• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

Misterveritis said:
This does not require very much explanation. It is a very simple concept. Those places that were relatively free from government interference with their lives tended to experiment more in every facet of their lives than places that were less free. Everything else is window dressing.

Do the hard thinking once. I have.
Click to expand...

No, you obviously haven't.
 
Klown said:
1.4 million dead civialins since 2003 and that is just in Iraq

The cancer rate in Fallujah has skyrocketed by 700% since the US dumpled depleted Uranium in the area.

hundreds of thousands of Afagans dead

I am not sure what the people of the region are so angry about?

A film right?
Click to expand...

Which one of these statistics is right? Literally, none of them? Afghans, though? Maybe 100,000 are dead, though. From the US? Arguable.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Which one of these statistics is right? Literally, none of them? Afghans, though? Maybe 100,000 are dead, though. From the US? Arguable.
Click to expand...

You are right of course to note that not all civialins deaths in Iraq were from direct military operations by the USA.

The US defence forces put the number of civilian deaths in Iraq at between 60,000 and 130,000 from 2003 up to the present.

But you would be aware that the naton that triggers an unprovoked attack upon another nation becomes responsible for all the causulaties that eventuate and is also responsible for the compensation and reparations.

In any case, even if you take the lowest estimate by the US defence forces of 60,000 Iraqi Civilian deaths at the hands of the US military, this alone is a war crime by any standards. And seeing as the US was not attacked by Iraq, how do you morally and legally justify this war and the deaths of civilians?

(the 1.4 million Iraqi civilian death toll is based upon the same two analysts who provided evidence in teh Milosovic criminal procedings at the Hague - and the USA was happy to accept the death toll figure in that case, resulting in Milosovic being found guilty. But when the same analysts conducted the same survey in Iraq with an even larger sample size, the USA found the results totally unbelievable and publically discredited the findings - strange dont you think?)
 
Good thing some of us live in Australia.

Let them try again.... just let them...bad things coming their way if they dare...
 
Holy cow, lot of movement on the thread since I left last night.

OldWorldOrder said:
So, again, if you're not interested in American policy in the Middle East, why are you talking about it? I'm not interested in lobster recipes, so guess what? I'm not talking about them.

So why does American policy in the Middle East interest you enough to talk about, but not educate yourself regarding? To be honest, anything that is worth talking about is worth educating yourself about. That's just me, though.
Click to expand...

Because a particular facet of politics does not affect an individual does not mean they have no interests. I already have a fairly good working knowledge of the Middle East, however, I am not trying to become the ultimate expert on the subject. There are hundred or thousands of books on the subject, I don't know exactly how many, just because I chose not to read the one you recommend, does not mean I am not interested in the subject. And the ME is just one subject related to Politics.

It would take even a person like the fictional character Dr. Spencer Reid from the show Criminal Minds, a person with an eidetic memory who reads more than 25,000 words a minute, a life time to read and process all books and articles related to politics and peoples related to politics. Since I have other interests than discussing politics here, some of them more important to me, I am sorry it upsets you that I do not use my available time to read a book you suggest on a subject that is a sub-subject of a massive subject just to have one more persons opinion on it.

Instead of the book you recommended, to start getting any knowledge of the ME, the first book that you should read is the Koran.

Also, despite all the opinions I have read, my experience has taught me that the average person, anywhere in the world, regardless of culture or country, desires the same basic things. They want to fulfill their basic need for food, clothing and shelter. After those 3 things, they want to love and be loved, live and enjoy their family in peace, have a meaningful job that provides them a decent living and to be mostly left alone by governments and politicians. It is a minority of people who actually cause the problems in the world and who stir up all the ruckus.


OldWorldOrder said:
No, it doesn't work well. I've spent 10 years of my life involved in it. Killing is great. Killing can very useful. Killing is worth much more than liberals give it credit for. But it's not the fix for everything. Hammers are awesome tools, but you can't build a house using only hammers. Other tools are necessary.
Click to expand...

Killing is not great. Killing should never be enjoyed and should only be done when necessary. "There are only two reason to ever kill something, defense and meat." John Wayne, character Jacob McCandles, Movie Big Jake

To any sane person, group or government the prospect of facing overwhelming force without the possibility of victory, should deter them from violent actions. It is only the insane ones that don't get the message. The primary reason it has not been effective for the past 20 years and more is because, due to the policies of some of our leaders, it has not been equally applied nor always used. Had William J. Clinton stomped Al Queda into the dirt the first time they took actions against the US, it's territories, interests or people, then 9/11 would never have happened and the current war on terror would never have been started. Had James E. Carter, Jr. stomped the Iranians into a bloody pulp, we would not have anywhere near the problems we currently have in the region and no one would be attacking our embassies. Had Lyndon B. Johnson stomped the North Vietnamese, Vietnam would of had a different outcome. Had Truman allowed MacArthur to take out the Chinese, there would be fewer problems in the world. If FDR had not allied with the USSR and then Truman allowed Patton to take out the USSR, then there would of been far fewer problems since. China probably would not of fallen to communism, Korea and Vietnam would never have been divided, we would not of allied with the Shah of Iran or many other less than desirable countries/persons in the region or elsewhere, we would of never backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan nor allied with Pakistan.

Failure to properly eradicate and stomp on our enemies when necessary has caused us a great deal of problems for the last almost 70 years. Interesting that everytime we failed to do so, a Dem was in office and a Republican had to try to clean up their mess. Since Obama doesn't want to stomp them down now and allows the attacks to continue, then what problems and how many are going to die in the future from his lack of action?
 
Gardener said:
What it showcases is that you say you are not from Egypt in one post but claim you are from Egypt in another in order to try to establish some sort of cred.

Above all, it establishes that peopleshould take anything you say with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

As I said utter lack of common sense, I never said I am from Egypt not on that thread and not in this one, actually I've never claimed that anywhere and I have multiple times on this forum said I am not Egyptian. Feel free to back up your claim with evidence if you know what that is, because apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word live.

People can live in a country but not be in it at certain times for multiple reasons, I know its really hard for you to grasp so I'll help a little, one big reason during summer starts with v and ends with acation.
 
Misterveritis said:
Never mind this. Why don't you translate your little squigly lines at the bottom of your post. Isn't there a rule for English only? I want to see what your respons is before I ask a mod to review it.
Click to expand...

It means death to America!!!!!. :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
Obviously, you don't want to discuss reasonable solutions and you don't understand that it would be impossible to kill them all . . . in every country, and that we don't have either the resources, the means or the support to take on such an impossible task.
Click to expand...

It is not necessary to kill every Muslim in every country, just as it was not necessary to kill every German and every Italian during WWII.

You only must do what it takes to make them stop, and telling Americans not to make films, while at the same time praising Islam, is not the way to go.
 
Grant said:
It is not necessary to kill every Muslim in every country, just as it was not necessary to kill every German and every Italian during WWII.

You only must do what it takes to make them stop, and telling Americans not to make films, while at the same time praising Islam, is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

Don't misunderstand. I am not "praising" anyone. I just don't want us going to war over something like this particular situation, or bombing other innocent people.
 
zstep18 said:
What country was harboring those responsible for 911, Iraq of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

You'll need to stop thinking in terms of national borders if you want a better understanding of what's going on in the world.
 
Mya said:
When it swept here in Sydney yesterday, the police let them have it!

Thanks God for the Australian police! :thumbs: there is no way here in Australia they are going to put up with that s***
Click to expand...

I would hope that's the case Mya but the Islamists seem to have made their point as well.


And of course they continue to brainwash their poor children.

There should be no more Muslims allowed into the western democracies. They are not worth whatever they might contribute.

Arrests made after police officers injured at anti-Islamic film protest in Sydney CBD | News.com.au

Australia: Muslim protesters chanting "Allahu akbar" turn violent, spit at police -- sign: "Behead all those who insult the prophet" - Jihad Watch

Muslim protesters clash with police in Sydney
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I still don't understand what the destruction of Mecca is supposed to accomplish.
Click to expand...

It is the concept of Total War. The Jihadist are using Islam as their reason for war, so the concept of Total War would be to attack Islam as whole. In total war, there are no innocents on the other side, they are either directly involved in the war or are supporters of the war. All weapons shall be used, including nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Civilian casualties are not considered and civilian centers are targets because they in some way support the war. The last total war, at least for America was WWII.

There are those who accept/believe that the war on terror/jihadist should be total war. It is obvious that the Jihadist are engaging in total war to the best of their ability so it is not totally unreasonable that some would consider responding-in-kind and that anything short of total war on our part will lead to defeat.

While I do not adhere to the total war concept at present, our lack luster performance so far, due to gross negligence and mismanagement on the part of our political leaders, is surely pushing more into the total war camp. If we are unable to carry out and win using limited warfare, then total warfare, instead of defeat and withdrawal, is the more desirable option. We are in this war, have been for a longtime now and quitting and going home is not an option, our enemies will follow us, they will attack us here. If you do not know that or refuse to accept it, then you are grossly wrong. This war goes back much further than 9/11 2001. Those events only brought the war directly to our soil, but the war itself had been going on for decades before that.
 
nota bene said:
Mecca is a sacred place for millions of faithful Muslims who are not Islamofacists or Wahhabi anymore than Fred Phelps and his evil spawn represent Christianity. Why invite their enmity? If the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem were destroyed by those who oppose Christians and Jews, this would earn my enmity.
Click to expand...

It seems there is plenty of enmity already if they don't allow non-Muslims to enter.

If they going to remain a closed society within their borders and insist on retrograde changes within the western democracies, and with no quid pro quo, then we have a serious problem. We can hope it stops and they come to their senses (actually our sensibilities) but that is very unlikely.

All you need do is listen to their media and read their web sites to see what the goal is. We in the west can assume they all want to be like us but that assumption comes from our own self satisfaction and fear, not from anything based in the present reality. We may seem all wonderful and liberal in our eyes, but certainly not in theirs.
 
ChrisL said:
Don't misunderstand. I am not "praising" anyone. I just don't want us going to war over something like this particular situation, or bombing other innocent people.
Click to expand...

But you are at war. You can see that all over the world. Many in the west just refuse to acknowledge it.
 
Grant said:
You'll need to stop thinking in terms of national borders if you want a better understanding of what's going on in the world.
Click to expand...

He also needs to understand what G. W. Bush said, not what others believe he said. The War on Terror is against ALL terrorist and countries that harbor them, not just Al Queda. Al Queda is not our only enemy, they are not the only terrorist group that has carried out attacks against the US, it's citizens/property and it's Allies. Our involvement in this conflict dates back to at least the 1950s. Bush was just the one to finally stand up and recognize that we are in a conflict/war, we have been in the conflict and attempted to initiate actions to end it.
 
ChrisL said:
Don't misunderstand. I am not "praising" anyone. I just don't want us going to war over something like this particular situation, or bombing other innocent people.
Click to expand...

Apologies as I didn't make myself clear. I was actually referring to the US President and his Secretary of State.

They are behaving in a very irresponsible manner.
 
Grant said:
But you are at war. You can see that all over the world. Many in the west just refuse to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe we are at "war" until an actual country makes such a declaration, either with threats against us or actual action.
 
Grant said:
Apologies as I didn't make myself clear. I was actually referring to the US President and his Secretary of State.

They are behaving in a very irresponsible manner.
Click to expand...

Well, if the administration was aware, then they were certainly lax in not beefing up security.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't believe we are at "war" until an actual country makes such a declaration.
Click to expand...

No individual country would ever be foolish enough to declare war on the United States. That is not how modern warfare is fought.

The battle is fought within the borders of the host country, just as the Chinese have done in Tibet and the Muslims are doing in Europe.

They will occasionally erupt into violence, just as we have seen this past week, only in order to terrify the local population and to get them to bend to their will.

The Western democracies will continue to bend, thinking maybe this time we can have peace and live in harmony, but there will always be another cartoon, beauty pageant or movie which will set things off again.

They are waging a war of attrition, and winning. Their will is obviously a great deal stronger than ours and they are thinking long term, we are not.

In fact we glorify the idea of "Living In The Now", without a thought for our descendents and the kind of world they might inherit.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't believe we are at "war" until an actual country makes such a declaration, either with threats against us or actual action.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this war is not a traditional war. The enemy does not put on uniforms and honorably face us on the field of battle. This is a "guerrilla" type war. It is a war without national boundaries or front lines or lines of conflict. But, there is an enemy who is taking deadly actions in an attempt to destroy us and our allies.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, if the administration was aware, then they were certainly lax in not beefing up security.
Click to expand...

They were lax in not having greater security in that region in the first place. Also they derelict in their duties and negligent by not only not having proper security in place but by limiting the ability of available security to respond and deal with the threat. 100 Marines at each location is not security but additional bodies if you do not give them ammunition and the ability to shoot back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom