anti americanism fashionable

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m honestly not sure that there is any difference between terrorism and a military strike these days, especially when you see the way certain countries such as the USA and Israel conduct themselves.

If, as Bush claims, this is a war, then by definition 9/11 was military action.

Military action does not allow for deliberate strikes against civilian targets, targeting civilians only.
I could stomach terrorism if the terrorists attacked military targets, I would feel that their actions were justified in some way. What I find reprehensible is when they attack civilians (some of whom probably are their own countrymen)

I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers?

[downquark1]

I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers?

As Towny mentioned the main thing about america and the western world is it's economic wealth, the world trade centre is the symbolic link to that. The pentagon was the symbolic link to the military and the white house was the link to the international polictical bias. These people can't attack military targets because they are well defended and secret.

Remember these people are religiously fueled - they prefer symbolisum over practicallity.

[handyman]

Originally Posted by downquark1

As Towny mentioned the main thing about america and the western world is it's economic wealth, the world trade centre is the symbolic link to that. The pentagon was the symbolic link to the military and the white house was the link to the international polictical bias. These people can't attack military targets because they are well defended and secret.

Remember these people are religiously fueled - they prefer symbolisum over practicallity.

There are many American base's that are not secret, andrews etc. It does not take a genius to find them and if your going to crash a commercial jet into it then even if shot down there would be lots of damage.

What happened on 9/11 was a huge shock to the US, it should have been a kick in the pants for them to have such a large scale terrorist atack on their own soil and they should have taken a long look at thier international profile. However the US has taken it upon it self so send in a large scale military attack on a country rather than use its Intelligence services to go after the leaders behind it.

Dont get me wrong Saddam and Bin Ladden are terrorists and should be removed from power. Attacking a few countrys whilst doing that? Maybe not the best way. With all the military might the US has why are they still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan???

For the record I think America is a nice place, they just need to work on their international relations a bit.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by scastle

You are viewing the whole problem of dictatorship in a rather simplistic way. Not all dictators are elected. AFAIK very few are.

In fact, isn't an elected dictator an oxymoron.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

In fact, isn't an elected dictator an oxymoron.

Not entirely you could elect one person with absolute power, but they must hold a electon after a certain time. Problem is they don't want to.

Works in theory - not in practice.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I have no idea. Some of them, no. Some of them, yes. Some of them are particularly eager to express how bad the western lifestyle is and that us "infidels" should all die. So, if they want to live in such crappy conditions because Allah tells them to,

Yes, some of them, in the main the minority. All most of these people want is to get on and lead happy lives. You also forget that they know nothing different, they don't have the choices of how they are brought up so their beliefs are formulated based on experience. Education, understanding and compromise is the only way to help this.

or if you would rather have your child die than to slaughter one of the quadzillion cows on the street and feed your child, whatever. I'm not about to force my beliefs onto you.

Again, you are referring to other people in a derogatory fashion. Cow's I would have no problem killing to feed my child, other human beings I would have to be pushed very very far before considering that choice.

Except that I wasn't. I'm a refugee. Regardless, that isn't the point.

Then I would have thought that you would have more understanding. You or your parents or whoever escaped but millions can't, and would you be happy for all those who wish to to enter and live in America?

The point is, these same people keep electing numbskill idiotic dictators. WHY is it that Africa is incapable of governing themselves? WHY? Yes, now someone is going to call me racist, but I don't care. It is the truth. I do pity the people that live in bad conditions, but damn, STOP ELECTING and SUPPORTING dictators!

As far as I understand it, dictators often aren't elected, it's the minority siezing power. In times of strife and hardship, dictorships thrive, look at pre-war Germany, or are you saying that all of those people were as evil as Hitler and that's why he came to power?

You know, I really don't want to tell the rest of the world how to live and what to do. I think I'll just ignore them. If we don't, people yell at us for unilateral action. And for U.S. imperialism. And other crap. Who are YOU to say to another person in another country how he should be living his life?

I don't want to tell the world how to live, but actions have consequences and I want people to see and understand this so that the negative consequences of peoples actions are mitigated.

I completely disagree. Germany came out of a mess in under 5 decades. So did Japan. And countless other countries. If these people are serious about fixing their countries, start implementing some basic common sense practices. It isn't MY job and my country's job to fix up other countries.

I believe that the countries you mention had help.

Like redistributing the wealth from first world nations to dictator's pockets.

Redistributing the wealth to people so that people have a fair chance in life, I'm all for removing brutal leaders of undemocratic regimes.

I'm sorry Jerrek, I realise that as one of the few Americans (the only one?) on this board that you must feel like you are being backed into a corner and probably your opinions are polarising more than you mean for them too. I'm not anti-americam, just anti-prejudice.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Not entirely you could elect one person with absolute power, but they must hold a electon after a certain time. Problem is they don't want to.

Works in theory - not in practice.

Hmm, the initials TB are flashing in my mind at this point

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Hmm, the initials TB are flashing in my mind at this point

Yes, any British political party with an overwhelming Commons majority could be seen as an 'elected dictatorship'. Thatcher was accused of this, and Blair is now as well. But then I think this is unsurprising, as Blair is clearly Maggie's genetically re-engineered experiment for holding on to power :p

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by towny

Yes, any British political party with an overwhelming Commons majority could be seen as an 'elected dictatorship'. Thatcher was accused of this, and Blair is now as well. But then I think this is unsurprising, as Blair is clearly Maggie's genetically re-engineered experiment for holding on to power :p

I was thinking more of when the time comes for him to go, I can see him clinging onto the doorframe of no.10 screaming that he doesn't want to go

Originally Posted by towny

I don't think any other thread on this forum has shocked me the way this one has. The blind hatred for the United States displayed by some folks here is very saddening indeed. Glib phrases like 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' and 'I'm honestly not sure that there is any difference between terrorism and a military strike these days' put some members of this forum in the same league as Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, cynically regretting the deaths of innocent people but inwardly feeling it is somehow justified. But of course, I expect some people in this forum consider Sinn Fein to be heroes of freedom as well.

The Russians took over Afghanistan, when the local population fought back they were regarded as freedom fighters. The English annexed a vaste swathe of Ireland, I think that the Irish had every right to fight to reclaim the land that was rightfully theirs.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

The Russians took over Afghanistan, when the local population fought back they were regarded as freedom fighters. The English annexed a vaste swathe of Ireland, I think that the Irish had every right to fight to reclaim the land that was rightfully theirs.

OK, so let's be absolutely clear about this. Are you saying that you believe this was justified in the name of a Republic of all Ireland?

Incidentally, the Loyalist population of Northern Ireland are largely descended from Scots, not English.

Originally Posted by towny

OK, so let's be absolutely clear about this. Are you saying that you believe this was justified in the name of a Republic of all Ireland?

Incidentally, the Loyalist population of Northern Ireland are largely descended from Scots, not English.

It's all swings and roundabouts, was Bloody Sunday justified?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by towny

Yes, any British political party with an overwhelming Commons majority could be seen as an 'elected dictatorship'. Thatcher was accused of this, and Blair is now as well. But then I think this is unsurprising, as Blair is clearly Maggie's genetically re-engineered experiment for holding on to power :p

I've always thought of him as "Thatcher Lite". The version for people who don't want to admit they like the full thing..

Originally Posted by dr wadd

It's all swings and roundabouts, was Bloody Sunday justified?

Answer the question m8.

Originally Posted by towny

OK, so let's be absolutely clear about this. Are you saying that you believe this was justified in the name of a Republic of all Ireland?

Incidentally, the Loyalist population of Northern Ireland are largely descended from Scots, not English.

Well do you?

For the record, I think the shooting of unarmed civilians without provocation is despicable. Even if the army was shot at first, they were aware that the crowd was largely a peaceful civil rights movement and should not have started spraying the place with bullets.

It is possible that the IRA was using that peaceful crowd as cover and if they were, and if they did shoot first, I would be suspicious that it was a cynical ploy to goad the Army into a firefight in which everyone must have realised civilians would get hurt.

I have no trouble condemning such actions. How about you?

Originally Posted by towny

Answer the question m8.

From an objective viewpoint, we would have no problems if this was done to the occupying Russian forces in Afghanistan. In this case the British are the occupying force, so they have to expect the same sort of action. I don`t think that justified and correct necessarily equate.

I find it quite hypocritical to condemn the battle for liberation when we are the ones on the receiving end, whereas we would be applauding such actions if they were taken against some other regimes. A bomb of this type in an area of Iraq with strong loyalty to Saddam Hussein would be interpreted as an act of defiance against a dictator. Ok, so we aren`t being dictators over to Ireland, but we are the occupying force.

Whoever wins writes the history, sometimes you need to stand back and be objective.