote: »

I didn't update my location field while I'm away for 2 weeks.

If you want to compare locations, I've been to many countries and experienced many different cultures. I've lived in the US for a few years before and I've experienced firsthand the things I've mentioned that are wrong with this country at the moment.

Some places, like Portland (where I am currently - whether you feel like believing me or not :rolleyes:) are different: the majority of people are open-minded and would agree that the ignorant and religiously fundamental people in this country are the problems with this country. US was founded on isolationism and ought to stay that way.

Are you trying to be ironic by calling americans ignorant?

Orange69

OisinT wrote: »

I didn't update my location field while I'm away for 2 weeks.

If you want to compare locations, I've been to many countries and experienced many different cultures. I've lived in the US for a few years before and I've experienced firsthand the things I've mentioned that are wrong with this country at the moment.

Some places, like Portland (where I am currently - whether you feel like believing me or not :rolleyes:) are different: the majority of people are open-minded and would agree that the ignorant and religiously fundamental people in this country are the problems with this country. US was founded on isolationism and ought to stay that way.

So you are on a 2 week US vacation, and posting on boards? I believe my hole comment still stands...

I love to see the final desperate death throes of a defeated internet opponent.. makes me feel warm inside..