The War on Terror

omnicorp

Is the War on Terrorism really necessary?

Maybe,
But it shouldn't be in America's hands.
I think the problem with Al Quieda and the USA is not hatred, I think
that it is a lack of understanding of each other's Culture.

The Americans don't understand Muslim culture, calling "Barbaric".
Some of their punishments like murder are Barbaric, but the Americans
enforce Murder or "execution" aswell.
Many of Islam rules and laws make sense, for instance,
The scarf that Muslim women wear is not to degrade them, but to
protect them from assault and rape.
The ban on alcohol is a really good one,
Most of our crime is alcohol related.

Muslims seem to me to be Religious people, not Terrorists which,
Sadly I think is becoming a perception by some.
When you think about it and if you remove the rituals and ceremonies,
Islam and Christianity are very similar;
We both believe in the same God,
We both acknolededge Jesus as a messenger from God,
only Christians believe that he is the Son of God and
Muslims believe that he is a Prophet.

The War on Terror could be prevented if both sides could
stop and learn about the others culture and acknoledge it and respect it
and not try to force their views upon the other.

I think a War on Commercialism would be more useful,
Forceful advertising by big multinationals is harming everyone.

Maybe We're wrong and maybe Al Quieda are right,
just they're going about it in the wrong way, with all the killing,
Terrorism and War.
If they were more peaceful and presented their arguments in a peaceful
fashion and behaved more like a Political party than a Terrorist organisation,
They would get more respect and support.


Now, I'm going to get a HUGE slagging for this thread but,
my point is that I think that America is forcing their Culture upon
other Cultures so thay shouldn't be surprised by people who don't want
them coming to their country and Killing, torturing, murder and stripping it of their resources, then, forcing their views and System of Government upon
them.

Maybe, the American Government are Terrorists aswell.

marco murphy

Al qieda are a bunch or civilian targeting scum.It cant be justified.Its a hard question shoult the war be going on,but look at one of al qieadas objectives.....to getamerica and the world to convert to islam....thats one of al qiedas goals...these boys cant be justified.Nor can bush

Flukey

There is no war on terror. What Bush is doing is only encouraging terrorism, so he is in engaged in a war for terror. What he should be doing is addressing the causes of terrorism not giving even more causes for it. If George W. Bush ever launches a war on terror, I would support him, but he has clearly not done that. So there is no war on terror.

keu

reminds me of that song...

and you dare to call me a terrorist,
while you look down your gun,
when I think of all the deeds that you have done...
you have plundered many nations
divided many lands,
you have terrorised our people
you ruled with and Iron hand..
and you brought this reign of terror to my land..

I think Irish people have a wonderful perspective when it comes to terrorism, (they sang enough songs about it) and it only took a hundred or so years to figure out it achieves nothing.
or does it?

The War on Terror could be prevented if both sides could
stop and learn about the others culture and acknoledge it and respect it
and not try to force their views upon the other

Do you think Al Qaieda (muslim fundementalists) and Americans are ready for that?

note: I'm not promoting nationalism here, just using song as a reminder of where we came from

Hobbes

The only war on terror is to keep the US people terrorfied. Compare how many US citizens have died over the last 10 years to terrorism (nice round figure) and then compare the loss of rights and how safer it has made it.

Btw, AQ are terrorists. However the US way of trying to combat them is just going to lead to more people joining up to AQ.

oscarBravo

omnicorp wrote:

Many of Islam rules and laws make sense, for instance,
The scarf that Muslim women wear is not to degrade them, but to
protect them from assault and rape.

WTF??? Locking them in sealed dungeons would be an even more effective means of protecting them - does that justify it?

Flukey

Hobbes wrote:

Btw, AQ are terrorists. However the US way of trying to combat them is just going to lead to more people joining up to AQ.

That is not totally true. To stop terrorism, you tackle the causes not the perpatrators. If you can cut the reasons for terrorism you will slow the flow of recruits. Every bomb dropped in the Middle East is another reason for people to turn to joining the groups and another propaganda tool for the terrorists. Terrorism in Ireland raged for 30 years. It was only when the causes of it were addressed that it began to reduce. The same can be said of many other conflicts. If the US can reduce the amount of reasons that they are hated, they will reduce the reasons for people to join the terrorists. After 9/11 the Americans should indeed have bombed Afghanistan, with food parcels. That would have done more damage to Al Q'aida than any bomb could do. It is only when they address the root of the problems in the Middle East that terrorism will reduce. The terrorist are only a reaction to these problems. As with any problem, you have to tackle the causes not the symptoms. To stop terrorism, you have to tackle the causes, not the perpatrators!

pork99

Hobbes wrote:

The only war on terror is to keep the US people terrorfied. Compare how many US citizens have died over the last 10 years to terrorism (nice round figure) and then compare the loss of rights and how safer it has made it.

Btw, AQ are terrorists. However the US way of trying to combat them is just going to lead to more people joining up to AQ.

Here's a CIA guy who would pretty much agree with you

http://amconmag.com/2004_08_02/article.html

Have you seen the movie “Christmas Story,” where the boy wants a Red Rider air gun and his mom says no? Then at the end of Christmas day, when he has opened all his presents, he gets the gun and he thinks, “My God, I really got it. I never thought I’d get it.” Iraq was Osama’s Red Rider BB gun. It was something he always wanted, but something he never expected...

...It’s also perceived widely in the Muslim world that we attacked Iraq to move along what, at least in Muslims’ minds, is the Israelis’ goal of a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. While we’re beating the hell out of the Iraqis, Sharon and the Israelis are beating the hell out of the Palestinians every day. So we have an overwhelming media flow into the Muslim world of infidels killing Muslims. It’s a one-sided view, but it’s their perception. And unless you deal with what they think, you’re never going to understand what we’re up against.

Besides Omnicorp is conflating Al Quaeda with Islam. There must be millions, probably the majority of Muslims who find Al Quaeda absolutely abhorrent also. I can remember back in the 80s when the IRA were carrying out their grisly atrocities on a regular basis I often felt ashamed to be Irish. I think that's the way it was for most Irish people.

Saying AQ is right is a bit like saying maybe Hitler was right or Pol Pot was right and there were plenty of people in Western democracies who sympathised with them. Their primary objective is the overthrow of the house of Saud and to use that as the basis for the establishment of a universal Islamic Caliphate, a kind of world domination. If that's the alternative I'd rather be dominated by the yanks any day.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm

Flukey

Bombing Afghanistan and Iraq is not going to stop Al Q'aida. It will only encourage them. Every bomb dropped is manna from heaven for them. Let me put it like this: Let's say you are Hassan, a peaceloving muslim going about minding your own business. Then one day a bomb lands on your home, completely destroying it and killing everyone in it. You are watching as this happens. More bombs in the area desstroy most of your town killing many friends and relations. What are you going to do? Would you rummage through the rubble of your home to find a pen and paper and write George Bush a thank you note? It is more likely that you would join a group that is intent on avenging this destruction.

A lot of "Hassans" join terrorist groups like Al Q'aida or the PLO or any terrorist group around the world because of what has happened to them. Every bomb dropped adds a few more recruits. A lot of those fighting with Al Sadr in recent weeks, were probably peace loving Hassans last year, before the invasion.

omnicorp

What I would like to know is why the USA & the UK are allowed get away with that illegal war for oil.

Oh, and BTW, they failed in their mission for oil, the price has shot up as pipelines have been targeted by terrorists.

Billy Kovachy

It is obvious the war on terror is losing.It can be clearly shown in the last week with the recent Airplane crashes in Russia,the French Government being held for ransom (over scarfs next theyll be asking for the coversion of Bush to Islam) with the captured of french hostages.A strong international agreement and cooperation is needed which will not happen in the near future.

omnicorp

Not with a Republican Monopoly i the US Gov it won't.
It can't be stopped, because the Republicans are hardly going to stop themselves from having too much power.

marco murphy

We know lots about terrorism because the british showed us it for 800 years.They brought upon themselves....

Captain Trips

In accordance with the principles of double-think it does not matter
if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The
war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.

gandalf

Those damn Eurasians !!!

Billy Kovachy

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to
restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if
they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or
promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all
peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from
this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented
with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for
the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world
government."
-- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburg
meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss
delegate to the meeting.

Billy Kovachy

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074678
Check out the dates for the civil suit freaky

damntheman

kids don't go to school over there because they're afraid to be killed and they have rape factories. someone needs to stop that.

pork99

omnicorp wrote:

The ban on alcohol is a really good one,
Most of our crime is alcohol related.

I'm afraid you are being a bit naive there. You have never seen a Muslim getting drunk? I have.

Also prohibition in the US in the 1920s was a big success and nobody in the US ever touched alcohol again :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

omnicorp wrote:

they failed in their mission for oil, the price has shot up as pipelines have been targeted by terrorists.

How do you reckon that's a bad thing for anyone who has a financial interest in an oil company?

I know I'd have no objection to owning a few oil wells in Texas right about now...

ionapaul

Flukey wrote:

To stop terrorism, you have to tackle the causes, not the perpatrators!

You would be a fool not to simultaneously tackle the perpatrators, though. Additionally, although many potential terrorists may be disuaded if the West changes how it operates in order to tackle the causes of terrorism, there will always be those who hate because it is easy and familiar to do so (perhaps for racial, cultural or religious reasons) and we must do what we can to blunt their ability to strike at us.

growler

oscarBravo wrote:

How do you reckon that's a bad thing for anyone who has a financial interest in an oil company?

I know I'd have no objection to owning a few oil wells in Texas right about now...

very true , rising oil prices mean even more money for the US, Russian and European oil companies , all of whom have extensive ties to the governments of these nations. Even better the contracts for repairing pipelines blown up in Iraq are usually given to western companies, it's like a month of Christmases for them. The usual suspects suffer of course, the average fella who isn't rich enough not to care how much it costs to run his car (food , clothing etc).

AL Qaida is still a ruthless ,evil bunch of sociopaths, they wish to drag the world back a few thousand years in the name of some god they believe in. When preaching to an ignorant, uneducated and impoverished audience of hopeless cases in the middle east (and beyond ) it's not hard to see why they can convince gullible young men to join their cause. Continued Iraqi insecurity and lack of evidence of an improving lot for the Iraqis , and the endless list of liberties taken by the Israelis in Palestine and Russians in Chechnya, sure don't help. Arab media isn't helping matters either, with obvious editorial bias against the west.

At heart the problem is economic, they see a rich and decandent west and are certain that life under islamic law would be more fair and just, this naive idealism simply won't work in this age, even the islamic countries have a super-rich elite who are quite content to keep the wealth for themselves and keep the masses uneducated and more concerned with paradise than pepsi. For all its faults the liberal christian capitalism of the west is the fairest system we have, it ( in theory if not always in practice) offers education and opportunity to all.

Flukey

ionapaul wrote:

You would be a fool not to simultaneously tackle the perpatrators, though. Additionally, although many potential terrorists may be disuaded if the West changes how it operates in order to tackle the causes of terrorism, there will always be those who hate because it is easy and familiar to do so (perhaps for racial, cultural or religious reasons) and we must do what we can to blunt their ability to strike at us.

Of course that has to be done as well. The perpatrators need to be dealt with and their capacity to wreak havoc. The point is that doing that only, will not stop the terrorism. The reasons for it will remain and plenty of volunteers will line up to take the places of those taken out of circulation. There will always be some who hate too, but we can reduce the amount of them by changing how we approach them and promoting links and understanding. None of this is easy of course, but if we really want to reduce terrorism those type of intitiatives have to be pursued. We have to reduce the amount of reasons for people to hate the west. In many situations this apporach has worked. We know the difference in Ireland over the past 10 years as a result of th process of trying to address the problems at the root of Northern Ireland. We are in a much improved situation as a result. Tackling apartheid made a big change in South Africa. There are other examples. Neither places are totally free of violence, but things have considerably improved.

omnicorp

So why doesn't Bush go into Northern Ireland and sort out the "real IRA"?
Or why doesn't he go to Checnya to sort out the problems there?
Hmmm?
Maybe because they don't have oil?

Flukey

Yes, and if Kuwait's main export had been rice do you think his dad would have batted an eyelid when Saddam invaded?

pork99

This game sums up the problem very well I think

http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

marco murphy

omnicorp wrote:

So why doesn't Bush go into Northern Ireland and sort out the "real IRA"?
Or why doesn't he go to Checnya to sort out the problems there?
Hmmm?
Maybe because they don't have oil?

Because of the GFA.... :rolleyes:

Magnolia_Fan

I have a pretty radical Theory maybe The War On Terror is a...War On Terror. I think America was right to act to fight it. The attack on The World Trade Center wasn't just an attack on America it was attack on the world...don't people think the terrorist knew so many foreigners worked in those towers?..I mean New York is called "The Melting Pot Of The World"!...using the word Islams isn't correct it is Islamic Extremists that are the problem not all Islams. As for the oil, I don't feel that was the reason for going to war..maybe settling old debts was but i don't think it was Oil, America has many other sources of Oil and are developing new ways of exploiting thier natural resources...but having said all of this I was born American so even if it was for oil I'd probably say its just survival of the fittest..so just take it as word

Batbat

Flukey wrote:

There is no war on terror. What Bush is doing is only encouraging terrorism, so he is in engaged in a war for terror. What he should be doing is addressing the causes of terrorism not giving even more causes for it. If George W. Bush ever launches a war on terror, I would support him, but he has clearly not done that. So there is no war on terror.

agreed, very true

shotamoose

Play your part in the War On Terror with this Shockwave game - http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm.

Kind of reminds me of a headline from The Onion on a slightly similar topic: "War On Drugs Won By Drugs".

Champ

Bush attacked for admitting war on terror cannot be won
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 31st August, 2004
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/3902249?view=Eircomnet

Nice to see what Bush himself thinks of it.

However, when asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Mr Bush conceded to NBC News, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Well i don't think thats one of the better things to say before the election; given Americans seem to credit Bush with better handling of homeland security than Kerry (correct me if i'm wrong); and that's one of his stronger points in getting re-elected.

Big Ears

omnicorp wrote:

So why doesn't Bush go into Northern Ireland and sort out the "real IRA"?
Or why doesn't he go to Checnya to sort out the problems there?
Hmmm?
Maybe because they don't have oil?

em Checnya does have oil , why the hell else do you think Russia still wants it ?

Big Ears

Champ wrote:

Bush attacked for admitting war on terror cannot be won
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 31st August, 2004
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/3902249?view=Eircomnet

Nice to see what Bush himself thinks of it.

Well i don't think thats one of the better things to say before the election; given Americans seem to credit Bush with better handling of homeland security than Kerry (correct me if i'm wrong); and that's one of his stronger points in getting re-elected.

so he's saying the war on terror is so people in the west won't like terrorists ?

SkepticOne

Flukey wrote:

We have to reduce the amount of reasons for people to hate the west. In many situations this apporach has worked. We know the difference in Ireland over the past 10 years as a result of th process of trying to address the problems at the root of Northern Ireland. We are in a much improved situation as a result. Tackling apartheid made a big change in South Africa. There are other examples. Neither places are totally free of violence, but things have considerably improved.

However, with the armed struggle in South Africa, the specific goal was the end to apartheid. Once that had gone the ANC became a political party. In the case of the North, a compromise was reached that allowed for the (at least partial) peace between the factions.

What then do we make of those who kidnapped and are threatening to murder the French journalists if the ban on veils in schools is not lifted. Would it not be immoral of the French to bend to pressure of this sort and lift the ban? Yet, for these particular terrorists, killing journalists to bring about a change in another country's school regulations is simply part of their Jihad.

omnicorp

Well. Mr. Bush isn't known for his intelligence... Maybe he didn't know that the War was wrong?

Nick_oliveri

Wtf? War on terror. Right, America and Britain invaded Iraq, occupied it and whatever. Does this mean the Iraqis are all terrorists, or just the ones they blew up in their "precise" attack? Four more years? National identity cards, many more countries to fcuk up, and a whole lot of gullable mofos to manipulate into believing they are in danger. What a wonderful world. Evolution has probably come to a halt and is backtracking. I thought people were supposed to get smarter, build utopias and sh!t. Rise up against oppressors, denounce greed and feed those with famine. There was always some fcuking place being bombed all across the world, but a large scale american and foreign interest explodes (Again) and all of a sudden everyone gives a sh!t and the world isn't safe, and these "weapons of mass destruction come out from nowhere", with danger of "imminent threat". Who funded the Al Queda? 45 minutes wasn't it? That Saddam could load up an imaginary nuclear bomb in a giant elastic catapult and hurl it over to America. All because of mass government and media manipulation. Deal with the problem at the source, infiltrate "terrorist" cells, actually charge them with terrorist activities with evidence to back it up, dont just leave them in a camp on an island outside of Cuba without charge rubbing anti-humanitarianism in everybodys face. More Micheal Moores are promised to do the very same as the Bush administration, EDIT the thruth. Tell us theres a big conspiricy going on. When the thruth is obvious, stupidity. Confuse and stupify us all they will. So who, of all world leaders will guide us through all this "chaos" with thruth, dignity, morality and peace? Bush, Putin, Chirac, Blair, Ahern, the Pope or little green men on mars? So they deal with the problem by making it worse, and somehow manage to not deal with the problem.... at all. Hmmmmm.

Shopping list

bit of a revolution - 0$
bit of love -0$
bit of peace -0$
bit of logic -0$
bit of equality -0$
bit of morality -0$

Question - Would you let your kids watch Sky news or CNN?
I wonder what little Danny's reaction was at two in the afternoon when he saw the charred corpse of an American soldier being dragged through the streets of iraq. With that disturbing streak of blood going down the road. off topic i know but thoughtfull nonetheless.

omnicorp

You forgot a bit of Socialism.

Now, why don't we all stick out 2 fingers and declare:

"Two more months!"

That's right, 2 more fcuking months in office,
in that office that now represents lies, war, deceit, blood, treachery and Death.

Lord Usurper of the world throne, The right dishonourable Mr. Bush.
Hail Bush

Big Ears

omnicorp wrote:

Hail Bush

Just to correct you there , hang would be the word you're looking for .

Batbat

Big Ears wrote:

Just to correct you there , hang would be the word you're looking for .

hang is too good for that scum

Stabshauptmann

Batbat wrote:

hang is too good for that scum

I disagree, I dont believe that even Bush deserves the death penalty. Even if we accept for the purpose of debate that he is guilty of war crimes and partly responsible for the thousands of deaths since the begining of the war on terror, I wouldnt approve the death penalty.
I believe that nobody can definitivly judge another person since we dont and can never know all the circumstances of an action or thought. I also strongly disapprove of absulutes, which the death penalty is.

Stabshauptmann

As for War on Terror; War: A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious. I think it would be accurate to say that the american ppl by and large are very much afraid or dare i say terrorised. Wether this is justified or not we'll discuss in a moment, but just to point out, that if the efforts of Mr. Bush have not made the american ppl FEEL any safer then it is failing.

Do american ppl have a good reason to be afraid: Yes. That is to say, its understandable. American soil hadnt been attacked in nearly two centuries.* The american mentality was one of invincibility then all of a sudden there are three attacks from unknown emenies.** Its not just the attacks; an entire idea has been shattered.

Now the war drums are beating and american soldiers are comming home in body bags, new stringint measures are in place for your safety but you are constantly reminded to be vigillant because even these arent enough. The President even confided in you that this is a war we mat not be able to win.

It is terrifying.

Should the war be fought: ie should Terror be stopped: Yes.
Can it be stopped: Probably.
Is america winning the war: No.
Is america going about the war the right way: No.
Does Bush want to win the war: I dont think so, but then again I read too much orwellian litriture



*Pearl Harbour doesnt count since it was not american soil per say and it was a military installation.
**9/11, The anthrax scare, The washington sniper.

ionapaul

Necromancer wrote:

The President even confided in you that this is a war we mat not be able to win.

Bush made a mistake telling the truth there. Truth has no place in a political campaign! If FF, FG, Labour, PDs, SF, et al ever told the truth during a campaign they would be wiped out. I don't even think that 'effective leader' and 'honest person' are particularly compatible anymore, and at least are not attractive to the average Joe Schlub on the street. Honest Abe Lincoln wouldn't get out of a city council these days - not enough spin for the masses to lap up!
Unfortunately I think the 'War on Terror' will have an extremely long life, while being only partially successful. I do believe it essential to counter the terrorists though, despite sowing seeds for future problems - 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation

steviec

Billy Kovachy wrote:

It is obvious the war on terror is losing.It can be clearly shown in the last week with the recent Airplane crashes in Russia,the French Government being held for ransom (over scarfs next theyll be asking for the coversion of Bush to Islam) with the captured of french hostages.A strong international agreement and cooperation is needed which will not happen in the near future.

Russia and France haven't exactly stood shoulder to shoulder with America in the war on terror have they? If they did then things may or may not be going better for them.
America hasn't been attacked since the 'war on terror' began, of course you could argue it hadn't been attacked for a fair while before September 11th either, but really the only way Americans can rate the success is by the fact they haven't been attacked.

Billy Kovachy

Unfortunately even if you are against war in Iraq as was France and Russia terrorism still affects their citizens and lands with extreme prejudice. I believe that the military effort is only one part of the solution the other is to isolate the fundamentalists within the Muslim/Islamic from the main majority of moderates within the religion. Along the similiar lines the French are following with clergs and Palestine leaders for the release of their citizens by having prominate members of the muslim society side against terrorism instead of remaining silent on the international stage. However American diplomacy has never been their greatest asset with this region due to ties with Israel. However talks will cease against views held by Al quieda and the black widow groups. That is why I believe the French reporters have been murdered like previous internationals. I do hope iam wrong. There needs to be an increase urgency to get law and order enforced in Iraq, woefully dire at the moment. Bush should not be re-elected (although something tells me he will be, once again hope iam wrong).Military wise tring to take out terrorists cells an international intelligence co-operation is needed however the intelligence scene is full of inadequacies and failings. So really things can only get worse, with terrorists increasing attacks on soft targets such as reporters,red-cross other NGO members and opportune attacks like that seen in spain and more horribly (even if these events are equitable) in Russia. These relentless meaningless attacks will continue the war on terror is already losing. Maybe iam wrong.

arcadegame2004

Billy, you are approaching this issue primarily as a security problem. It is also a political issue. Putin brought all this on Russia and himself by invading it and massacring tens of thousands of innocent people. He should also be seen as a terrorist.

popinfresh

Haha, nice to see a thread without any pumped up pro-Bush supporters. As for the war on terror, yes i'd agree with what most of you are saying. Unfortunately though, the war on terror, or the war on Infadels as the arabs are probably calling it, has been launched. What we are probably going to see for the next 30 years is a tension similar to the one in N-Ireland, only on a world-wide scale. Not only was "the war on terror" the wrong course of action for America, it was probably the worst possible course they could have taken. To be honest, I find it an insult to our intellegence that the US could invade Iraq and say it is a war on terror. Personally I refuse to beleive the American government could really be so naieve as to invade Iraq, unless of course it had something to do with oil. Oh and yes, America is going to benefit form Iraq's oil reserves. Did you know that with America's current economic situation, if the world were to start trading oil in euros as opposed to American dollars, the US would see another wallstreet crash. So the US has to gain more control of middle eastern oil. Plus, reserves are going to start getting tight soon enough. I beleive the Iraq war was about oil because it would make a lot of sense if it was. And I simply refuse to beleive that the US government would really be so stupid as to invade Iraq in order to slow down terrorism

omnicorp

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Billy, you are approaching this issue primarily as a security problem. It is also a political issue. Putin brought all this on Russia and himself by invading it and massacring tens of thousands of innocent people. He should also be seen as a terrorist.

Sort of have to dissagree there,
Terrorists or "Freedom Fighters" try to force their views upon others through war, violence and Guerrilla Warfare.
Not through botched up anti-Terrorism acts.

And on another note note,

How did you get such a bad reputation?

Stabshauptmann

Are you jealous of it?

Terrorists try to use force or the threat of force to influence political decisions. How this is different to warfare is that the terror is directed against civilian populations.

This definition does not match all freedom fighters and is why bush is sometimes labeled a terrorist.

omnicorp

popinfresh wrote:

Haha, nice to see a thread without any pumped up pro-Bush supporters. As for the war on terror, yes i'd agree with what most of you are saying. Unfortunately though, the war on terror, or the war on Infadels as the arabs are probably calling it, has been launched. What we are probably going to see for the next 30 years is a tension similar to the one in N-Ireland, only on a world-wide scale. Not only was "the war on terror" the wrong course of action for America, it was probably the worst possible course they could have taken. To be honest, I find it an insult to our intellegence that the US could invade Iraq and say it is a war on terror. Personally I refuse to beleive the American government could really be so naieve as to invade Iraq, unless of course it had something to do with oil. Oh and yes, America is going to benefit form Iraq's oil reserves. Did you know that with America's current economic situation, if the world were to start trading oil in euros as opposed to American dollars, the US would see another wallstreet crash. So the US has to gain more control of middle eastern oil. Plus, reserves are going to start getting tight soon enough. I beleive the Iraq war was about oil because it would make a lot of sense if it was. And I simply refuse to beleive that the US government would really be so stupid as to invade Iraq in order to slow down terrorism

It's rumoured that "President" Bush doesn't actualy read the papers handed to him.
In fact, he probably doesn't read at all.

So is it any surprise that he's stuck in his own bubble, unaware of reality?

Stabshauptmann

omnicorp wrote:

It's rumoured that "President" Bush doesn't actualy read the papers handed to him.
In fact, he probably doesn't read at all.

So is it any surprise that he's stuck in his own bubble, unaware of reality?

This is based on what exactly?

omnicorp

Yes, actualy, I am jealous.
ArcadeGame2004 seems to be one of the more intelligent and open-minded posters on this Forum.

Bush is as bad as Osama Bin Laden.