Terrorists Threats

Jahled · February 22, 2003

No worries, my friend! When we're debating a war that has the potential to hurt and kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, language is quite naturally going to get mashed up from time to time, especially given the shear size of our posts on this subject, and the emotions concerning such a potentially terrible consequence for human life. With such a potentially terrible outcome, only a fool would not try an examine every angle on the subject, before the onset of war.

ElvisMiggell · February 24, 2003

Interesting stuff guys. Tell me though, this is something i've been thinking about a lot. Most religions, if not all, advocate peace. The fundamentalists (i'm not going to group them with any specific religion, because they're present in all) obviously feel that they've had to resort to a last resort so to speak. Has anyone ever invited Osama, and other similar people to the table. If they all claim to adhere to their religions, surely they would be happy to TRY to discuss the problems???

If not, what does that say about us and them?

UntimelyDemise · February 24, 2003

Gank, I'm not going to argue with you on any of your points on international events. I would, however, like to remark on your comment about Bush "rigging" elections.

I am an American, and I live in America. I experienced the election firsthand, and followed the events very, very closely (as I voted for Bush). I can tell you with great certainty that Bush won the election, without any help from the US Supreme Court or anything else you may have heard. The United States is not a democracy...it is a republic. Florida's vote was close, but it went to Bush. You may not have known this, because the media has kept it very quiet, but several newspapers did their own count of the votes in Florida. Guess who got the most votes?

I agree the election was extremely close, but Bush was elected fairly and legally. And after the hoopla, Americans came together and rallied behind our President. That's what we Americans do. So please stop assuming the election was "rigged". It gets quite irritating to hear citizens from other countries say that. Whether you like him or not, George Bush is the President of the United States of America, duly elected and inaugurated.

As far as your other views, I think you're right on the money on some and off on others. But you have the right to speak your mind here on SWR, the same as anyone else. Keep it up!

ricepr2001 · February 24, 2003

Even if our election was rigged, which im sure it wasnt. at least our people do it good enough not to piss the people off. in Iraq there are armed guards on the spot which shoot you if you dont vote Saddam you die. guess how the election went. and your critisizing our elections even if they are sketchy.

P.S. I was a little behind on reading all this and gank almost all the wars we were in we had minimal help from other countries or we went to other countries aid. and since weve been around we saved a lot of peoples asses and i think that we deserve a little help from those countries now. even if the whole thing is a cover up for oil saddam has a lot of shit to kill a lot of people including his own illegaly. that is the issue im concerned with, and the us could live off our own oil alaska is relatively untapped because we can rob our oil from other countries cheaper than it costs to run the pumps here.

Gank · February 24, 2003

Actually there is evidence that the vote was rigged. 173,000 people werre struck from the registers in Florida before the elections, purportedly because they were ex-cons. A company called Database International was paid $4 million by one Katherine Harris, who was George W Bushs presidential campaign chairwoman and the persons in charge of Floridas election. The company was given orders to strike anybody who came within an 80% match of a known felon, whether it was by social security number, birthdate or name. The polling stations were reinforced with police to help turn away these people. This wasnt reported on at all in your media but the BBC ran an excellent documentary about it shortly after, t had an interviews with some of the people who had been struck ranging from old jewish grannys to the elections superviser of one county.

Thats just one aspect of it, theres also the whole recount thing. Why did the Supreme court stop it? At the time the did Bush's lead had shrank to 66. Next thing its stopped. Why? "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election". In other words if we let it go ahead and Gore wins its going to look bad for Bush when hes President(Bush). This statement came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who coincidentally had a son working for the firm represnting Bush before him. Also by coincidence, Justice Clarence Thomas's wife had just been hired by Bush to help him pick his administration. But this of course had no influence over either judges decision

Then theres the whole spoiled votes and broken voting machines, I could go on but I dont really have time. As for your newspapers, I'm well aware that many ran their own recounts, but you neglected to say that some also found that Bush would have lost the election. In the New York Times it said that going on the 3000ish overseas votes alone Bush would have lost and gave a detailed list of what votes were spoiled for what reason and what percentage were bushs. Those alone took his lead down from 537 to minus 7.

But newspapers are biased and under no obligation to print the truth, so if you go waving them around as proof Bush was elected fair and square dont expect anybody to take you seriously.

You also cannot say Bush won fair and square because the supreme court stopped the recount before it finished, at a time when Bushs lead was in the most danger. Therefore it was not fair and square. Rigged? All the evidence suggests so. I'm sorry if this irritates you but you're going to have to get used to it.

As for you all coming together behind your president, wasnt this because of the sept 11th attacks? Correct me if I'm wrong but his approval rating was pretty low before them wasn't it? Didnt he get eggs and tomatoes thrown at him on the way to the white house? As for me disliking him, I dont dislike the guy, I find him quite humourous. The guys a complete joke, he couldnt find his own arse with a map. Its the guys in the background pulling the strings who worry me, the ones clever enough to stay out of the light.

Beh my head is starting to hurt.

dinochick · February 24, 2003

Anyway, I agree with UntimelyDemise & ricepr2001 that the election was not rigged, and I didn't even vote for Bush. But I am not even going to get into it again. Believe what you want to believe and twist the facts however you like. We are never going to agree on this issue.

I just found this and thought that some of you might be interested in it, while others will just tear it apart. Whatever. Let hear it for freedom speech! Were all entitled to our own opinions, so say what you like

"DO NOT FORGET"

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?"

Now I know why.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"

Now I know why.

Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.

On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.

On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.

I will not be manipulated.

I will not pretend to understand.

I will not forget.

I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.

I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."

I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."

And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."

I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.

I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.

I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.

I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.

I will not be influenced by so-called, "antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of _expression to chant anti-American obscenities.

I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.

I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.

I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?"

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!

I will force myself to:

-hear the weeping

-feel the helplessness

-imagine the terror

-sense the panic

-smell the burning flesh

-experience the loss

-remember the hatred.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?"

Now I know.

We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.

-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)

UntimelyDemise · February 24, 2003

Gank, I know you have many "sources" for your information on the election, and I don't want to keep beating a dead horse. Please understand that the election was two years ago, and really unimportant now since Bush is President. But you keep throwing out "facts" that are just a little skewed. The US press does not like President Bush. They make no bones about it. You're not hearing the other side of the story.

The "recount" you are referring to that the Supreme Court had to intervene to stop was the third recount. By Florida state law, the original results were so close, a recount was mandated. But Al Gore would not give up and got a bunch of lawyers involved. If Gore had his way, we'd still be counting the votes! I'm sure you don't understand this, but the business of the US had to get going, and some people making judgement calls on votes that had been counted three times was wasting our (the US people's) time. Every day, the news was littered with people holding ballots up to the light to see if they could see any light through them. The machine count (1st) said Bush won. The recount (2nd) said Bush won by a closer margin. The re-recount in only selected Democratic counties (3rd) closed the margin a little more, but Bush still won. I want to emphasize to you that at NO time did Gore ever have more votes.

Your info on the "overseas" ballots is interesting, since the Democratic counties Gore was so interested in refused to count hundreds of absentee ballots sent in by troops who were overseas...which were by a great majority for Bush.

Gank, this is getting us nowhere. We could discuss the election for weeks, and neither of us will sway from our opinions. You think Bush is a "joke", but I feel Bush is one of the greatest Presidents of our time. I know I'll get a response to this...you won't be able to help yourself! But I'm afraid from here on out, I'm not going to reply to this topic...maybe you can get some arguments from someone else about this, but not me.

Gank · February 24, 2003

Untimely Demise, I dont read US press, most of what I know comes from UK or Irish TV, both of which are fairly impartial. And while I know you guys are big on the whole Republican-Democrat thing over there, realise that to a foreigner there is no real difference, so to be honest it makes no big deal to us whos in charge over there. Personally I dont think Gore would do a much better job than Bush, but thats beside the point. And while you are right in saying Gore never had more votes, the Supreme court made sure he would never have.

As for your saying Bush is a good president, you are right in some respects, hes got a very good approval rating and most likely will be back for a second term, so he obviously has won you people over to his side despite the whole election business. As an international statesman however, hes a complete and utter failure, hes probably done more to damage US international relations than any other US president, at a time when you need all the help you can get. And you have to admit, he does come out with some pretty stupid things.

Edited February 24, 2003 by Gank

Gank · February 24, 2003

P.S. I was a little behind on reading all this and gank almost all the wars we were in we had minimal help from other countries or we went to other countries aid. and since weve been around we saved a lot of peoples asses and i think that we deserve a little help from those countries now. even if the whole thing is a cover up for oil saddam has a lot of shit to kill a lot of people including his own illegaly.

Saving someone from dying does not give you the right to kill somebody else. If the UN decideds that is worth the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis and most likely a large amount of soldiers plus the monetary cost of war to remove saddam from power then you will most likely get the support you want. Dont expect countrys to send their men off to die to line some fat boys pockets though. As for Saddam having a lot of shit, the weapons inspectors seem to think differently and whos more qualified to say, you or them?

ElvisMiggell · February 25, 2003

Coupla questions:

1: What is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? From where i'm sitting they look pretty much the same.

2: Bush authorized this list of assasination didn't he? Can i make a suggestion, maybe putting Saddam at the top of the list. If America were to quietly take him out we might just find that after a few more assasinations, various terrorist leaders will realise that they are no longer safe. During the military operation in Afghanistan, according to the free press Osama was never under any particular direct threat.

3: It seems to me that though he may have taken a while to get there, Bush has walked into this in such a way that he has no way to back down now. Is this in your opinions correct?

4: As i understand it, the three main candidates that have popular support in Iraq are all strongly anti-US. Will the US support their election seeing as they are what the people of Iraq want? Or do you think we are more likely to see a long term hand in this on the part of the UN, and those opposition might be casualties of war? I'm not suggesting corruption, just assesing the likelihood of 'convenience'.

Gank · February 25, 2003

My take:

1. Dunno dont really care

2. Because if they just killed Saddam somebody else in Iraq would replace him, and as you pointed out, nobody with any credibilty there is too friendly with the US.

3. There is always a way to back down, but given that hes already moved 200,000 troops into the area it seems unlikely he will regardless of what Saddam or the UN do. It was decided long ago to invade Iraq, all this is with the UN is Bush trying not to break international law.

4. If you follow the link at the top of the page you'll see what the US plans for Iraq are, US military governer with most of Saddams regime intact. So its safe to say the opposition arent going to have much say if any.

ElvisMiggell · February 25, 2003

But they can't keep a 'governer' for ever can they.... and is it me or does that sound an awful lot like a short term dictatorship? Please put me right on this because i'm sure that's not what it is.

Gank · February 25, 2003

From what I've read it seems the country will be ruled indefinetly by a military governer, either Tommy Franks or Jay Garner. Apparently the US doesn't want to govern the country, but they're going to anyways. And a military governer is no new thing to Iraq, nearly all the countrys in that area had military governers last century.

The Guardian website has a ball of articles on iraq, heres 2 I found interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902794,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902366,00.html

ElvisMiggell · February 26, 2003

And what do the other countries think about this? Has Blair backed them on this point? Shouldn't it be someone from the UN who acts as the governer, and for a short term period after which an election will be held. The Iraqi's deserve self-determination just like any other country in the world don't they?

Jahled · February 27, 2003

America's true plans for Iraq:

http://thegravy-train.20m.com/mouse_saddam.jpg

ElvisMiggell · February 28, 2003

Is that the Mickey from EuroDisney or from the US Disneyworld? It makes all the difference.

Jahled · February 28, 2003

Emm..I don't know...my immediate thoughts were Micky Mouse is going to turn Bagdad into a giant Arabian Nights themed disney park.

ElvisMiggell · February 28, 2003

Aha!!! So. It IS all about the money then!!!! Dinsey are behind the conspiracy!

Jahled · February 28, 2003

Elvis, honestly man, you can be so naive! I thought it was common diplomatic knowledge that Micky Mouse is the prime mover in this whole affair.

ElvisMiggell · February 28, 2003

Ah. My bad, there was me thinking it was a Blairing Bush in the wilderness telling Saddam what to do....... how many of you got that i wonder????

ElvisMiggell · February 28, 2003

Ah. My bad, there was me thinking it was a Blairing Bush in the wilderness telling Saddam what to do....... how many of you got that i wonder????

Jahled · March 4, 2003

Aghaa! It was obvious all along!

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QwCzBEAUubAn8AZcvhTYiPQytYwpMzWytIVUIiItCAfekjd5vIoLpm6nsxMSlyla5isqOQ5HC7SNivC2qxz78mqLJrUbFl1FeRsWXjiRsK8/al-ked-cnn.jpg?dc=4675412096681808893

ElvisMiggell · March 5, 2003

It's all clear now!!!

Jahled · March 5, 2003

This made me laugh:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/thehype/saddam_dance.gif

the_mask · March 5, 2003

Heeeeeey Macarena

You sure it's Mickey ? I thought it might be Uncle Scrooge

Sign In

Terrorists Threats

terrorists treats 10 members have voted

1. terrorists treats

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Disclaimer

Network Policies

Footer title

Footer title

terrorists treats
10 members have voted