Mumbai getting pwned.

[TJ]

Bulkboy, did you read any of the quotes from Osama Bin Laden? I couldn't find any regarding that they are killing for religion. Seems like they are doing what they do because we are always "in their business."

Think of it this way: We enjoy the way we live and really have no interest in living the way other countries do. If, for the sake of argument, China invaded America, or your home land, and they tried to inflict their beliefs on you and, in the process, kill innocent civilians; how would you feel and what would you do?

 

[Tech]

Where did you get these from?

probably taken from some biased Christian site that has a list of Koran quotes for exactly this type of argument.

if you google those Koran verses, you will see that they are incorrectly translated or taken out of context.

but much like everything else, Christians only believe what they want.

 

[Tech]

lulz.

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html

 

[Ironslave]

Think of it this way: We enjoy the way we live and really have no interest in living the way other countries do. If, for the sake of argument, China invaded America, or your home land, and they tried to inflict their beliefs on you and, in the process, kill innocent civilians; how would you feel and what would you do?

Nothing, because he believes that guns should be banned so the bad people don't get them.

 

[Duality]

you are right about a handful of guys being able to get guns and go on a spree, but look at 9/11. that required years and years of training and planning. the bali bombs as well were meticilously planned. these groups are very well organized and they provide their members with training, logistics info and weapons. and they can be dealt with. by hunting down their leaders, destroying their hideouts etc we take away their ability to plan and execute larger more dangerous attacks.

obviously i agree with u that we gotta look at how we treat the muslim world, but its not as easy as saying that we can only look into ourselves and then we'll understand why they do this. these groups are extreme in how they perceieve the world, and they have little support from the general muslim population, and therefore its important that we help them reject extremists, and help them lay foundation for democratic and economic development. thats the most important thing, because in a stable economic and democratic society there will be little insentive for such groups to succeed.

thanks for the support duality i dont think u needed to post that image IS, it was nothing wrong about my post.

i strongly agree with the first paragraph. in regards to the second paragraph, i really don't think it's any of our business/problem to insure that these middle eastern nations have a democracy in place. quite honestly i couldn't care less how they operate as long as they don't infringe on us. our resources can be used towards bettering ourselves rather than others who don't want our help anyways.

 

[Ironslave]

i strongly agree with the first paragraph.

Duality, the main reason that they attack "us" is because "we" attack "them". There needs to be an incentive to commit terrorism. The entire meddling in all middle eastern affairs is the main reason for driving the radicals to terrorism.

 

[Duality]

Duality, the main reason that they attack "us" is because "we" attack "them". There needs to be an incentive to commit terrorism. The entire meddling in all middle eastern affairs is the main reason for driving the radicals to terrorism.

i am fully aware of this part of the reason why they attack us. however i think you and tech are wrong in your belief that this is the only reason. they have long dislike/hated our equal rights for women and gays and our.....for lack of a better word, more free spirited ways. muslim families are VERY regimented and pride and honor are very important to them (whatever that means) and things like premarital sex, free use of alcohol, and our permiscuous ways are very repugnant to them. now this is not at all the only reason why they attack us, our actions and foreign policies in middle eastern nations easily plays a larger role in their motivation to destroy us than the aformentioned ones. but if we pulled out and more or less kept to ourselves i do not feel it would be a "cure all" as you believe it would.

 

[Ironslave]

i am fully aware of this part of the reason why they attack us. however i think you and tech are wrong in your belief that this is the only reason.

Seriously, do you even read posts? Go back, and find where I or Tech said it was the only reason. We said it was the main reason, and we're right.

they have long dislike/hated our equal rights for women and gays and our.....for lack of a better word, more free spirited ways. muslim families are VERY regimented and pride and honor are very important to them (whatever that means) and things like premarital sex, free use of alcohol, and our permiscuous ways are very repugnant to them. now this is not at all the only reason why they attack us, our actions and foreign policies in middle eastern nations easily plays a larger role in their motivation to destroy us than the aformentioned ones. but if we pulled out and more or less kept to ourselves i do not feel it would be a "cure all" as you believe it would.

Of course, it's not going to "cure all". Don't you get that part of the problem with that region of the world is that it will never be "cured"? They may dislike those things, sure, but it's not enough to radicalize them to the point of killing us. They'll still fight with each other because of land/religious reasons, but they start killing us when we get involved too.

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by Ironslave
Seriously, do you even read posts? Go back, and find where I or Tech said it was the only reason. We said it was the main reason, and we're right.

pretty sure i just said that. i guess that makes me right too! :wutyousay:

and you may not say it's the only reason, but it comes off that way.

Of course, it's not going to "cure all". Don't you get that part of the problem with that region of the world is that it will never be "cured"? They may dislike those things, sure, but it's not enough to radicalize them to the point of killing us. They'll still fight with each other because of land/religious reasons, but they start killing us when we get involved too.

i agree here. that's why my opinion towards them is honestly more or less......fuck 'em. they want to act like primitive morons and deny certain people the most basic of rights and fight all the time, let them. it's not our problem, just stay the hell away from the US. that part of the world breeds the most hate and the most primitive idiots there are.

 

[Ironslave]

pretty sure i just said that. i guess that makes me right too! :wutyousay:

and you may not say it's the only reason, but it comes off that way.

Duality, my asking you to go back and find where Tech or I said it was the only reason was done to have you go back, look, and realize that we have never said such a thing. We both made it clear that it was the main reason, so it doesn't come off that we think it is the only at all, unless one is not reading the posts, plain and simple. Please don't go Tom Brady/Adrian Peterson on me and only read parts of the post.

 

[El Freako]

Lulz at the world

 

[Ryeland]

probably taken from some biased Christian site that has a list of Koran quotes for exactly this type of argument.

if you google those Koran verses, you will see that they are incorrectly translated or taken out of context.

but much like everything else, Christians only believe what they want.

Please don't make generalizations. I am a christian and I avidly research everything I can. Until I can learn to read and speak arabic I won't take anyone's word for whats in the Koran.

Many verses of the bible are taken out of context and used for stupid shit like this as well.

I think its fair to say most people only believe what they want, not just christians, if we are going to be speaking in generalities.

 

[Samoan-Z]

Many verses of the bible are taken out of context and used for stupid shit like this as well.

The earth was created in 7 days.... I hate the rigid christians whom beleive this so faithfully. First they usually stick to the New Testament but believe thier interpretation of the Old Testament a.k.a Jews Bible.

Then I show them a fossil and they blame it on false science and devils work.... w/e lol.

 

[Bulkboy]

Of course I don't, but I know that being so indifferent to human life that dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians (a war crime) can never be justified under any circumstances. anyways....

you do realize that during the war against japan america actually commited attacks using fire bombs that caused just as much and more damage than the nukes did? even while this was happening japan was completely unwilling to negotiate peace. so the alternative was to invade japan, which was estimated to cost around 1 million american lives and 2-3 million japanese lives. i agree that those weapons are horrible, and its a shame they were ever invented, but i think when it comes to ending the war with japan, they actually saved lives.

you are the one being indifferent to human life, heck if it were up to you america wouldnt have stepped up in bosnia when genocide was taking place. the kind of policy your advocating actually means sitting on the sideline watching other people kill eachother. i think that is indifference to human lives, not being willing to take responsibility in this fucked up world. right now as we speak daily atrocities are happening in kongo. but im guessing you dont want to do anything about that either?

Thanks for the last paragraph, Rudy. Anyways, I know you haven't, but I'll present it once again, have you read the reasons cited for 9/11?

America hasn't occupied Saudi Arabia? Lol, what?? The fact that America has troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the main reasons cited! It's being oblivious to facts like this is what just baffles me.

"The United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people,
threatening its neighbors, and using its bases in the [Arabian] peninsula as a spearhead to fight against the neighboring Islamic peoples."

So, you're wrong. Of course the Saudi's got rich off their oil, but this would have happened anyway. I don't have time to go through each example and say they ALL fit a certain criteria, but the fact remains, that occupation of their (holy) land and stealing their resources, overthrowing their governments, killing their citizens and so on is THE primary reason for attacks. Read

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jul/18/00017/

your gonna call american troop presence in saudi arabia for an occupation? going by that logic america are currently "occupying" around 130 countries. saudi arabia is an important ally of the US, and troops are there for security reasons. u cant seriously call that an occupation. troop presence yes, occupation no. we both know that saudi arabia have been struggling with extremists, their government are fighting a war against al quida. please explain to me how the US have been overthrowing saudi arabias governments, killing its people and stealing its resources? im really curious to know.

you will get no argument from me that religious reasons are a main part of the problem, they are.

mhm, so u agree then, that the problem is not just our foreign policy, but also their extreme religious views. ie, the west is not to blame alone for these terrorist attacks?

 

[Ironslave]

you do realize that during the war against japan america actually commited attacks using fire bombs that caused just as much and more damage than the nukes did?even while this was happening japan was completely unwilling to negotiate peace. so the alternative was to invade japan, which was estimated to cost around 1 million american lives and 2-3 million japanese lives. i agree that those weapons are horrible, and its a shame they were ever invented, but i think when it comes to ending the war with japan, they actually saved lives.

It just amazes me how one can ignore all logic, reason, and most of all facts (also like your fairy tale claims of deregulation on the mortgage crisis, seriously, it's like you try and be wrong).

Read, and please don't hesitate to respond in that thread if you wish.
http://www.musclemecca.com/showpost.php?p=509027&postcount=49

you are the one being indifferent to human life, heck if it were up to you america wouldnt have stepped up in bosnia when genocide was taking place. the kind of policy your advocating actually means sitting on the sideline watching other people kill eachother.

As opposed to directly going in and being the ones doing the killing?

i think that is indifference to human lives, not being willing to take responsibility in this fucked up world. right now as we speak daily atrocities are happening in kongo. but im guessing you dont want to do anything about that either?

Well, lets ask this first. Why don't we hear anything about Congo on the news, as opposed to Sudan? Could it have at least anything to do with the fact that Congo has less resources? hmm...

Second, you make it seem like I want to just sit back and let people die. No, countries should play a role in diplomatic negotiations, as these conflicts and killing occur for political reasons, not because "bad people want to kill good people." American troops do nothing but add fuel to the fire there, and this is completely irrefutable.

your gonna call american troop presence in saudi arabia for an occupation? going by that logic america are currently "occupying" around 130 countries.

lol... finally you said something right, although unwillingly.

saudi arabia is an important ally of the US, and troops are there for security reasons. u cant seriously call that an occupation. troop presence yes, occupation no. we both know that saudi arabia have been struggling with extremists, their government are fighting a war against al quida. please explain to me how the US have been overthrowing saudi arabias governments, killing its people and stealing its resources? im really curious to know.

Bin Laden called it occupation, which it is, so fist it. They haven't overthrown the Saudi government, but would you like a unexhausted list of countries it has? Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Nicaragua, many others.

mhm, so u agree then, that the problem is not just our foreign policy, but also their extreme religious views. ie, the west is not to blame alone for these terrorist attacks?

Is it JUST the foreign policy? no, but it's still by far and away the main reason. They kill and carry out these attacks for political reasons, not because "they'z crazy."

 

[El Freako]

The siege of Mumbai is over, this thread continues...

Spoiler

The internet is serious business :carduindisguise

 

[Bulkboy]

It just amazes me how one can ignore all logic, reason, and most of all facts (also like your fairy tale claims of deregulation on the mortgage crisis, seriously, it's like you try and be wrong).

Read, and please don't hesitate to respond in that thread if you wish.
http://www.musclemecca.com/showpost.php?p=509027&postcount=49

u really think it would be fair to let the emperor and the monarchy stay in place after what they did. they led japan into a war that cost millions of lives. they were responsible for millions of innocent deaths in china and south east asia. the japanese war machine were one of the most brutal ever, and what they did in nanking is just one example of that. so for u to say that letting the people who were responsible for all that just get away with it and not only that but also let them keep control of the country, man i find it weird. and at the end of the day can u denie the fact that a land invasion would have cost more lives than the nuclear bombs? no u cant, so shove it. would it be better if 2 million died of firebombs instead of 400000 from nuclear bombs? offc not.

As opposed to directly going in and being the ones doing the killing?

what? yeah thats exactly what UN and nato forces have been doing all along huh? god where do u get this shit from? its like you make things up here. going into bosnia to stop a genocide from taking place? now how does that have anything to do with going and being the ones doing the killing. its about protecting the civillian population in countries where law doesent exist anymore. they have the right to safety just like we do. how about UN forces in lebanon. is that directly going in doing the killing? no its about realizing thaat we have a larger responsiblity than just sitting inside our own borders. we have a responsiblity to protect people caught up in civil wars, genocide etc.

Well, lets ask this first. Why don't we hear anything about Congo on the news, as opposed to Sudan? Could it have at least anything to do with the fact that Congo has less resources? hmm...

Second, you make it seem like I want to just sit back and let people die. No, countries should play a role in diplomatic negotiations, as these conflicts and killing occur for political reasons, not because "bad people want to kill good people." American troops do nothing but add fuel to the fire there, and this is completely irrefutable.

um, nooo. congo is extremely rich in natural resources, richer than sudan i think. and what do u mean we dont hear anything about congo on the news? its been all over the screen over here anyway.

i agree that diplomacy plays a vital role. but lets face it, sometimes it just aint enough. when a dictator goes bananas, and drives his country in the ditch and the civillian population suffers, i see it as necessary for the international community to step in. u cant denie that the UN for instance have played an important role in alot of conflict sones. lebanon in one such example. atleast i think we have a responsiblity to protect poor innocent people out there when genocide is taking place.

lol finally you said something right, although unwillingly.

ok if u wanna compare american troop presence in saudi arabia or germany with military occupation, then go right ahead, but its wrong.

Bin Laden called it occupation, which it is, so fist it. They haven't overthrown the Saudi government, but would you like a unexhausted list of countries it has? Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Nicaragua, many others.

well if bin laden says so, then it must be right huh? its not occupation if the saudi government is agreeing to american troops being there. saudi arabia is an ally of the US. granted its a fucked up regime and everything, but still an ally. and no, i dont need a list of countries in which the US has overthrown their governments, thats not really what we were discussing. u said that stealing their resources and overthrowing their governments is the reason why they attack, but this is a moot point when none of it is facts in saudi arabia. thats my point, saudi arabia has benefitted probably the most from an alliance with the US, but still this is where most extremists are rooted. doesent that say something about what kind of extreme position islam has in saudi arabia.

Is it JUST the foreign policy? no, but it's still by far and away the main reason. They kill and carry out these attacks for political reasons, not because "they'z crazy."

so why is china, russia, india etc also struggling with islamist extremists? its a global threat, period. they are willing to do whatever it takes to promote their agenda. they want an extreme interpretation of the koran, and they want us out of the middle east. and they are willing to slaughter tons of civillians to have their way. thats facist views, and we cant let them scare us. we have to face the threat instead of thinking that running away from them is gonna solve anything. fact is this, 80% of al quaida has been destroyed and we havent seen any major terror attacks since 2001. its possible to wipe out these organisations, but its gonna require some effort, not just militarily i agree, winning the hearts and minds of moderate muslims is nr 1, but a military effort is also necessary in order to remove their ability to carry out major attacks.

 

[Ironslave]

u really think it would be fair to let the emperor and the monarchy stay in place after what they did. they led japan into a war that cost millions of lives. they were responsible for millions of innocent deaths in china and south east asia. the japanese war machine were one of the most brutal ever, and what they did in nanking is just one example of that. so for u to say that letting the people who were responsible for all that just get away with it and not only that but also let them keep control of the country, man i find it weird. and at the end of the day can u denie the fact that a land invasion would have cost more lives than the nuclear bombs? no u cant, so shove it. would it be better if 2 million died of firebombs instead of 400000 from nuclear bombs? offc not.

After what they did? What the fuck could they have done, America's bullying and UNPROVOKED sanctions against Japan had absolutely destroyed them. Read my posts in the thread again (or probably for the first time, because everyone here knows you don't even acknowledge evidence that conflicts your opinion.

"let" them keep control of "their" country? Shouldn't it be up to the citizens of the country to decide who controls it? Japan tried to surrender, America wanted absolutely nothing to do with it, they refused to accept a surrender deal, dropped the bombs soon after, and then they agreed to the same deal they had rejected in the first place!! There would have been no "land evasion", the powers that be wanted to flex their muscle and show that America can kick ass. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians died that didn't have to.

what? yeah thats exactly what UN and nato forces have been doing all along huh? god where do u get this shit from? its like you make things up here. going into bosnia to stop a genocide from taking place? now how does that have anything to do with going and being the ones doing the killing. its about protecting the civillian population in countries where law doesent exist anymore. they have the right to safety just like we do. how about UN forces in lebanon. is that directly going in doing the killing? no its about realizing thaat we have a larger responsiblity than just sitting inside our own borders. we have a responsiblity to protect people caught up in civil wars, genocide etc.

Please, America and the UN don't really try and mediate as much as they pick sides. They don't "directly" go in to kill people, but mistakes happen. Read about Clinton and Rwanda which he completely ignored because of technicalities. They don't really give a shit. Putting troops in the midst of a civil war is just throwing gasoline on a fire. It's usually portrayed that one side is "good" and the other is "bad", which is never a cut and dry case. That just causes more resentment, and aggravates the situation. Diplomatic efforts to keep peace are always, always a better way than sending troops in, and stealing their resources in the process.

um, nooo. congo is extremely rich in natural resources, richer than sudan i think. and what do u mean we dont hear anything about congo on the news? its been all over the screen over here anyway.

It's not though as far as strategic location, where a pipeline could go through.

i agree that diplomacy plays a vital role. but lets face it, sometimes it just aint enough. when a dictator goes bananas, and drives his country in the ditch and the civillian population suffers, i see it as necessary for the international community to step in. u cant denie that the UN for instance have played an important role in alot of conflict sones. lebanon in one such example. atleast i think we have a responsiblity to protect poor innocent people out there when genocide is taking place.

It ain't enough? How about actually trying it first! A LOT of poor innocent people get hurt in these conflicts, but how about when America INSTALLS THESE DICTATORS! How about when America installed Musharraf and gave him 10 billion dollars in Pakistan, oops, that didn't work out so well. How about giving Saddam his chemical weapons, or many many more examples.

This issue is kinda stupid to debate, because your side of the argument never happens. Sure, it would be great if there was an actual, legit, non corrupt effort for peace around the world, but there's not. There's always an ulterior motive, and it usually just ends up making things worse.

ok if u wanna compare american troop presence in saudi arabia or germany with military occupation, then go right ahead, but its wrong.

haha... and how is it wrong? Are American troops over there, with military bases? Do the people of those countries want them out? Yes yes and yes, so sorry, you are wrong. Ignoring this is irrefutable, and plain delusional.

well if bin laden says so, then it must be right huh? its not occupation if the saudi government is agreeing to american troops being there. saudi arabia is an ally of the US. granted its a fucked up regime and everything, but still an ally. and no, i dont need a list of countries in which the US has overthrown their governments, thats not really what we were discussing. u said that stealing their resources and overthrowing their governments is the reason why they attack, but this is a moot point when none of it is facts in saudi arabia. thats my point, saudi arabia has benefitted probably the most from an alliance with the US, but still this is where most extremists are rooted. doesent that say something about what kind of extreme position islam has in saudi arabia.

What on earth are you spouting on with? America has overthrown countless governments, it doesn't mean they they've done so with EVERY country. Their presence there was the reason for hate. Go read any document that intelligently discusses the motives for 9/11 and other suicide terrorism, once again, over 90% of these events are for political reasons, usually because of occupation. The ones who blow themselves up might be crazy, but the leaders that convince them to do so are calculated. It doesn't make it right, it never will, but, only a complete idiot would think that "they did it because they're crazy and they hate us!!".... here, watch this. It's from CNN after one of the the Primary debates where an intelligent man with knowledge of history and sociology of these countries, and also one who hates unjust wars and the corruption behind it, argues with a "rhetorical badass". In other words, it's my boy Dr. Paul verses your boy, the cousin fucker, Rudy Giuliani.

so why is china, russia, india etc also struggling with islamist extremists? its a global threat, period. they are willing to do whatever it takes to promote their agenda. they want an extreme interpretation of the koran, and they want us out of the middle east. and they are willing to slaughter tons of civillians to have their way. thats facist views, and we cant let them scare us. we have to face the threat instead of thinking that running away from them is gonna solve anything. fact is this, 80% of al quaida has been destroyed and we havent seen any major terror attacks since 2001. its possible to wipe out these organisations, but its gonna require some effort, not just militarily i agree, winning the hearts and minds of moderate muslims is nr 1, but a military effort is also necessary in order to remove their ability to carry out major attacks.

I dont know every single example 1 by 1. But i'm willing to bet you any sum of money that if you give 10 examples of these "Islamic extremist" attacks, at least 8 of them were done for a political purpose, and not because "they're crazy fascists who hate our freedom!!"

Are you actually implying that the "war on terror" was a success? How many hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed as a result of 1) mistakes made and 2) by aggravating a bad situation in those countries?

I'm really beginning to wonder if you're not just trying to be difficult, or actually believe the nonsense that you type.

 

[Ryeland]

Holy shit IS. Bump for the sheer quantity of credible information.

 

[Bulkboy]

After what they did? What the fuck could they have done, America's bullying and UNPROVOKED sanctions against Japan had absolutely destroyed them. Read my posts in the thread again (or probably for the first time, because everyone here knows you don't even acknowledge evidence that conflicts your opinion.

bullying and unprovoked sanctions huh? how is a horrible war against china and its east asian neighbours unprovoked exactly? the sanctions were put in place to restrain japans aggression. strange how u always complain about america imperialist policies, but when its another country vs the US then its just totally different. japan were looking for a new asian order, they were extremely aggressive and commited some of the most horrible war crimes the world has ever seen in nanking, where they were they even used biological weapons against the civillian population. isnt that just as bad? using bio weapons and killing hundreds of thousand of chinese civillians, how isnt that just as bad as dropping nukes. why do u think chinas and japans relationship even today is so uptight, its still a source of conflict, the things japan did in china, korea etc.

"let" them keep control of "their" country? Shouldn't it be up to the citizens of the country to decide who controls it? Japan tried to surrender, America wanted absolutely nothing to do with it, they refused to accept a surrender deal, dropped the bombs soon after, and then they agreed to the same deal they had rejected in the first place!! There would have been no "land evasion", the powers that be wanted to flex their muscle and show that America can kick ass. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians died that didn't have to.

up to the citizens? japan was a facists state, i dont think alot of decisions were up to the citizens so to speak. keeping the emperor in place after the war he led japan into, would be kinda like letting germany keep hitler in place when they surrendered. look, i do not doubt that america had ulterior motives( preventing russian agression, US dominance etc) but at the end of the day, what matters most the way i see it, is that i do think the bombs saved lives. the US had destroyed like 60 cities with firebombs, and the japanese were still willing to fight to the last blood drop. a land invasion would have been extremely costly, and the use of the bombs ended the war. i dont think most understood even how horrible the weapons were before they were used, and i do think it made both russia and america realize how important it was to make sure they werent used again.

Please, America and the UN don't really try and mediate as much as they pick sides. They don't "directly" go in to kill people, but mistakes happen. Read about Clinton and Rwanda which he completely ignored because of technicalities. They don't really give a shit. Putting troops in the midst of a civil war is just throwing gasoline on a fire. It's usually portrayed that one side is "good" and the other is "bad", which is never a cut and dry case. That just causes more resentment, and aggravates the situation. Diplomatic efforts to keep peace are always, always a better way than sending troops in, and stealing their resources in the process.

i agree totally that diplomatic efforts should always be priority number one dude. however, when these efforts fail, and civillians are suffering greatly, i think we should be willing to use military force to stop or reduce the burden on the civillian population. and often it does help to send in troops while at the same time trying to make the differnt sides talk to eachother, and put forward a ceasefire/ peacetreaty. u cant denie that NATO's involvement on the balkans was succesfull in that regard. i think alot more civillans had been killed there, had not the nato stopped the serbians, and taken milosovich out.

It's not though as far as strategic location, where a pipeline could go through.

could be, havent really heard much about a pipeline through sudan. but still, atleast i have heard alot about congo on the news lately.

It ain't enough? How about actually trying it first! A LOT of poor innocent people get hurt in these conflicts, but how about when America INSTALLS THESE DICTATORS! How about when America installed Musharraf and gave him 10 billion dollars in Pakistan, oops, that didn't work out so well. How about giving Saddam his chemical weapons, or many many more examples.


This issue is kinda stupid to debate, because your side of the argument never happens. Sure, it would be great if there was an actual, legit, non corrupt effort for peace around the world, but there's not. There's always an ulterior motive, and it usually just ends up making things worse.

has america done alot of fucked up things? offc, i dont defend every decision being made by the US policy wise the last century. but then again, every superpower is always looking out for its own interests, america is no worse than previous superpowers. look at the british empire, the germans during their golden age, the japanese and the russians. but still america is a better than most other superpowers we've seen. america is still a democracy, the leader of the free world, and like leonard cohen said: you are not gonna like what comes after america. one can sit here and discuss all the bad things america has done all day long, but there is no denial that during americas age, the world has overally progressed. i believe that america have good intentions, but this is still politics, politics is never easy, u can not please everyone, u still have ur friends and ur enemies, u are still looking out for ur own interests. but america is not an imperialistic power that weve seen before, in the sense that america doesent have a tradition for conquering other countries and staying there permanently. america has a tradition for wanting to spread its values to the rest of the world, and most of the times it does so through peaceful means. and to me, thats not such a bad thing.

haha... and how is it wrong? Are American troops over there, with military bases? Do the people of those countries want them out? Yes yes and yes, so sorry, you are wrong. Ignoring this is irrefutable, and plain delusional.

its wrong because military occupation, and military troop presence in an allied country is two very different things. those troops are there to be able to defend americas interests in the region, they are not there oppressing and taking control of the country, hence it is not a military occupation.

What on earth are you spouting on with? America has overthrown countless governments, it doesn't mean they they've done so with EVERY country. Their presence there was the reason for hate. Go read any document that intelligently discusses the motives for 9/11 and other suicide terrorism, once again, over 90% of these events are for political reasons, usually because of occupation. The ones who blow themselves up might be crazy, but the leaders that convince them to do so are calculated. It doesn't make it right, it never will, but, only a complete idiot would think that "they did it because they're crazy and they hate us!!".... here, watch this. It's from CNN after one of the the Primary debates where an intelligent man with knowledge of history and sociology of these countries, and also one who hates unjust wars and the corruption behind it, argues with a "rhetorical badass". In other words, it's my boy Dr. Paul verses your boy, the cousin fucker, Rudy Giuliani.

what i said was that we were not discussing what governments america has overthrown, we were discussing the rationality/ irrationality behind these terrorist actions. what i said was that alot of countries america has alot worse relationship to than saudi arabia, does not house nearly as many terrorists. and that again led me to say that we gotta look at the social/ religious structure of saudi arabia. fact is that this is where radical islam has its "HQ" so to speak. its not as easy as saying that because america has troops there, that is a reason for these guys to attack. america has troops in germany and korea as well, but they dont attack because of that. fact is, radical islam is more complex, its an ideology with a main goal of chasing the west out of the middle east. its facist/ racist so to speak, and the way they interpret the koran makes them extremely dangerous. does this mean we dont have to look at our foreign policy and ways to improve our standing in the world. obviously not and i agree with u there. i am just saying that it is more complex than just believing that because were there they attack, and if we leave then they will leave us alone.

Are you actually implying that the "war on terror" was a success? How many hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed as a result of 1) mistakes made and 2) by aggravating a bad situation in those countries?

I'm really beginning to wonder if you're not just trying to be difficult, or actually believe the nonsense that you type.

nope im not saying its a success, its not really a failure in every sense of the word either though. alot has been done, going into afghanistan was the right thing to do, al quaida is weakened, about 80 % of the organisation is wiped out and alot of their leaders are killed. however going into iraq was wrong, its gave the extremists new ability to recruit and it was a diversion from the war on terror, because iraq didnt have anything to do with those attacks and was actually a more secular society in the muslim world. still though, we have not seen any major terrorist attacks on US or european soild the last couple of years, and i do honestly believe that taking action against the extremists was the right thing to do, though it may not seem that way all the time.