| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 2:02:13 PM
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040831/D84QBK3G0.html
"President Bush said Tuesday "we will win" the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible."
I'm tired of this bullshit. He also says in the speach that "we didn't start this war but we will end it." Bullshit we didn't start it, every major terrorist attack ever commited in the history of terrorism with the exception of 9/11 has been commited by or directly supported by the US. |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 5:32:40 PM
i'd be inclined to agree with fleabass.
waits for heart attacks to subside.
national security is important, but mostly it seems like a billion dollar placebo pill. just because you fingerprint someone when they come into the country doesn't mean they won't blow themselves up with a bunch of other people. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 3:18:00 PM
You can't fight terrorism with increased defense spending, because ultimately the defense spending goes into building war machines which are used in attacks overseas which create more animosity towards the US and thus more terrorists. The only way to fight terrorism is to resolve the need for terrorism to exist, and though that seems impossible, it can be heavily reduced by altering our foreign policy and trade agreements. However, we're in a catch-22 because it is difficult to alter these things without an initial hit to our economy, thus it will probably never happen. Defense, militarily speaking is not the answer. Domestic security is closer, but 50,000 new national guard troops with brand new toys will not be able to stop one single briefcase bomb set off in population center. Unless the government wants to take away all of our freedoms, they had better think of viable alternatives in the war on that favorite buzz word, terror. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 08:55:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KevinLesko
but the attacks are usually in response to something.
That I can agree with, but you have to take one side or the other here. If terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, then the fact that they were merely "responses" to political policies is irrelevant. Can't think of a terrorist act that was done because they just felt like it.
And the "none in or on the US" statement...good! I'd like to keep it that way. That's what reasonable defense programs will get you. One of the few things I fully support Bush (and most republicans) on is defense. If/when we get someone in office who decides that we need to cut defense spending to help support people who refuse to get jobs and other useless people in society, that's when we're in real trouble. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 05:07:41 AM
Politicians Flip Flop. It's not a brand new idea that Bush Jr. has the patent on. |
| KevinLesko |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 9:47:58 PM
Both the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and the USS Cole have been declared as "responses" to US policies or attacks, by the terrorists who committed them. I'm not defending them or anything, but the attacks are usually in response to something. There is an interesting book called "BLOWBACK" on this topic. I forget the details of each... but the book basically makes the point that the general public's definition of Terrorism, is random in nature, while in actuality it is usually responsive in nature.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 9:00:49 PM
i stopped listening to anything coming out of bush's miserable facehole long ago. the average 6th grade presentation is better than what this guy trots out, and i have neither the inclination nor the patience to sort out whatever he's stumbling though. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 2:57:56 PM
I'm sorry, these are the largest terrorist attacks of 1985 which is arguably one of the worst years for terrorist attacks and one which sparked major terrorist development in the middle east.
1985 - Car bombing in beirut, outside of mosque, timed to go off when people were leaving to kill the maximum amount of people. According to the Washington Post it killed 80 people, wounded over 250, mostly women and children, basically blew up the entire block. Bomb was intended for a Muslim Sheik who managed to escaoe. It was set off by the CIA with collaboration with British Inteligence and Saudi Intelligence.
1985 - Iron fist operation commited by Shimon Paris' government in the ocupation of southern Lebanon in March. The occupation was a violation of a security council order, but it had US authorization so of course they could ignore the UN. They were targeting "terrorist villagers," which included many massacres and kidnappings. There was no pretense of self-defense, only blatant means for political gain. Since Isreal was commiting this, it was basically the US, we support and arm them.
1982 - Isreal invades Lebanon, kills 20,000 people, same thing. US-Isreali invasion. Of course we have to call this terrorism, because if it was armed aggression, it would be considered crimes of war under the Geneva Convention. The goal of the invasion according to the NY Times was to "install a friendly regime in Lebanon and oust the PLO, which would help persuade Palestinians to accept Isreali rule in the West Bank and Gaza.
1985 - Isreali air force bombs Tunis, US cooperated by removing their 3rd fleet from the coast of Tunisia so they could go "we didn't see anything."
These examples were all extracted from Noam Chomsky's Distorted Morality DVD. He has all the sources on that, I don't have time to dig them up from it, I have to move. But yeah, i'll be back in about a week. Later |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 2:23:21 PM
In terms of lives lost, and overall impact of the attack. None in or against the US. Hang on, I have to dig them up... |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 2:22:14 PM
The first world trade center bombing? The bombing of the USS Cole? Pan Am Flight 103? |
|
|
