GITMO??????

acrossOceans wrote:

vedderman71 wrote:

accrosstheoceans, i appreciate your open frank opinion on this matter.
know that i ask this b/c i really do want your opinion, i'm not tryin to start some message board riot.
so does your country or it's citizens see the US or Al Qaeda as being the bigger threat or enemy or how ever you would like to put it?
again i appreciate your honesty...

that's a valid question which ain;t that simple however cuz nothin here is ... firstly screw Al Qaeda, because that is some world-militant organization, nowhere and everywhere apparently... Pakistanis could give a rats ass about it... I'll talk about the Taliaban which is much closer to home, but that'll still answer your question... here's a group which until very recently has never wrecked such havoc in the country.. they were confined to the tribal areas and other remote parts of the country... domestically we've had military takeovers (which we more than welcome cuz they're the only staright talikin moherfuckers around) and other political turmoil, in the form of rivalry between political parties, such as that of that feudal bitch Benazir Bhutto, fighting for power against others.... but when the Taliban recently actually took control an area called Swat (very beautiful region i might add) that hit home, cuz we've never been ruled by right wing religious parties... sure Pakistan consists partly of conservative society and partly not... but even the former don't like this shit...However, neither I nor the rest of the nation are blind to the causes of militancy... and that leads back to the US... it's pretty much a fact, that they did use Islamic militants to fuck with the Soviets and then chucked em... only, these are humans you're using, not machines, and therefore it backfired... simple as that...

so as to whom we see as worse enemies, foreign soldiers from a very different part of the world in every respect, (lifestyle, appearance, religion, and much more) will always be more unwelcome, then foreigners just across the border, or rather locals gone wild ... it's simply a case of which is the lesser of the two evils... i said it earlier, every occupied country has become a Gitmo; Gitmo Proper at least benefits from media attention...everywhere else the shit just gets swept under the dirty carpet... still it's not at all the case that we are willing to tolerate, let alone want, the Taliban ruling our country... all classes, the lower, the working, the middle, the upper and the feudal are pretty much together on this and that's why i genuinely believe that they won't be able to rule the country... but i gotta end by sayin, that what we hate MOST is the self righteousness of the US in selling it's way of life, cuz no one's buyin it...

See the problem is that right wing fundamentalists in the states are just as bad as the taliban....actually worse because they have more power. But they don't realize it. They are more so terrorists than anyone in Iraq or Afganistan that decides to find a weapon and defend thier homes. Granted the rights of women and people in general in afganistan were non existent. But they DO NOT want Americans bombing their homes and families to help them obtain those rights. They want to fight their own battles. Let them.

And I believe the word sorry would go along way. If American officials were to pull troops out of these foriegn countries and apologize for all the wrong doings, I really believe it would sincerely help their cause. And the majority of Muslim and Arab citizens would be compelled to join America's fight against extremeists like Al Queda. But the problem is too many Right wing extremeist Americans exist for that to happen.

So yea, I see America as a bigger threat than Al Queda.

soulsinging wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

i never said it was all inclusive, i was referring to the people who used to constantly post about the war and are now silent. i don't place Commy or you in that demographic, though you seem to want to place yourselves there, because i have seen you 2 complain about the war since January.




well. my vote in '04 went to Kucinich, who has DONE things to prove to me he would push for change. also, Nader has a long history of accomplishments, not just well worded speeches, to make me think he would actually be an agent of change and not just roll over to special interests like Obama does.

and yeah, it probably would be hard for him to get changes through Congress, but what would happen if millions put someone in that office only to see their local representatives holding back the change they want? hold them accountable! riot! something other than giving in and playing along.

you got Obama and guess what? you STILL have those people holding back any real change, so what's the point? saying at least i voted for the guy in power this time? no thanks, my morals are worth more than bragging rights. i'm not going to vote for someone i know is making empty promises and won't do much just because the other guy is a little worse. this is the same absurd line of thinking as when people say "Thanks god Gore wasn't in office when 9/11 happened!!" why? what would have been so different? you can't agree both are similar and nothing fundamental will change from either of the 2 parties then say it would be sooooo much worse if the other guy won. isn't that saying there IS a fundamental difference??

you must have me confused with somebody else, becos i dont complain about the war all that much. i opposed it, but always pretty much figured there wasnt a damn thing i could do about it so why whine? if asked, i'll say i'm opposed, but i never bring it up on my own.

kucinich, as i recall, was not a candidate in the final election. and ralph has never held a political office in his life. he did some corporate muck-raking now and again, which is all well and good, but that doesn't qualify him as president. he knows he'd not get shit done if he was ever in office... that's why he's never even tried to run for a local office or congress, becos then he'd be exposed for the empty threat he is and you'd be turning those words you have against obama on him in a heartbeat.

what you cant wrap your head around is that most americans dont want nader or kucinich style change. they voted obama in becos they were tired of republicans, and now they're voting in republicans becos they don't want the coutnry drifting too far to the left on his watch. nader supporters are no more a legit mainstream interest than glen beck listeners are.

yes, we got obama in. do you truly think there is no difference between him and mccain? it's not about bragging rights, it's about the best man for the job. no, he didnt end 2 wars and close gitmo within 6 months. i never thought he would, so who cares? but he is providing a badly needed boost of international credibility, adopting more measured approaches to iran and korea, and at least making sure health care and financial reform stay on the table instead of being swept under the rug. all good things.

your gore example is bullshit. im the opposite of that... i wish like hell he'd been in office on 9/11. i can guarantee we would not have invaded iraq if he had been in office. are you going to sit here and tell me that's no difference and that your vote for nader was worth the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost in iraq so that you can feel superior to us becos you stick to your guns and we vote practically? i used to think like you, hell i campaigned for nader back in my idiot college days and when i saw what it cost us... 8 years of bush instead of gore and a completely unnecessary war in iraq, i learned my lesson. the differences between the parties may not be as stark as you want (which is ironically the same thought process glenn beck and his ilk use... NO compromise allowed!), but that does not mean there is no difference.

sigh

did you even read the post that sparked this? it was clearly referencing ONLY 1 small segment of Obama supporters, not ALL of them.. it was towards those who had a strong anti war stance during Bush's terms and either changed their stance to more justifiable or who never even mention it anymore. so if you obviously don't fit into that category, just as i'd say commy, gimmesometruth, triumphant angel....didn't fit, either, why are you putting yourself there and saying 'that's not what i voted for Obama!!' cool, no one ever inferred that ya did

kucinich, as i recall, was not a candidate in the final election.

depends on how you look at it, in '04 Kucinich said the democratic party and media can't tell you who you can and can't vote for, which i agree with. so i wrote his name in.

and ralph has never held a political office in his life. he did some corporate muck-raking now and again, which is all well and good, but that doesn't qualify him as president.

and what has Obama done that would qualify him if Nader's list of actually achieving change. really, can you name 1 thing Obama has done to say yeah, Nader isn't qualified but that Obama sure is!!' ??

he knows he'd not get shit done if he was ever in office... that's why he's never even tried to run for a local office or congress, becos then he'd be exposed for the empty threat he is and you'd be turning those words you have against obama on him in a heartbeat.

his empty threat of actually creating change? wha?

if he rolled over and broke promise after promise and showed me more of the same then yeah, i'd probably have words against him, too.

what you cant wrap your head around is that most americans dont want nader or kucinich style change.

oh, i can wrap my head around that just fine. you say this and yet last election when they did a poll of what the voters wanted and compared it with the stances of the democrats the majority were actually in line with Kucinich.

they voted obama in becos they were tired of republicans, and now they're voting in republicans becos they don't want the coutnry drifting too far to the left on his watch.

well, i'm glad you're on top of things and figured out why everyone voted for Obama :roll:

i'm sure voting in repubicans is all about not wanting to drift too far left, whenever that started, and nothing to do with a lot of democrats holding up the change they supposedly voted into office

nader supporters are no more a legit mainstream interest than glen beck listeners are.

unlike you i don't live my life in absolutes and place everyone in a nice, neat little box. you complain about me pigeonholing every Obama supporter, which i never did, and then you do the same.....huh, interesting how that works....

yes, we got obama in.

well, according to Commy's logic i helped Obama get into office, too!

btw, let's look at that logic compared to all my presidential votes, shall we?

96 voted for Perot, Clinton won. you're welcome

00 voted for Gore, Bush 'won' better luck next time?

04 voted for Kucinich, Bush won. supposedly my fault

08 voted for Nader, Obama won. so again, this is all because of my and my vote for Nader, so you all should be thanking me instead of acting like spoiled brats saying because of my vote in 04 Bush was president.

while it's been a while since i looked at the numbers to the 04 election i'm fairly certain Kerry lost by more than a single vote in my state. if i'm wrong please point to the link, otherwise Commy's claim of my voting for Kucinich cost Kerry the election.

do you truly think there is no difference between him and mccain?

of course there is, i'm not the one who made the claim nothing fundamentally changes no matter which party is in office and therefor voting doesn't change anything.

. no, he didnt end 2 wars and close gitmo within 6 months. i never thought he would, so who cares?

wow, man if had some gold stars i'd gladly give you one! the demographic of Obama supporters i was referencing with my earlier post DID think he would. there are some people who got pretty self righteous saying Obama would end the war in Iraq in a year, close Gitmo in 6, be the most liberal president in history.....

but he is providing a badly needed boost of international credibility,

and then he says he won't push Israel to stop expanding their illegal settlements and brings that credibility down a notch

at least making sure health care and financial reform stay on the table instead of being swept under the rug. all good things.

how has he done this? his health care 'reform' will make the insurance and pharmaceutical companies more money, give them more customers....

what financial reform??

your gore example is bullshit. im the opposite of that... i wish like hell he'd been in office on 9/11.

hence my starting the Gore example by saying it was absurd....

i can guarantee we would not have invaded iraq if he had been in office. are you going to sit here and tell me that's no difference and that your vote for nader was worth the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost in iraq

we were already in Iraq for years when i voted for Nader in 08, what are you talking about??

Obama hasn't even started to end either wars, in fact he's more than likely going to escalate one but you think Kerry would've done it?? how did you connect those dots??

8 years of bush instead of gore and a completely unnecessary war in iraq, i learned my lesson.

good for you, you learned to overlook all the voting irregularities thinking they wouldn't have stolen the election if Nader hadn't run in 2000 or any other 3rd party ran, since every 3rd party candidate got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush, yet i don't see anyone crying that Buchanon cost us the election and it's all their fault.

i'll ask again, exactly what Bush policies has Obama gotten rid of?

it's not being superior, acting superior is you guys saying any vote for anyone other than a democrat is a wasted vote. 3rd parties are good enough to win local elections, and thanks to Nader in 08 in several states certain parties no longer have such obstacles to get on the ballot in local elections, so why not national? oh, right, because the big bad republican will win if we vote for anyone other than who the democrats say, got it. wow, those democrats sure are lucky, they don't need to follow through on anything because as long as they are slightly less shitty than the republicans they will deserve everyone's vote, no questions asked. what a great gig they got going on. accountability schmountability. no wonder they don't feel any pressure to uphold our will.....

if you would like to continue this next week feel free

mb262200 wrote:

Did we really believe that a couple insurgents would fly a couple of airliners into our buildings? Let's just bring all the soldiers home and let all the insurgents run wild....fuck it! I think too many people are too naive of what they are capable of.

i think the problem was the arrogance shown by those 'higher ups' who thought that something like that couldnt possibly happen on american soil. considering the towers had previously been a target id say someone was negligent in their duty of care. and its not the people being too naive of what their fellow man is capable of.

i found the incidents of 9/11 to be heinous and quite extraordinary but i wasnt surprised nor did i find it unbelievable.

ever read tom clancys debt of honour?

Commy wrote:

osama bl said he staged the attacks becuase of US military presence in mecca, islam's holiets site, becuase of support for israel, and because the us had invaded arab countries and was arming and supporting miltant dictators. you know how i know this? because he fucking said it. what on that list has changed? add another invaded and occupied country to the list, 2 actually. we're making it worse, not better by fighting them.

But there is the other side to this - if the US wasnt involved, then Osama BL & co would just attack whatever other nation was doing the things the US did....some nation will always be a superpower, and having enemies is part of that role.

Also, while 9/11 was horrendous, lets remember that Al Qaeda have attacked many other nations: particularly bad attacks in Spain, UK, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, etc, all for their political roles in different wars. The problem with using Al Qaeda as a standard of political opposition is ridiculous though, theyre just like a worldwide IRA - theyre not political in any real sense, theyre just religious zealouts & fanatics - which makes them even more dangerous. The US is the obvious target for such a terrorist group, not just because of its foreign policy, but because of its position as the current world superpower.

Commy wrote:

i doubt the group known as al qaeda is as widespread as our authorities would have us believe. i'm sure there is a group, but it seems any terrorist attack anywhere in the world is now labeled an al qaeda attack, wether it is or not.


the US is always at war, and it needs to keep feeding the public bullshit reasons for them....communism, terrorism, drugs, whatever the pretext the outcome rarely varies, and there seems to always be war.



this current war on terrorism is causing the very thing they claim to be fighting. the nsa has admitted as much. that US presence in IRaq and Afghanistan may be adding to the hostility towards the US. its a win win for Washington, the more they wage war the more they have a reason to wage war.


you think these terrorist groups are targeting power why? if china was the worlds superpower instead of the US do you really think the terrorist group of the month would be bombing China?


you don't htink it has anything to do with the war in iraq? or the 700 military bases the US has around the world?> or the "free trade" agreements that are far from free. or the WB loans that destroy gov't economies everywhere. or the constant violence perpetuated and funded and armed by Washington?


people don't blow themselves up unless they have a damn good reason, and the US and ISrael have provided plenty.

people dont blow themselves up unless they BELIEVE they have a damn good reason. religious extremists act only because they really believe in their religious teachings. not cause they pay it lip service. if were talking about islamist fundamentalists, then they truly believe in martyrdom and paradise that awaits them. if i were a suicide bomber id be asking the guy in charge if martydom is so great then why doesnt he strap explosives around his torso and blow himself up. but these suicide bombers dont cause they dont question their faith. theyre not taught to question anything theyre taught. they dont need to, they categorically believe it . as all fundamentalists do. theyre taught faith is a virtue. take away absolute faith and suicide bombers cease to exist.

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Commy wrote:

i doubt the group known as al qaeda is as widespread as our authorities would have us believe. i'm sure there is a group, but it seems any terrorist attack anywhere in the world is now labeled an al qaeda attack, wether it is or not.


the US is always at war, and it needs to keep feeding the public bullshit reasons for them....communism, terrorism, drugs, whatever the pretext the outcome rarely varies, and there seems to always be war.



this current war on terrorism is causing the very thing they claim to be fighting. the nsa has admitted as much. that US presence in IRaq and Afghanistan may be adding to the hostility towards the US. its a win win for Washington, the more they wage war the more they have a reason to wage war.


you think these terrorist groups are targeting power why? if china was the worlds superpower instead of the US do you really think the terrorist group of the month would be bombing China?


you don't htink it has anything to do with the war in iraq? or the 700 military bases the US has around the world?> or the "free trade" agreements that are far from free. or the WB loans that destroy gov't economies everywhere. or the constant violence perpetuated and funded and armed by Washington?


people don't blow themselves up unless they have a damn good reason, and the US and ISrael have provided plenty.

people dont blow themselves up unless they BELIEVE they have a damn good reason. religious extremists act only because they really believe in their religious teachings. not cause they pay it lip service. if were talking about islamist fundamentalists, then they truly believe in martyrdom and paradise that awaits them. if i were a suicide bomber id be asking the guy in charge if martydom is so great then why doesnt he strap explosives around his torso and blow himself up. but these suicide bombers dont cause they dont question their faith. theyre not taught to question anything theyre taught. they dont need to, they categorically believe it . as all fundamentalists do. theyre taught faith is a virtue. take away absolute faith and suicide bombers cease to exist.

that's what people who say terrorists are blowing themsleves up because they hate our freedom use as an excuse. calling them religious zombies is a good way to ignore the real reasons behind the act, even if they are.


these are desperate people. they have more than god motivating them.

you think thats why im saying it. as an excuse??? do you think im ignoring the 'real reasons' behind the act??thats total bullshit and you should know better.

if they werent promised a martyrs paradise in line with their religious teachings then they would find another way. i will never excuse religion from its role in suicide bombings. these people are fundamentalists theyre not just desparate. many many more desparate people dont blow themselves up. why do you think that is commy?? suicide bombers are extremists. religious extremists.

Commy wrote:

you think thats why im saying it. as an excuse??? do you think im ignoring the 'real reasons' behind the act??thats total bullshit and you should know better.

if they werent promised a martyrs paradise in line with their religious teachings then they would find another way. i will never excuse religion from its role in suicide bombings. these people are fundamentalists theyre not just desparate. many many more desparate people dont blow themselves up. why do you think that is commy?? suicide bombers are extremists. religious extremists.

i'm saying its easy to blame religion for everything. living under costant oppression, daily brutality and injustice, seeing your family murdered or tortured, these are the things driving these people to do these terrible bombings, not the promise of 72 virgins in heaven. that's wha i'm saying.

i think it dangerous to label them religious fanatics and be done with it. its a great way to never get to real reasons behind these bombings.

and im saying youre wrong. and im not simply labelling them religious fanatics and wiping my hands of the matter. i am fully aware of the context in which suicide bombings happen.
if you are taught that the infidel is the devil. that the infidel is your oppressor. that they are, in this context, not muslim so therefore they do not worship the one true God. if you are not taught to think about anything other than what you are told. and remember it will be a narrow field of knowledge. if no debate is permissable then how do you make an informed choice to become a suicide bomber??? no one in their right mind would blow themselves up for altruistic reasons. and thats what your saying here.

as i said before i am fully aware of what supposedly drives these suicide bombers. but i am also fully aware that using the great infidel as the excuse and to ignore the primacy of religions place in their act is as dangerous as what you are saying im doing.

if these bombers were truly desparate then theyd take their own lives. they wouldnt take the lives of so many others. i have much more compassion for a buddhist priest who selfimmolates than a muslim suicide bomber who kills innocent people due to some cause. and do not for one instant think that means i am not sympathetic to the supposed cause of their grievance.

have you never thought that the cause is the excuse and not the reason??