View Full Version : Does anyone believe that Cheney is right?
Just interested to know what other people think of the premise that Cheney is espousing here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terrorists-have-ambitions-of-empire-says-cheney/2007/02/23/1171734021090.html
Tchocky
02-24-07, 03:16 AM
Earlier Mr Rudd said among the protesters against Mr Cheney he had seen in television footage were "a bunch of violent ferals, and they should expect absolutely no sympathy from the police".
Don't tell me he got elected :nope:
As regards Cheney's remarks, it's immateriel. He's got a terrible record for prophecy, and his recollection of the past isnt too sharp either (see the Wolf Blitzer interview for more). If the terrorists want an empire, fine. The problem with this statement (and your poll) is that there isnt one group called The Terrorists. A lot of the fighting in Iraq is between rival illegal factions. Afghanistan may be different, but aren't we always being told that Iraq is a 'central front"? Cheney should know better and quit shooting his mouth off.
Earlier Mr Rudd said among the protesters against Mr Cheney he had seen in television footage were "a bunch of violent ferals, and they should expect absolutely no sympathy from the police".
Don't tell me he got elected :nope:
Who Rudd or Cheney?
Rudd is now the leader of the opposition here in Australia, Howard is still Prime Minister.
Gotta agree on Cheney's prophesising. not much or a record and if he's following "intelligence" reports again, let's not talk about where that got us...:nope:
Tchocky
02-24-07, 03:32 AM
Rudd, thats f*cking ridiculous. The leader of Autralia's opposition making such statements. I hope newspapers & TV are ripping him a new one :)
I think Cheney's following his own intelligence reports :p
Sounds like someone is trying to turn the War on Terror into a Star Wars spinoff. The terrorists have had their "Empire" to fight for years, the Americans can't be too far behind on imagination, can they? :hmm:
Ah, the good old construction of the evil empire. Yankees miss the Soviet one, do they?
The media loves Rudd at the moment because he is leading in the polls.
Also at the moment anything that is anti-Iraq war is being lapped up here as there is a strong feeling that we should pull out. So go figure.
Cheney intelligence? Is that the same anachronism as military intelligence?:rotfl:
I look forward to Avon Ladys reply in this thread.
I look forward to Avon Ladys reply in this thread.
Jihadwatch links ahoy! :p
Seriously though, I think this is a badly worded idea. While I think both terrorism and an aggressive spread of Muslim conservative culture in the west are problems and even threats, I think it's at best paranoid and at worst manipulative to produce something that far-fetched.
It is certainly a polarising concept, hence the binary poll. But that's politics for you particularly the politics of religious fanaticism on both sides of the argument.
I look forward to Avon Ladys reply in this thread.
Jihadwatch links ahoy! :p
Seriously though, I think this is a badly worded idea. While I think both terrorism and an aggressive spread of Muslim conservative culture in the west are problems and even threats, I think it's at best paranoid and at worst manipulative to produce something that far-fetched.
How so? A world where Islam rules over all is a goal that has often been mentioned by various terrorist potentates from bin Laden on down. If it's a threat as you say then why is Cheney so wrong here? Is it the message or is it because it's Cheney thats saying it?
Tchocky
02-24-07, 04:36 AM
Well, for a start Cheney is simplfying a very complex issue. Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups don't have caucuses, many fight amongst themselves. Labeling them terrorists doesn't help either. It's correct,but not exclusive. Terror is a tactic, after all. "Shock & Awe", anyone?
And, he's misrepresenting a current event. No-one is fighting a Caliphaste stretching across the globe, it's a messy, dirty war in dusty streets and mountains.
Yes!... I believe if they are allowed to they will have an Empire here on this planet...
They will not be able to move any further, because a religion that uses death to gain paradise can not stand any test of itself or will it allow for technical research beyooond killing infedels or anyone that doesn't believe as they believe.
So ...yes, if WE allow it they will have thier Empire.
:sunny: :sunny:
baggygreen
02-24-07, 06:39 AM
ccip.. farfetched as it may seem, when I was back at school I used to have a good mate who was sent with his father to Indonesia to work as an attache, focussing on education. His old man spent a lot of time touring schools, reviewing their syllabussessssssseseesessss, and in each and every single religious school, every geography text that he came across labelled northern australia (draw a line due west from brisbane) as southern indonesia.
And this was being taught to an entire generation of kids who went to these schools with a religious base - and that was only 10 years ago. What is worrying is these schools were generally the altternative educational option for those of lesser means, which lets face it, is the majority in indonesia. It was this which persuaded me to major in Indonesian, too.
So, lets summarise and paraphrase to this point - In the largest muslim country in the world, almost an entire generation of kids were brought up in religious schools in which it was taught that non-believers were occupying islamic lands, and taught that this must stop! Very very worrying.
Furthermore, some people might recall a while ago i posted in a large, long-since locked (i think?) thread about the distinct possibility of Iran and iraq becoming one great nation were foreign forces to leave. Sitting aside both sides of the worlds big oil route, they would hold considerable power - not to mention dwarf the other gulf states, who would be threatened into submission - suddenly you've got the gulf under the complete control of a select few rulers.... pretty close to a caliphate if you ask me! from there it is only a couple of steps to the east to link up with Indonesia, and look at that you've got a nation spanning half the world, controlling resources and holding a lot of political sway.
That, unfortunately, is a lot more likely than people may like to think!:o
Baggygreen, If what you say is true, then it's very worrying indeed. But as far as Muslims go, most indonesians are fairly liberal and hardly religious. Of course there have been extemeist groups. I'd like to confirm this with an Indonesian, interesting.
As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.
baggygreen
02-24-07, 07:04 AM
I know several indonesians, alas they are somewhat more fortunate of birth and were sent to private centres of learning... more politically correct ones, shall we say. I do intend on travelling there in the near future, which would be a good opportunity to find out for myself if this story is true or not. But like you said, worrying if true!
Good comparison between cheney and mccarthy, too. Nice link, wish id noticed it!
Well, for a start Cheney is simplfying a very complex issue. Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups don't have caucuses, many fight amongst themselves. Labeling them terrorists doesn't help either. It's correct,but not exclusive. Terror is a tactic, after all. "Shock & Awe", anyone?
And, he's misrepresenting a current event. No-one is fighting a Caliphaste stretching across the globe, it's a messy, dirty war in dusty streets and mountains.
Said mountains and dusty streets stretching from New York City to night clubs in Bali.
As for shock and awe. Perhaps its a faulty memory, I am getting old after all, but what part of shock and awe involved sawing the heads off a civilian hostages on camera? What part involved hijacking civilian airliners full of innocent civilians and flying them into buildings full of other innocent civilians? What part involved detonating bombs specifically targeted against civilians in crowded market places or London subways? Can you not see the difference?
As Baggygreen mentions there are entire generations of children being brought up with the concept that you Aussies are squatters on their land and that non muslims everywhere deserve either death or slavery if they refuse to submit to Islam.
If you want to reject Cheneys message because of who he is, then that's your business, but I firmly believe that unless we stand together against it now, our children and their children will inherit this problem, and by then it will have grown to the point they may not be able to stand against it.
geetrue
02-24-07, 11:37 AM
Somebody said ... "I'll be glad when the Avon Lady responds to this question"
Here's Avon Lady's reply:
Blah, blah, link ... blah, blah, but I still love her ... it's all those links I've had to read you know ... In fact I probably would've voted for her .... Maybe next time.
My view on Cheney however is this: He's a good vice president ... He's cool, he could take over and run the country the way it was intended to be run by the desire's of the people for the people represented by it's elected offical's.
That's the system set up in American, we complain about it, we live by it, we have elected good offical's and we have elected bad offical's, but we the people can correct the situation, not the news media, not the newspapers, not the editor's, but we the people.
Remember this debate is not about President Bush (whom I love) ... but about a man that he chose to be his friend and advisor. A man to stand in the wings and take over in case of any number of things that can happen to a President.
Mr. Cheney is better at debating than anyone on this forum ... that new lady democrat in charge of the Congress, (the U.S. Congress is just a bunch of rule makers or rule changing committe's that in our country put things in bills to beneifit their congressional district, it's the Senate where real earth moving decisions are made)
Anyway she put Vice President Cheney down really bad and he just side stepped it and didn't sling back. He was the Secretary of Defense for Desert Storm and that was a war for the record books ... we won't get into who's decision it was to leave off and stand down.
I have to go do some chores now, but I just hope and pray that President Bush doesn't need Mr. Cheney to be his LBJ ...
I would play poker anyday with Vice President Cheney and know it would be a challenging game.
The Avon Lady
02-24-07, 12:27 PM
I look forward to Avon Ladys reply in this thread.
No JW links needed. Cheney's right on the mark. The Muslims have been teaching it for 1400 years and not being shy about saying it loud and clear recently.
Well, I can't resist. Just the most recent example: Muslim Council of Britain's Shari'a Plan (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24548_Muslim_Council_of_Britains_Sharia_Pla n). Sorry it's not a JW link. :roll:
Good luck, Europe. Wake up, America!
The Avon Lady
02-24-07, 12:28 PM
Somebody said ... "I'll be glad when the Avon Lady responds to this question"
Here's Avon Lady's reply:
Blah, blah, link ... blah, blah
Right on the money! :up:
ReallyDedPoet
02-24-07, 01:43 PM
As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.
This:up:
dean_acheson
02-24-07, 01:55 PM
McCarthy wasn't too terrible off, there were Communists in the State Department.
Is it necessary that I blah blah blah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona link?
Now, if we get into that old lefty bugaboo we are going to have posts longer than those that I get from H-Diplo!
As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.The neoconservatives are building an empire as well as enriching their good friends in the military businesses. Militarism and expansionism cannot be upheld without popular public support. The easiest way to get this support is to convince the citizens that they are constantly under the threat of attack by some powerful enemy. Having a pretext for offensively using military force is necessary. In the past, feigning an attack by the enemy provided this pretext. And now we have a pretext of preemptive war. With these simple tools, you can justify attacking anyone anywhere. You can have wars of aggression that are perceived by the local populace at home as self-defense. It is a very common, yet surprisingly, unknown method of manipulation. The Germans used it with great effect before and during World War II. They believe themselves acting in self-defense. But of course Hitler and the leaders see exactly what they're doing.
For example, see this following article written by Joseph Goebbels at the end of 1939, after Germany invaded Poland and the war was going well. It claims Germany is innocent and merely acted in self-defense, even though now we know that they pursued a ruthless war of expansion. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb21.htm
waste gate
02-24-07, 02:31 PM
Baggygreen, If what you say is true, then it's very worrying indeed. But as far as Muslims go, most indonesians are fairly liberal and hardly religious. Of course there have been extemeist groups. I'd like to confirm this with an Indonesian, interesting.
As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.
Most of what comes out of gov't these days is designed to scare the populace. That is how they justify their existance and growth. The strategy of the nanny state. Its a lie, but tell the lie long enough and people start to believe it.
waste gate
02-24-07, 02:33 PM
As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.The neoconservatives are building an empire as well as enriching their good friends in the military businesses. Militarism and expansionism cannot be upheld without popular public support. The easiest way to get this support is to convince the citizens that they are constantly under the threat of attack by some powerful enemy. Having a pretext for offensively using military force is necessary. In the past, feigning an attack by the enemy provided this pretext. And now we have a pretext of preemptive war. With these simple tools, you can justify attacking anyone anywhere. You can have wars of aggression that are perceived by the local populace at home as self-defense. It is a very common, yet surprisingly, unknown method of manipulation. The Germans used it with great effect before and during World War II. They believe themselves acting in self-defense. But of course Hitler and the leaders see exactly what they're doing.
For example, see this following article written by Joseph Goebbels at the end of 1939, after Germany invaded Poland and the war was going well. It claims Germany is innocent and merely acted in self-defense, even though now we know that they pursued a ruthless war of expansion. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb21.htm
I'm not trying to hijack the thread but the entire global warming issue is also intended scare everyone into more government.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread but the entire global warming issue is also intended scare everyone into more government.Really? I have tried to see why anyone would have any motivation for promoting the idea of global warming except genuine care for the climate. It is a very easy to see why industry and the nationstate would disapprove of the idea, due to it conflicting with their interests. Can you quickly explain what you mean?
geetrue
02-24-07, 02:42 PM
Most of what comes out of gov't these days is designed to scare the populace. That is how they justify their existance and growth. The strategy of the nanny state. Its a lie, but tell the lie long enough and people start to believe it.
By "these days" you mean twenty-one (21) months before the election that over one billion dollars is going to be spent on to tell us how bad the other side is and that is why the party saying the other side is bad should be the party in charge.
In other words, politics ...
Merriam-Webster said it best:
(the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government)
waste gate
02-24-07, 02:54 PM
Most of what comes out of gov't these days is designed to scare the populace. That is how they justify their existance and growth. The strategy of the nanny state. Its a lie, but tell the lie long enough and people start to believe it.
By "these days" you mean twenty-one (21) months before the election that over one billion dollars is going to be spent on to tell us how bad the other side is and that is why the party saying the other side is bad should be the party in charge.
In other words, politics ...
Merriam-Webster said it best:
(the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government)
No. In the last number of years since September 11, 2001. Even the weather channel contributes to the fear mongering with their it could happen tomorrow series. Seems like everyone is preying on peoples anxiety, and we, collectively allow it.
Seems there is a lot of money and gov't in fear.
loynokid
02-24-07, 05:29 PM
Terrorists will create an "empire" here if we don't stop them, and also really i am not so concerned about them taking over the world, but more for my own safety. I support the war on terror because i don't want me or my future children to be blown to blown up by a bunch of muslim jihadist terrorists. Terrorists want to wipe jews and anyone who supports them off the face of the earth. We fought them in Afganistan and Iraq so, if they had the chance they would wipe US of the face of the earth.
Terrorists will create an "empire" here if we don't stop them, and also really i am not so concerned about them taking over the world, but more for my own safety. I support the war on terror because i don't want me or my future children to be blown to blown up by a bunch of muslim jihadist terrorists. Terrorists want to wipe jews and anyone who supports them off the face of the earth. We fought them in Afganistan and Iraq so, if they had the chance they would wipe US of the face of the earth.
What do you think about different ways of stopping terrorism? And can you tell me which ones you prefer, and why?
loynokid
02-24-07, 05:45 PM
Terrorists will create an "empire" here if we don't stop them, and also really i am not so concerned about them taking over the world, but more for my own safety. I support the war on terror because i don't want me or my future children to be blown to blown up by a bunch of muslim jihadist terrorists. Terrorists want to wipe jews and anyone who supports them off the face of the earth. We fought them in Afganistan and Iraq so, if they had the chance they would wipe US of the face of the earth.
What do you think about different ways of stopping terrorism? And can you tell me which ones you prefer, and why?
I think that the front on the war against terror should not be fought in US, I would much prefer that it is fought were the terrorists live, primarily in the mid east. I like the idea of just blowing down the door and bombing and invading the crap out of them, as in the Iraq invasion. You have to be careful though, because you want to keep a limit on civilian casuallties. I also realize that a lot of Iraqis are very p**sed of right now, I mean i would be very angry if a foreign country just decided to invade the US. Also, we weren't provocitive going into Iraq. If anyone thinks we were, then they need to google 9/11. Also we need to beef up security inside the states, which we have done since 9/11. I really am not a strategist or anything, those are just a few ideas of mine. :know: ;)
So, lets summarise and paraphrase to this point - In the largest muslim country in the world, almost an entire generation of kids were brought up in religious schools in which it was taught that non-believers were occupying islamic lands, and taught that this must stop! Very very worrying. Information like this being passed on by word-of-mouth has every chance of being distorted or exaggerated. I think we should try to find some credible sources on the things that you talk about. And then discuss consequences and how to deal with it.
ASWnut101
02-24-07, 05:47 PM
Such as?
Terrorists will create an "empire" here if we don't stop them, and also really i am not so concerned about them taking over the world, but more for my own safety. I support the war on terror because i don't want me or my future children to be blown to blown up by a bunch of muslim jihadist terrorists. Terrorists want to wipe jews and anyone who supports them off the face of the earth. We fought them in Afganistan and Iraq so, if they had the chance they would wipe US of the face of the earth.
What do you think about different ways of stopping terrorism? And can you tell me which ones you prefer, and why?
I think that the front on the war against terror should not be fought in US, I would much prefer that it is fought were the terrorists live, primarily in the mid east. I like the idea of just blowing down the door and bombing and invading the crap out of them, as in the Iraq invasion. You have to be careful though, because you want to keep a limit on civilian casuallties. I also realize that a lot of Iraqis are very p**sed of right now, I mean i would be very angry if a foreign country just decided to invade the US. Also, we weren't provocitive going into Iraq. If anyone thinks we were, then they need to google 9/11. Also we need to beef up security inside the states, which we have done since 9/11. I really am not a strategist or anything, those are just a few ideas of mine. :know: ;)
lol, Saddam wasn't harbouring terrorists like the taliban was. Iraq was some crap about WMDs no-one was really sure of. If anything Saddam stabilised the middle east, kept the muslim factions in Iraq from fighting each other. The extremists hated him. The war in iraq has worsened the war on terror.
I think that the front on the war against terror should not be fought in US, I would much prefer that it is fought were the terrorists live, primarily in the mid east. I like the idea of just blowing down the door and bombing and invading the crap out of them, as in the Iraq invasion. You have to be careful though, because you want to keep a limit on civilian casuallties. What if civilians being killed by American occupational forces as well as suffering all the negative consequences of warfare (smashed economy etc) is what motivates these people into fighting the occupational forces, and maybe even becoming international terrorists. Meaning that the more brutal the methods, the more terrorists are recruited. Then what should we do about it?
Also, we weren't provocitive going into Iraq. If anyone thinks we were, then they need to google 9/11. No one outside of USA believes that there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Bush himself even said so, which really pissed of some people who supported the invasion.
Also, we weren't provocitive going into Iraq. If anyone thinks we were, then they need to google 9/11. No one outside of USA believes that there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Bush himself even said so, which really pissed of some people who supported the invasion.
Exactly. The war in Iraq wasn't even part of the "war on terror" when it started, but with tht insurgency it's now become a recruiting ground for terrorists. Pretty big mess if you ask me.
Tchocky
02-24-07, 07:10 PM
As for shock and awe. Perhaps its a faulty memory, I am getting old after all, but what part of shock and awe involved sawing the heads off a civilian hostages on camera? What part involved hijacking civilian airliners full of innocent civilians and flying them into buildings full of other innocent civilians? What part involved detonating bombs specifically targeted against civilians in crowded market places or London subways? Can you not see the difference? Really, I thought that was all the US's doing? I remember the headline "US Special Forces bomb trains in London", my memory must be going. Because that's what I was getting at in my post :roll:
Oh yes, I can see the differences. But a military operation intended to provoke fear and terror in a civilian population and it's military, in order to acheive an ideological goal, could be described as a terrorist tactic. Cheney saying that "terrorists want an empire" is ridiculous. Certain groups that practise terror certainly do, but not every terrorist is a Muslim, not every teerrorist is from Asia, not every terrorist wants an empire. He's oversimplifying, and that's dangerous. I thought I'd said as much.
As Baggygreen mentions there are entire generations of children being brought up with the concept that you Aussies are squatters on their land and that non muslims everywhere deserve either death or slavery if they refuse to submit to Islam. i'm not Australian. nothing against them, i'm just.....not :)
If you want to reject Cheneys message because of who he is, then that's your business Was that what I was doing, I though I was pointing out a flaw in his message. At least in that post. Overall, I think the man's an eejit :P
baggygreen
02-24-07, 07:54 PM
So, lets summarise and paraphrase to this point - In the largest muslim country in the world, almost an entire generation of kids were brought up in religious schools in which it was taught that non-believers were occupying islamic lands, and taught that this must stop! Very very worrying. Information like this being passed on by word-of-mouth has every chance of being distorted or exaggerated. I think we should try to find some credible sources on the things that you talk about. And then discuss consequences and how to deal with it.What.... like wiki??:roll:
This is something i was told directly from a person who observed it. As far as exaggeration goes, there cant be very much when there is only one person in the chinese whispers chain! But like i proceeded to say in response to Boris, i intend on heading over there shortly an d hopefully shall find out for sure!
Really, I thought that was all the US's doing? I remember the headline "US Special Forces bomb trains in London", my memory must be going. Because that's what I was getting at in my post :roll:
Weren't you the one who complained in the gun thread of people cutting off your quotes? :roll: Perhaps you should actually explain what you mean next time then instead of just comparing the US military to those murderers.
Oh yes, I can see the differences. But a military operation intended to provoke fear and terror in a civilian population and it's military, in order to acheive an ideological goal, could be described as a terrorist tactic.
Maybe so, but you can claim just about anything is a terrorist tactic including refusing to donate money to their causes like we were accused of when we cut off monetary aid to the Hamas government. But there is a vast difference between an action designed to keep peoples heads down and minimize civilian casualties and one that deliberately targets civilians in order to maximize their casualties, so your comparison is invalid.
Cheney saying that "terrorists want an empire" is ridiculous. Certain groups that practise terror certainly do, but not every terrorist is a Muslim, not every teerrorist is from Asia, not every terrorist wants an empire. He's oversimplifying, and that's dangerous. I thought I'd said as much.
We're not at war with every terrorist group in the world. For example, you don't see the US Army going in to dig the ETA out of the Pyrenees do you? Oops sorry that was a bit sarcastic, but you get my drift.
i'm not Australian. nothing against them, i'm just.....not :)
My apologies, I got you mixed up with Tarjak. Must be the similarity of names and positions. The point remains however. Wherever the hell the "ruins of Europe" are they are no more safe from radical muslim dreams of world domination than anywhere else.
Was that what I was doing, I though I was pointing out a flaw in his message. At least in that post. Overall, I think the man's an eejit :P
Too bad you weren't our Vice President, your superior intellect would set us straight eh? :lol: The terrorists that we're at war with, namely Al Quaeda, are indeed dreaming of a world wide caliphiate. Now I seriously doubt that you have achieved a quarter of the successes that he has in his life so forgive me if I have to :roll: at you for calling him an "eejit".
waste gate
02-24-07, 08:06 PM
I'm not trying to hijack the thread but the entire global warming issue is also intended scare everyone into more government.Really? I have tried to see why anyone would have any motivation for promoting the idea of global warming except genuine care for the climate. It is a very easy to see why industry and the nationstate would disapprove of the idea, due to it conflicting with their interests. Can you quickly explain what you mean?
I guess you missed the piece about the French gov't (only the first) to charge nations a sur charge for goods not manufactured under the Kyoto Proticall.
Where do you think that money will go? What about nations buying credits for their inabilitay to meet their respective obligations under Kyoto? Again where do you think that money is going?
I hate to break your bubble but the whole global warming issue has nothing to do with concern for the climate. Its about the money!!
So, lets summarise and paraphrase to this point - In the largest muslim country in the world, almost an entire generation of kids were brought up in religious schools in which it was taught that non-believers were occupying islamic lands, and taught that this must stop! Very very worrying. Information like this being passed on by word-of-mouth has every chance of being distorted or exaggerated. I think we should try to find some credible sources on the things that you talk about. And then discuss consequences and how to deal with it.What.... like wiki??:roll:
This is something i was told directly from a person who observed it. As far as exaggeration goes, there cant be very much when there is only one person in the chinese whispers chain! But like i proceeded to say in response to Boris, i intend on heading over there shortly an d hopefully shall find out for sure!Wikipedia material is good enough, as long as it cites its sources in turn.
Well, from our perspective, a man-made observations from where he made a conclusion, that he passed on to his son,who passed it on to his classmate who passed it on to some people in a forum.
Where are you headed, Indonesia or Wikipedia? :lol:
geetrue
02-24-07, 08:26 PM
What the terroist want is included for anyone that wants to listen to Bin Laden and his second in command's long drawn out audio and video tapes or the transcripts of same. I would rather read Skybird's long drawn out explanations of Islam's view of democracy than do that (just a pun Skybird).
I bet the President and the vice President are the same way and trust the organized CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Defense for the contents of these tapes.
If we don't listen they just blow up something and make us listen. If terroism isn't trying to take over the world ...
then when is it going to go away?
All of a sudden one day your grandchildren are going to say, "Grandpa, what's terroism?"
I don't think so ... :nope:
I guess you missed the piece about the French gov't (only the first) to charge nations a sur charge for goods not manufactured under the Kyoto Proticall.
Where do you think that money will go? What about nations buying credits for their inabilitay to meet their respective obligations under Kyoto? Again where do you think that money is going?
I hate to break your bubble but the whole global warming issue has nothing to do with concern for the climate. Its about the money!!
The theory does not stand. The countries who pay for not being able to keep their quotas down don't benefit at all. And any other country that could collect these so called taxes has to pay a fortune in the ways of a noticeably hampered economy, meaning less profits meaning less tax income to the state and everything involving transportation being more expensive, which is basically everything. They don't benefit at all.
Moreover, the majority of the science community being involved in a conspiracy to strengthen the power of the state?
What the terroist want is included for anyone that wants to listen to Bin Laden and his second in command's long drawn out audio and video tapes or the transcripts of same. I would rather read Skybird's long drawn out explanations of Islam's view of democracy than do that (just a pun Skybird).
I bet the President and the vice President are the same way and trust the organized CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Defense for the contents of these tapes.
If we don't listen they just blow up something and make us listen. If terroism isn't trying to take over the world ...
then when is it going to go away?
All of a sudden one day your grandchildren are going to say, "Grandpa, what's terroism?"
I don't think so ... :nope:
lsn't Al Qaeda's long-standing main goal to throw foreign military powers out of the middle east? Not world domination
Yes!... I believe if they are allowed to they will have an Empire here on this planet...
They will not be able to move any further, because a religion that uses death to gain paradise can not stand any test of itself or will it allow for technical research beyooond killing infedels or anyone that doesn't believe as they believe.
So ...yes, if WE allow it they will have thier Empire.
Just how would they go about creating this empire, for example in Europe?
What do you mean by allowing them to do so? What exactly does it mean to not allow it?
ASWnut101
02-24-07, 08:40 PM
Yes!... I believe if they are allowed to they will have an Empire here on this planet...
They will not be able to move any further, because a religion that uses death to gain paradise can not stand any test of itself or will it allow for technical research beyooond killing infedels or anyone that doesn't believe as they believe.
So ...yes, if WE allow it they will have thier Empire.
Just how would they go about creating this empire, for example in Europe?
What do you mean by allowing them to do so? What exactly does it mean to not allow it?
Look at France or the UK.:yep:
Yes!... I believe if they are allowed to they will have an Empire here on this planet...
They will not be able to move any further, because a religion that uses death to gain paradise can not stand any test of itself or will it allow for technical research beyooond killing infedels or anyone that doesn't believe as they believe.
So ...yes, if WE allow it they will have thier Empire.
Just how would they go about creating this empire, for example in Europe?
What do you mean by allowing them to do so? What exactly does it mean to not allow it?
Look at France or the UK.:yep:you're joking, I presume?:D
ASWnut101
02-24-07, 08:44 PM
Maby? Maby not? That is the question...:cool: :|\\
waste gate
02-24-07, 08:46 PM
Yes!... I believe if they are allowed to they will have an Empire here on this planet...
They will not be able to move any further, because a religion that uses death to gain paradise can not stand any test of itself or will it allow for technical research beyooond killing infedels or anyone that doesn't believe as they believe.
So ...yes, if WE allow it they will have thier Empire.
Just how would they go about creating this empire, for example in Europe?
What do you mean by allowing them to do so? What exactly does it mean to not allow it?
Look at France or the UK.:yep:you're joking, I presume?:D
Islam as the government has been in Europe before. It is not that big of a stretch, given the policies of France, the UK and Spain not to see it happen again.
You're referring to the Moors? They were an organised conventional military fighting force and fought conventional battles for control of territory.
Mate, even if thats true... it's a massive stretch if I ever saw one. You're talking about immigration policies?
geetrue
02-24-07, 08:55 PM
Islam as the government has been in Europe before. It is not that big of a stretch, given the policies of France, the UK and Spain not to see it happen again.
That's silly waste gate ... the only way that can happen is to get on the ballot for the voters to decide ... whoops! :o
waste gate
02-24-07, 09:30 PM
Islam as the government has been in Europe before. It is not that big of a stretch, given the policies of France, the UK and Spain not to see it happen again.
That's silly waste gate ... the only way that can happen is to get on the ballot for the voters to decide ... whoops! :o
Seems that the Spanish voted to appease. The French are appeasers by nature so long as they get their wine a cheese. Even the UK'ers would agree that muslims have more rights than the Englishman. With the populations in these countries muslims will rule under sahara law soon enough.
A wake up call my friend geetrue. It matters not to me that you become a subserviant in your own nation. I will fight to tell the truth and keep my country free from the tyranny which is islam.
I think that the front on the war against terror should not be fought in US, I would much prefer that it is fought were the terrorists live, primarily in the mid east. I like the idea of just blowing down the door and bombing and invading the crap out of them, as in the Iraq invasion. You have to be careful though, because you want to keep a limit on civilian casuallties. I also realize that a lot of Iraqis are very p**sed of right now, I mean i would be very angry if a foreign country just decided to invade the US. Also, we weren't provocitive going into Iraq. If anyone thinks we were, then they need to google 9/11. Also we need to beef up security inside the states, which we have done since 9/11. I really am not a strategist or anything, those are just a few ideas of mine. :know: ;)
Ask Britain or indonesia where the terrorist live! If you think they aren't already in the continental US you are mistaken. Where were the guys who did 9/11 living for months before they hit?
Tchocky
02-24-07, 10:49 PM
Perhaps you should actually explain what you mean next time then instead of just comparing the US military to those murderers. Im irked by Cheney's use of "The terrorists", and his over-simplifications. It's really linguistics and semantics, but these are the things that make me mad :)
Cheney saying that "terrorists want an empire" is ridiculous. Certain groups that practise terror certainly do, but not every terrorist is a Muslim, not every teerrorist is from Asia, not every terrorist wants an empire. He's oversimplifying, and that's dangerous. I thought I'd said as much.
We're not at war with every terrorist group in the world. For example, you don't see the US Army going in to dig the ETA out of the Pyrenees do you? Oops sorry that was a bit sarcastic, but you get my drift. Yep, i get you. And you're proving my point. The US isn't at war with every terrorist, so saying "terrorists want an empire" is an over-simplification, turning a complex issue into a B-Movie.
My apologies, I got you mixed up with Tarjak. Must be the similarity of names and positions. The point remains however. Wherever the hell the "ruins of Europe" are they are no more safe from radical muslim dreams of world domination than anywhere else. It's a literary reference :). I'm Irish, living in New England for a while. I don't mind if I'm not safe from "dreams of world domination", it's the actions that worry me
Too bad you weren't our Vice President, your superior intellect would set us straight eh? :lol: The terrorists that we're at war with, namely Al Quaeda, are indeed dreaming of a world wide caliphiate. Now I seriously doubt that you have achieved a quarter of the successes that he has in his life so forgive me if I have to :roll: at you for calling him an "eejit". Oh come on, aren't citizens encouraged to criticise their leaders? (OK, so I'm a citizen of the wrong country.....details, details :p)
And why couldnt he have put it the way you just did? A fair representation of the forces involved, not too hard.
....don't mind me, I'm a frustrated linguist
Dick Cheney is just doing what he usually does, saying stuff to pander to the Republican base or spreading fear through the American public. As far as what he said goes, either the terrorists are fooling themselves or Cheney, because the idea of those moronic nutjobs running an empire, let alone creating one is laughable.
Tchocky
02-24-07, 10:56 PM
I think that the front on the war against terror should not be fought in US, I would much prefer that it is fought were the terrorists live, primarily in the mid east. I like the idea of just blowing down the door and bombing and invading the crap out of them, as in the Iraq invasion. You have to be careful though, because you want to keep a limit on civilian casuallties.
Something I read today (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html), rather disturbing regarding casualties.
I also realize that a lot of Iraqis are very p**sed of right now, I mean i would be very angry if a foreign country just decided to invade the US. Also, we weren't provocitive going into Iraq. If anyone thinks we were, then they need to google 9/11. Also we need to beef up security inside the states, which we have done since 9/11. I really am not a strategist or anything, those are just a few ideas of mine. :know: ;)
Especially if they were reacting (as you claim) to an attack on their country.
An attack that was planned in Mexico, with most of the attackers and funding coming from Canada.
waste gate
02-24-07, 10:58 PM
Oh come on, aren't citizens encouraged to criticise their leaders? (OK, so I'm a citizen of the wrong country.....details, details :p)
Not a small detail in my mind. I encourage you as a citizen of your country to criticize your government with the same enthusiasm as you criticise mine. Since I haven't heard any criticism from you concerning your gov't I can only assume you live in the proverbial paradise. It is always easy to criicise those whose protection you live under.
Tchocky
02-24-07, 11:06 PM
Not a small detail in my mind. I encourage you as a citizen of your country to criticize your government with the same enthusiasm as you criticise mine.When they f*ck up, I do. Just not here, because the thread wouldnt have much of a following, and GT on subsim isn't my only avenue of communication :p. What effect does my nationality have on the validity of my opinions, anyway? I sure as hell didn't choose to be Irish, just like you didnt choose to be American. it has nothing to do with us.Since I haven't heard any criticism from you concerning your gov't I can only assume you live in the proverbial paradise. It's not paradise, but it's close enough in many ways.
Read the headline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4020523.stm)
It is always easy to criicise those whose protection you live under.Indeed it is, and the current government are making things easier.
Edit - You're assuming the characteristics of a nation from what one citizen doesn't post on one messageboard?
waste gate
02-24-07, 11:23 PM
Not a small detail in my mind. I encourage you as a citizen of your country to criticize your government with the same enthusiasm as you criticise mine.When they f*ck up, I do. Just not here, because the thread wouldnt have much of a following, and GT on subsim isn't my only avenue of communication :p. What effect does my nationality have on the validity of my opinions, anyway? I sure as hell didn't choose to be Irish, just like you didnt choose to be American. it has nothing to do with us.Since I haven't heard any criticism from you concerning your gov't I can only assume you live in the proverbial paradise. It's not paradise, but it's close enough in many ways.
Read the headline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4020523.stm)
It is always easy to criicise those whose protection you live under.Indeed it is, and the current government are making things easier.
Edit - You're assuming the characteristics of a nation from what one citizen doesn't post on one messageboard?
I cannot expouse upon the politics of the Emerald Isle but you can. Since we hear no criticism of your gov't I can only assume the grass is greener there.:)
Tchocky
02-24-07, 11:35 PM
I cannot expouse upon the politics of the Emerald Isle but you can. Since we hear no criticism of your gov't I can only assume the grass is greener there.:)
I'm fed up criticising my government. We're heading for an election in May, and it's the same old same old.
I post about American politics because a) it's where I live these days b) it's absolutely fascinating and c) there's more going on at the moment.
Grass may or may not be greener, it's certainly different.
waste gate
02-24-07, 11:47 PM
I cannot expouse upon the politics of the Emerald Isle but you can. Since we hear no criticism of your gov't I can only assume the grass is greener there.:)
I'm fed up criticising my government. We're heading for an election in May, and it's the same old same old.
I post about American politics because a) it's where I live these days b) it's absolutely fascinating and c) there's more going on at the moment.
Grass may or may not be greener, it's certainly different.
The green of the grass was an alusion to the Irish landscape. Your interest in the politics of the US is complimentary but really not the business of those who are not citizens. I for one do not comment on the internal politics of other nations. I will not comment on those issues, regardless how interesting they are.
Perhaps if more folks from other nations would pay more attention to what thier gov'ts were up to the citizens of those countries would be better served.
baggygreen
02-24-07, 11:50 PM
totally true tchocky, about american politics being absolutely fascinating! i wonder if the same was said of the Romans at one point in history, and of the Greeks....:hmm:
Tchocky
02-24-07, 11:57 PM
Your interest in the politics of the US is complimentary but really not the business of those who are not citizens. I for one do not comment on the internal politics of other nations. I will not comment on those issues, regardless how interesting they are.Why not? All I'm doing is posting my opinions on a messageboard, where's the harm in that? I don't really understand your position. If all posters here followed that rule, half of the threeads would dry up. You're voluntarily censoring yourself here, as far as I can see. As regards complimentary, no it isn't. Fascinating may not be positive. For the moment I'd say it is my business, as I am currently residing in the US, and the internal politics over the last 6 years have imposed a direct financial cost on me. Even if it wasn't any of my business, I'd still comment, just like I do on British & European politics. It's a round world last time I checked...
Perhaps if more folks from other nations would pay more attention to what thier gov'ts were up to the citizens of those countries would be better served. That's equally applicable to every country, including the United States.
waste gate
02-25-07, 12:12 AM
So tell us Tchocky why can't catholics and anglicans get along. What is it about the Irish that makes them so hostile to thier fellow countrymen? Do the orange still walk the streets terrorising the opposition. How many bombs have been detonated with loss of life last month? Terrorism is a scourge throughout the world. You have it in your own country and have had it for quite some time. What are you personally doing to stop the murder of inocents.
Tchocky
02-25-07, 12:24 AM
First off, thanks for not answering or acknowledging my questions :-?
So tell us Tchocky why can't catholics and anglicans get along. What is it about the Irish that makes them so hostile to thier fellow countrymen?Do the orange still walk the streets terrorising the opposition. I see it as due to historical factors and institutional violence that thankfully has almost died out. The Orangemen still march, as long as their marching routes are approved by a Parades Commission, made up of community officials. Fellow countrymen? Look at a map. the North is part of the UK.
How many bombs have been detonated with loss of life last month? Terrorism is a scourge throughout the world. You have it in your own country and have had it for quite some time.None. Not a single one. Political terrorism in Ireland is a thing of the past.
The last bombing in the north was in 1998, killing 28 people. The last bombs of the conflict were in london, six years ago. Seven people were injured. The group responsible for those acts are a splinter group, with no public support. The IRA ceasefire of 1994 was made permanent two years ago.
What are you personally doing to stop the murder of inocents.In the North, it has stopped. You'd know that if you had researched your post.
How about a response to my last post?
F*CKING EDIT - "Violent to our fellow countrymen?" - Do you want me to run over to the gun thread and pull out the murder rates? I don't want to go any further off-topic, but I will if you keep posting that sort of rubbish. It's ill-informed stereotyping of the worst kind. Please don't do it in future, and if you must, not in reaction to my posts.
waste gate
02-25-07, 12:30 AM
I don't answer questions to which you already know the answer.
baggygreen
02-25-07, 12:30 AM
Well, as a little side note, i read the other day that the heads of the anglican and catholic churches are meeting shortly to discuss a merger of some sort.. i believe it is a matter of giving anglicans a certain autonomy, but being ultimately answerable to the pope.
I think.
And why couldnt he have put it the way you just did? A fair representation of the forces involved, not too hard.
....don't mind me, I'm a frustrated linguist
No but then again I have the luxury of sitting in the comfort of my own living room taking the time to make my posts as accurate and concise as I can. I guess when everything you say is cut into 30 second sound bites it's easy to appear to be oversimplifying things. Rest assured that Cheney may be an evil capitalist pig guilty of insulting the intelligence of foreign audiences by oversimplifing complex issues in speeches but he's no "eejit".
Besides, context is everything here. Who among us here seriously doesn't know which terrorists he's talking about? FDR was never criticized for not specifying which nazis he meant when he talked about the theat they posed to the free world, nor did Ronald Reagan have to specify which evil empire he was talking about either, so I fail to understand why a mere vice president should be held to a higher standard.
The Avon Lady
02-25-07, 02:06 AM
lsn't Al Qaeda's long-standing main goal to throw foreign military powers out of the middle east? Not world domination
"Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it."
- Osama bin Laden, Letter to America, November, 2002 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)
How quickly we forget - or ignore the details.
And this is not what Al Qaeda alone advocates. It is elementary Islamic code. From Sahih Muslim, Book 19: The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html), no. 4294:
"Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them."
See also Sahih Bukhari (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/), vol. 1, book 2, no. 25.
Both Bukhari and Muslim are the most reputable and accepted collections of ahaddiths among Muslims worldwide.
Peaceful coexistence as equals in a pluralistic society isn't one of Islam's choices. :nope:
EDIT: Once again showing that Cheney is (finally) pointing in the right direction.
Camaero
02-25-07, 02:14 AM
Sometimes I just wish that there were more people in the US half as smart as The Avon Lady.:doh:
Thanks Avon Lady, I'll be reading all that :)
I can't believe this "don't talk about it unless you are a citizen there" stuff mentioned in this topic. Doesn't matter where opinions come from, esp. in international debate forum.
bradclark1
02-25-07, 12:00 PM
Your interest in the politics of the US is complimentary but really not the business of those who are not citizens. I for one do not comment on the internal politics of other nations. I will not comment on those issues, regardless how interesting they are.
:rotfl:
geetrue
02-25-07, 12:12 PM
You know what would be an interesting candidate for sub sim skipper of the month for April?
bradclark1 and waste gate running together as one ... :lol:
Notice how humble they are to both start their names with small letters :smug:
Like that old Tony Curtis movie with that black guy that was chained to him as they tried to make a get away from a prison somewhere down in the south. :yep:
It would be interesting to read their conflicting campaign speech ... :rotfl:
Camaero
02-25-07, 12:18 PM
Wow, all tied up! The battle heats up and the plot thickens! Who will be the tie breaker?
bradclark1
02-25-07, 01:44 PM
Notice how humble they are to both start their names with small letters :smug:
geetrue?
No, I'm not really taking part in this topic. Cheney is right for the wrong reason. He's saying that to backup his favorite sport of fear mongering.
Islam has been after global domination for fourteen thousand years so I'm sure we have a while left yet. Just keep checking birth rates in your country to follow.
waste gate
02-25-07, 01:59 PM
You know what would be an interesting candidate for sub sim skipper of the month for April?
bradclark1 and waste gate running together as one ... :lol:
Notice how humble they are to both start their names with small letters :smug:
Like that old Tony Curtis movie with that black guy that was chained to him as they tried to make a get away from a prison somewhere down in the south. :yep:
It would be interesting to read their conflicting campaign speech ... :rotfl:
The Defiant Ones (1958)
Tony Curtis... John 'Joker' Jackson
Sidney Poitier... Noah Cullen
Edit:
As a side note Theodore Bikel who portrayed the sheriff hunting the pair, also played 'Heinie' Schwaffer the first officer on the U-boat in the film 'Enemy Below'. His opposite number on the destroyer was David Hedison who later portrayed Capt Crane on the TV series 'Voyage to the bottom of the Sea'. Coincidence, I think not. Its a subsim world!!
geetrue
02-25-07, 05:29 PM
Cheney is right for the wrong reason. He's saying that to backup his favorite sport of fear mongering.
Islam has been after global domination for fourteen thousand years so I'm sure we have a while left yet. Just keep checking birth rates in your country to follow.
Okay I'll keep it on topic, but that is their goal to induce everyone to bow down to Islam ... I read (if I have to I'll go get it) (I will) that they had a ceritan percentage of converts going for them when they got all huffy puffy about the cartoon in the Danish papers. That set them back.
They have a plan and they talk it up as if everyone is going to be pro Muslim and see it their way someday.
My vice-president see's more top secret intelligence reports on the subject than we do and don't bring up the fact that his boss was wrong about WMD's ... he's just like a lot of us ... He only wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.
The intelligence they recieve can't be all wrong, now can it?
bradclark1
02-25-07, 07:12 PM
My vice-president see's more top secret intelligence reports on the subject than we do and don't bring up the fact that his boss was wrong about WMD's ... he's just like a lot of us ... He only wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.
He's paid not to be like the rest of us.
The intelligence they recieve can't be all wrong, now can it?
No, but it can be twisted to fit the need of the moment depending on the subject matter.
The Avon Lady
02-26-07, 12:10 AM
The intelligence they recieve can't be all wrong, now can it?
No, but it can be twisted to fit the need of the moment depending on the subject matter.
So, what has Cheney twisted in this report?
Your interest in the politics of the US is complimentary but really not the business of those who are not citizens. I for one do not comment on the internal politics of other nations. I will not comment on those issues, regardless how interesting they are.
Considering this was said to an Australian audience in Australia by an American I reckon at least two counties get to have a crack at what was said!
It's your choice to stay silent and I respect that. Respect my choice to comment about it when it impacts citizens of my country as well as yours.
Aside from all being global citizens commenting on a global issue not a local one, there are Australians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bali and other places that are being impacted by what is being said by this guy. Added to that the fact he was talking to us about it gives us a right to comment by my reckoning.
Camaero
02-26-07, 01:33 AM
Does it really matter if someone outside the country makes a comment on a discussion board discussing this topic?
I do believe some of you may need to see this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106361:hmm:
there are Australians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bali and other places that are being impacted by what is being said by this guy.
Impacted how?
In the same way Americans in these same places are being impacted. It is largely because of what Bush/Cheney have said that our troops are in the first two and that our citizens were killed or injured in Bali.
In the same way Americans in these same places are being impacted. It is largely because of what Bush/Cheney have said that our troops are in the first two and that our citizens were killed or injured in Bali.
Cheney saying something in 2007 caused radical Islamists to blow up Aussies in 2002, right...:roll:
And here I thought Australia sent troops to Afghanistan because of a shared outrage over 9-11, little did I know they have to go to war whenever becuase Bush/Cheney says so...
Not quite sure what TarJak was trying to say, but that Cheney has invented time-travel wasn't it. :doh:
As for Bali... it was one of the biggest catalysts for Australia's involvement in the war on terror.
On Indonesia... it is known that the Indonesian government has had a helping hand in terrorist attacks on it's own soil, as an excuse to pass tougher laws and justify sticter control.
bradclark1
02-26-07, 09:52 AM
Does it really matter if someone outside the country makes a comment on a discussion board discussing this topic?
Not at all. Especially an international board. That specific comment made me :huh: then, :roll: then, :rotfl: then, and maybe a little :88) and a dab of :doh: .
bradclark1
02-26-07, 10:00 AM
The intelligence they recieve can't be all wrong, now can it?
No, but it can be twisted to fit the need of the moment depending on the subject matter.
So, what has Cheney twisted in this report?
Nothing in this report.
geetrue
02-26-07, 11:27 AM
Wow! I like your avatar Boris and the fact that bradclark1 is being humble too ... :p
bradclark1
02-26-07, 12:13 PM
Wow! I like your avatar Boris and the fact that bradclark1 is being humble too ... :p
I'm always humble. It's just that everything I happen to say is always right! Just ask my kids. :)
Just interested to know what other people think of the premise that Cheney is espousing here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terrorists-have-ambitions-of-empire-says-cheney/2007/02/23/1171734021090.html
I thought is was Cheney and his neocons who wanted a empire? :hmm:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf
Sometimes I just wish that there were more people in the US half as smart as The Avon Lady.:doh:
:up: ... or Skybird.
man I weary of the beating the US Administration dog to death lol... please continue and pass the popcorn. --->
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.