open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Wikileaks - US embassy cables database
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Bodrul
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.30 11:04:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre


Did you even WATCH that video ? ugh
I might overlook that fact that walking around with a weapon in wartorn Bagdad is apparently a death sentence, but gunning down unarmed people loading wounded into cars ? Get real man.




i doubt he did Rolling Eyes


Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.11.30 13:12:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 30/11/2010 13:13:59
The Wikileaks contrast strongly with W Bush's Decision Points book. They show Bush as typically myopic and lacking in judgement. Do any global players still deal with this douchebag?

Ava Starfire
Minmatar
Teraa Matar
Posted - 2010.11.30 13:16:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Benny Hill
Edited by: Benny Hill on 30/11/2010 05:38:34
The problem with Wikileaks is that they have no credibility. It is run by a rapist and are funded by a leftist organization which is a puppet of George Soros. And the source of the war documents comes from a soldier on suicide watch suffering from depression after his homosexual relationship ended that made him hate society and then the military over its homosexual policy, while he pursued other leftist groups funded by George Soros. There is no way to even confirm whether the released documents are even legitimate, or what documents are missing that put others in context.


If they werent legit, the US would be trying their hardest to prove that. The wikileaks guy is a lowlife, no doubt, but that does not change anything this time. The US is trying to minimize the damage now, as apparently even the goverment knows to try and deny it is futile.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.11.30 14:31:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 30/11/2010 14:44:38


Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk


All these ass holes should be in jail.
If it isn't illegal - it should be.



So what youre saying is that if a nation do something criminal and then hide it behind secrecy, people who expose criminal actions done my government should be arrested?

You know, thats the difference between criminal nations and democratic ones. And I like to think a democratic nation dont do such thing.




If they committed a crime - then they should be arrested. Releasing information they were not authorized to release is - or should be - a crime. The person who released this information - is in jail.

If a crime has been committed - there are any number of ways of reporting that a crime as been committed - without the whole sale release of large numbers of documents.

Each of these organizations has an internal organization that is responsible for policing that organization - and it is ultimately responsible to the President and the Attorney general.

What criminal acts are you talking about? The ones that are already being investigated? We have a very good record of prosecuting people who perform criminal acts - or haven't you been paying attention?

What about all the other correspondence? The vast majority of the stuff being leaked has to do with a lot of other things. Not just alleged crimes.

If you rob someone - and then give what you stole do someone else - that person is guilty of receiving stolen property. How it is any different that if someone steals data and gives it to someone else? The data they stole was property of some one - and it was received by someone else.

How would you like it - if someone stole a book you'd written and had given it to someone else who published it on the internet?

What about trade secrets? If someone steals the formula for something and posts that on the internet?

Anyone with a web site that is knowingly posting data that they were not authorized to publish by the owners of that data - should be committing an illegal act. They should be subject to criminal prosecution.

I don't know why this is even a question. Wikileaks should be shut down and it's managers put in jail. They have published stolen information.

It is up to the courts to decide if something is a crime. Our courts have punished any number of people for committing crimes - holding our people to a much higher standard than the people we are fighting.

And - what do we get - crap like this.


It's simple - as it always is in these threads - you've got people who hate the US for various reasons - and they use these things to criticize it.




Oh ... and as to making judgements about things based on videos ... wasn't there a recent snafu where some lady got fired because of an edited video where the people who fired her ended up looking like fools?

Anyone who thinks that they can watch ANYTHING on Youtube and have any idea of what really happened is deluded.

Again - what this is all about - is trying to make the US look bad by people who don't like it.

Does this mean we're perfect? Of course not. We screw up all the time - just like everyone else who's ever tried to do anything. For those so eager to make fun of Bush - think about some of the leaders of YOUR country and some of the stupid things they've done. Whatever Bush's flaws - having these people attack us and kill several thousand of our citizens is what started all this.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.11.30 14:44:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 30/11/2010 14:47:48
I have got the impression from these Wikileaks that most western countries have very capable diplomatic and intelligence services. The quality of prose from some of the intel messages is brilliant.

But where there are experienced, understanding diplomats and analysts their is often myopic politicians who like the sound of their own voice to much. Who simply disregard this quality intelligence and realpolitik.

For example Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes: 'I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue'. Hah! This is about a very successful ex KGB spy who still walks like he has a pistol on his side. And sends his political opponents to jail or worse.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.11.30 14:49:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Vogue
I have got the impression from these Wikileaks that most western countries have very capable diplomatic and intelligence services. The quality of prose from some of the intel messages is brilliant.

But where there are experienced, understanding diplomats and analysts their is often myopic politicians who like the sound of their own voice to much. Who simply disregard this quality intelligence and realpolitik.

For example Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes: 'I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue'. Hah! This is about a very successful ex KGB spy who still walks like he has a pistol on his side.



Uh ... when it comes to politicians ... blame the voters. If you try to convey a complex, intelligent message - you will lose them. This is true of every nation on earth. Most people are fairly good at their jobs - but don't know **** all about anything else.

So - politicians tell the voters what they want to hear ... or they lose.

In the example above - Bush was playing to his own plain spoken constituents and diplomatically paying an important person who was the elected leader of his country a compliment.


*shrug*

What the hell do you expect politicians to do?


Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.11.30 14:59:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 30/11/2010 15:08:00
The better politicians can work on several levels at once. Give easily digestible messages to voters but also pursue complex foreign issues with good poise. I rate the Clintons well in this area. But the Bush administrations not.

To a Brit is weird that a US president has more leverage on foreign policy than domestic policy ugh

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.11.30 15:22:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
having these people attack us and kill several thousand of our citizens is what started all this.


The Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, endless Fox propaganda to the contrary. Unless you mean muslims as a group, which would make me sadfaced. Confused

Bodrul
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.30 15:46:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
having these people attack us and kill several thousand of our citizens is what started all this.


The Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, endless Fox propaganda to the contrary. Unless you mean muslims as a group, which would make me sadfaced. Confused



dont tell him about sad^dam and his anti Alquida stance,
dont think Fox news veiwers can handle it without going into meltdown



So Sensational
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.11.30 16:22:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Benny Hill
Edited by: Benny Hill on 30/11/2010 05:38:34
The problem with Wikileaks is that they have no credibility. It is run by a rapist and are funded by a leftist organization which is a puppet of George Soros. And the source of the war documents comes from a soldier on suicide watch suffering from depression after his homosexual relationship ended that made him hate society and then the military over its homosexual policy, while he pursued other leftist groups funded by George Soros. There is no way to even confirm whether the released documents are even legitimate, or what documents are missing that put others in context.

He is not a convicted rapist. Do you know how often people are falsely accused of **** in Sweden, we seemingly have a new case reported every day in the media. Do you know how much pressure US diplomacy can put on a country of 10 million people?

You on the other hand, don't seem to be biased at all.

Soma Khan
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.30 18:33:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Soma Khan on 30/11/2010 18:44:00
Originally by: Benny Hill
Edited by: Benny Hill on 30/11/2010 05:38:34
The problem with Wikileaks is that they have no credibility. It is run by a rapist and are funded by a leftist organization which is a puppet of George Soros. And the source of the war documents comes from a soldier on suicide watch suffering from depression after his homosexual relationship ended that made him hate society and then the military over its homosexual policy, while he pursued other leftist groups funded by George Soros. There is no way to even confirm whether the released documents are even legitimate, or what documents are missing that put others in context.
furthermore, with the alleged original source of these documents being the world's largest terrorist organization, there's no telling if any alleged legitimacy of those documents is even possible

Ademaro Imre
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.30 21:15:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
Your ignorance is showing. Those gunships waited over a hour to fire, at first thinking the news guys were being held by the terrorists. Once it became obvious that they were hanging with them willingly, they ceased to be a concern. Don't want to get shot?, don't CHOOSE to walk around a war zone with terrorists.

Wikileaks knew that, but figured they could spin it to reflect badly on the U.S.


Did you even WATCH that video ? ugh
I might overlook that fact that walking around with a weapon in wartorn Bagdad is apparently a death sentence, but gunning down unarmed people loading wounded into cars ? Get real man.



This was already discussed a long time ago. It was SOP to shoot such vans. It was, and is a common practice to have vans and other getaway cars nearby terrorist operating areas to facilitate the evacuation of those terrorists, wounded or not. The pilots did the right thing gunning them down. When the driver wants to make everyday a "bring your daughter to counterinsurgency day," daughters die. Watching videos does not make you a war expert. War experts create and write standard operating procedures that their trained pilots operating aircraft that costs tens of millions of dollars follow. I am sure Wikileaks has a video of those procedures because Wikileaks are completely objective..

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.30 23:10:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 30/11/2010 23:43:43
Originally by: Bodrul
Originally by: Louis deGuerre


Did you even WATCH that video ? ugh
I might overlook that fact that walking around with a weapon in wartorn Bagdad is apparently a death sentence, but gunning down unarmed people loading wounded into cars ? Get real man.




i doubt he did Rolling Eyes




Unlike morons who take statements by internet trolls on faith, I watched the 17 minute video, the 39 minute video, AND followed up by digging for the context that I KNEW wikileaks made an ACTIVE effort to NOT include, even though they were WELL aware of it.

Just google search "wikileaks deception". There are a number of results, the one in question will reference "Collateral Murder" here is a link:

Wikileaks deception exposed

When you read or see something such as the wikileaks trash trying despirately to prove that the U.S. is the big bad source of all evil, its a pretty safe bet you need to do some digging. Not that I expect the unread lazy lefties to ever bother. To damn easy to just rot in their narcissistic cocoon, and mentally masterrate all over the internet.


Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.30 23:21:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 30/11/2010 14:44:38


Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk


All these ass holes should be in jail.
If it isn't illegal - it should be.



So what youre saying is that if a nation do something criminal and then hide it behind secrecy, people who expose criminal actions done my government should be arrested?

You know, thats the difference between criminal nations and democratic ones. And I like to think a democratic nation dont do such thing.




If they committed a crime - then they should be arrested. Releasing information they were not authorized to release is - or should be - a crime. The person who released this information - is in jail.

If a crime has been committed - there are any number of ways of reporting that a crime as been committed - without the whole sale release of large numbers of documents.

Each of these organizations has an internal organization that is responsible for policing that organization - and it is ultimately responsible to the President and the Attorney general.

What criminal acts are you talking about? The ones that are already being investigated? We have a very good record of prosecuting people who perform criminal acts - or haven't you been paying attention?

What about all the other correspondence? The vast majority of the stuff being leaked has to do with a lot of other things. Not just alleged crimes.

If you rob someone - and then give what you stole do someone else - that person is guilty of receiving stolen property. How it is any different that if someone steals data and gives it to someone else? The data they stole was property of some one - and it was received by someone else.

How would you like it - if someone stole a book you'd written and had given it to someone else who published it on the internet?

What about trade secrets? If someone steals the formula for something and posts that on the internet?

Anyone with a web site that is knowingly posting data that they were not authorized to publish by the owners of that data - should be committing an illegal act. They should be subject to criminal prosecution.

I don't know why this is even a question. Wikileaks should be shut down and it's managers put in jail. They have published stolen information.

It is up to the courts to decide if something is a crime. Our courts have punished any number of people for committing crimes - holding our people to a much higher standard than the people we are fighting.

And - what do we get - crap like this.


If the information was extremely sensitive and extremely illegal do you really think that said internal affairs department would actually let the information out and actually bring charges up where they are due?


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

having these people attack us and kill several thousand of our citizens is what started all this.


Are you trying to say that US federal and corporate foreign policy had nothing to do with these people motives?


Slade

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2010.11.30 23:33:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Vogue
Edited by: Vogue on 30/11/2010 14:47:48
I have got the impression from these Wikileaks that most western countries have very capable diplomatic and intelligence services. The quality of prose from some of the intel messages is brilliant.

But where there are experienced, understanding diplomats and analysts their is often myopic politicians who like the sound of their own voice to much. Who simply disregard this quality intelligence and realpolitik.

For example Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes: 'I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue'. Hah! This is about a very successful ex KGB spy who still walks like he has a pistol on his side. And sends his political opponents to jail or worse.

Have you noticed how much you are fixated on George W. Bush?

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2010.11.30 23:54:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Vogue
Edited by: Vogue on 30/11/2010 15:08:00
To a Brit is weird that a US president has more leverage on foreign policy than domestic policy ugh

I am taking US history this semester, the first half of US history, from colonization to 1877. What you describe is not an accident. If you knew US history, you would have understood why the president has more influence on foreign policy and less on domestic policy.

The original constitution of US, Articles of Confederation, setup a very weak national government. The state governments had a lot of power. The result of this was that foreign nations, Britain, Spain, France, pulled all kinds of shenanigans on the US. The country nearly split in two back in 1780s, it was that close. The country was very new, nobody had know how things would works out, there was not real "glue" yet to keep the country together, the regional interests were very powerful back then.

The second constitution of US, The Constitution, was created to address this and several other problems. US needed strong national government to deal with foreign powers. This brings us to your statement. In US, the national government, with president being its leader, is the face of US to the world. The states are not allowed into foreign policy making, they gave up their right to be involved back when delegates hammered out the constitution in 1787. That is why US president has so much control of foreign policy and much less control of domestic policy.

What I find interesting is your bias. The way things done in your country is right, everyone else is weird. People say Americans are ignorant. It appears that these people are just as ignorant.


Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2010.12.01 07:13:00 - [77]
 

This leak is very much like a naked body scan for the US Government.

I see they like it as much as we do.




Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.12.01 09:52:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Ademaro Imre
It was SOP to shoot such vans.


Oh, there are procedures for gunning down unarmed people ? That's allright then.

This whole shoot first ask questions later attitude is revolting.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.12.01 11:47:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 01/12/2010 12:21:44

Yes I have an inherent bias in my perspective that Is orientated around me being raised In England. But I am very much interested in other countries such as the USA. I have been there several times. Though being a tourist puts me in a insulated bubble somewhat. I think it's only when one tries to live in another country then they understand it in more depth.

To contrast the USA to the UK I would say that here we like to be very critical of those in the media spotlight. I think this is pent up old fashioned class warfare. Whereas In the USA you give people a second chance If they have screwed up. Typically with a catharsis session on Oprah. Americans want a greater ideal to aspire to 'The American Dream'. In the UK we like rain (well I do) and live with the historical legacy of having a global empire and lost it. So we are inclined to view the USA as naive in some areas. But In the USA a CEO will pay less taxes as a percentage of income than his\her secretary with crafty pay schemes. Americans have a high tech sector that I respect immensely. In the UK we have a huge service sector, with a bit of high tech from defense and pharmaceuticals. British people are ignorant in public and are worse than most other countries when it comes to acts of courtesy in public. Americans can be very polite in public. Most American are not interested in what goes On in the world. The low percentage of Americans with passports shows this. But the American elite is Intensely interested in foreign affairs to further secure the American global hegemony. As it is seen to be rude to chest beat the British have this amateurism that handicaps us at a lot of sports as we lack a pinch of competitive arrogance and unbridled ambition. But the USA is a very successful sporting nation as ambition is a core part of the national psyche. We are best in a crisis. During WW2 there was a greater sense of community of having to muddle through together.

Us Brits come from an island nation with an imperial past which means we are a load of pirates with an often thuggish attitude. We can be cranky, critical and overbearing. We have a great sense of humour and have a notion of fair play. But we can blow hot or ice cold. The USA used to excel in not being more learned than other countries but in that it could identity and fix its faults. But It needs to get back into the change business. But USA is like Rocky. It has been written off one or two times before but has bounced back and come back strong. However during the global recession in the USA the rich got richer and the other 90% of Americans acutely felt the pinch.

Wall of text!

Singoth
Dark Shadow Industries
Posted - 2010.12.01 12:32:00 - [80]
 

Funny how the Wikileaks creator, Julian Assange, is suddenly suspected of sexual abuse and sexual intimidation in Sweden, which is published by Interpol a few days after Wikileaks made all these secrets known.
Just too coincidental to be true in my opinion, that seriously is an obvious example of a slander campaign.


I do think that revealing secrets from a country is dangerous business and can unleash unneccesary wars... especially when people give it too much attention like now.
However, if governments did not have secrets in the first place, they wouldn't have this problem at all.

So the government actually got no one to blame for their problems, except themselves. But of course they don't admit that, and instead look for the person responsible for their problems rather than solving this and salvaging of what's left of their political status and keep the peace... because they're only making it worse for themselves right now.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.12.01 12:53:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 01/12/2010 13:06:55

Ah ... so many smart people with uninformed opinions ...



Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
having these people attack us and kill several thousand of our citizens is what started all this.


The Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, endless Fox propaganda to the contrary. Unless you mean muslims as a group, which would make me sadfaced. Confused




Two things about that ...

1) Going into Iraq was just doing what we should have done in the first place. The real issue here - is NOT that we had to have some kind of an excuse - but why we let things drag out as long as we did. We had a coalition for The Gulf War Part I and our allies who were Arab States - have a thing about not removing each other from power. Most of them are dictators - so - they're sensative on that issue. Thus - we paid the price for their help by restrictions on our actions.

2) I'm fully aware of the position of Iraq and it's former leader on various terrorist organizations - but - you have some things back wards. Iraq actually DID cause 9/11 - just not in the way you mean. Here is the sequence of Events:

a) Iraq invades Kuwait.
b) The US puts troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia to protect it against Iraq.
c) Osama Bin Laden - determines he will attack the US because the Infidel Feet of it's soldiers (I'm not making this up ...) have been placed on the Holy Soil of Saudi Arabia - home to Mecca and Medina, holy sites in the Muslim religion.
d) Osama Bin Laden begins organizing terrorist activities against the US which culminate in 9/11
e) The US invades Afghanistan because the Taliban who have given sanctuary (and training facilities to terrorists) to Osama, won't give him up.
f) The US finally has had it with the former leader of Iraq - and uses the impetus of 9/11 (it's finally ****ed off enough to do what it should have done in the first place) to get rid of him.

Thus - because Iraq caused the first part of the Gulf War when it invaded Kuwait - causing the US to respond by putting the feet of it's soldiers on the Holy Soil of Saudi Arabia - Osama Bin Laden decided to begin attacking us - and did. Thus - 9/11 - was caused by the first part of the Gulf War - a part which, by the way - had never ended. We had aircraft over Iraq patrolling no fly zones STILL after 10 years - and every now and again ... lost people during these operations. So - there never was an end to the Gulf War - until Iraq's former leader was removed from power - and we established a moderately freer government in that nation that was more responsive to it's citizens needs than what had preceded it.

This does NOT mean that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11. It just means that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait started the chain of events which led to 9/11. Our invasion of Iraq - was something done for it's own reasons - and should have been done 10 years earlier.



Originally by: Slade Trillgon
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk


Stuff I said ...




Are you trying to say that US federal and corporate foreign policy had nothing to do with these people motives?


Slade




What the hell do I care what their motives were. It doesn't matter what your motives were if you break the law - or if you've done something which SHOULD be breaking the law.

The world has all kinds of little idiots running around with all kinds of silly little ideas in their heads - which are taken up by people who don't like the US anyway and used to critcize us.

If you don't like the law - then you should have it changed. If there's something going on you don't like - there are a plethora of legal methods to do something about it.

Just taking it into your head that YOU know what is right and releasing a lot of information you have no legal right to - is NOT justified by your motives.

And besides - their "motives" are to attack the US because they hate us. So - screw their motives.








So Sensational
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.12.01 13:22:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: So Sensational on 01/12/2010 13:22:29
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

a) Iraq invades Kuwait.
b) The US puts troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia to protect it against Iraq.
c) Osama Bin Laden - determines he will attack the US because the Infidel Feet of it's soldiers (I'm not making this up ...) have been placed on the Holy Soil of Saudi Arabia - home to Mecca and Medina, holy sites in the Muslim religion.
d) Osama Bin Laden begins organizing terrorist activities against the US which culminate in 9/11
e) The US invades Afghanistan because the Taliban who have given sanctuary (and training facilities to terrorists) to Osama, won't give him up.
f) The US finally has had it with the former leader of Iraq - and uses the impetus of 9/11 (it's finally ****ed off enough to do what it should have done in the first place) to get rid of him.


This does NOT mean that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11. It just means that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait started the chain of events which led to 9/11. Our invasion of Iraq - was something done for it's own reasons - and should have been done 10 years earlier.


Wow, seriously? So basically I guess we should be blaming the UK as well? I mean Iraq was a UK puppet state so I guess they caused the chain of events that eventually led to ******'s dictatorship when they gave Iraq independence. Perhaps we should go further back and blame the Sumerians? Or are we cutting the chain short where it's convenient?




Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:04:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Originally by: Ademaro Imre
It was SOP to shoot such vans.


Oh, there are procedures for gunning down unarmed people ? That's allright then.

This whole shoot first ask questions later attitude is revolting.




OK ... lets look at the logic behind your abhorrence of our actions ...


1) We are at war with an opponent who is militarily weaker than we are - so they use the traditional remote attack weapons of weaker military powers against us.

2) Mines are often used in such situations - but mines are indiscriminate - not that these people care if they kill their own people - but they do care if they miss us. So - with the wonders of modern technology - they use remotely triggered devices which are command detonated.

3) The problem with command detonated devices - is that you have to be in a position to observe your target in order to set it off when it will hit that target.

4) After executing their remote attack - the attackers wish to flee the scene to escape it's consequences and have thus prepared get away vehicles they will run to immediately after the attack.

5) We become aware of this tactic - and have covering forces in place in the hopes of deterring attack upon our people - because - if there is an attack - those covering forces will be in a position to respond.

6) When an attack does occur and the attackers are fleeing in their vehicle - they are attacked in turn and destroyed.


So ... what you're saying is - the fact that these people have expended their ordinance in attacking us - now defines them as being "unarmed" - because - they have expended their munitions and ... we ... are just supposed to let them get away with it because they've used up their weapon and now no longer have one? Is that what you're saying?

As to the drivers of these vehicles ... that vehicle is their tool. They can use it for any number of things - one of which is being a part of a remote attack unit - there in place to evacuate their personnel after they have made their attack. So ... aren't they as much a part of the attack as the guys who set the remote device off? Aren't the getaway drives of a bank robbery subject to the same or nearly the same laws as the guys who went in the bank with the guns?


We - the United States - are at war with terrorists for damn good reasons. Our policy - is to NOT seek out innocent civilians to attack. Their policy IS to seek out innocent civilians to attack - specifically because their strategy is to "terrorize" the innocent civilian population. But - in war - when people are slinging about deadly articles they don't always kill who they want to kill with them - or - they don't always kill JUST the people they want to kill with them.

If a terrorist provokes an incident by attacking us - the terrorist is responsible for what happens. If innocent people are killed because of our response to what the terrorists have done - it is the terrorists fault. Yes ... we do try to avoid killing people for no good reason but our soldiers aren't perfect and some of them are better human beings than others - however - again - it is not our policy to kill innocent people. It IS the policy of the terrorists to kill innocent people.

So - why the **** are you attacking us?

Why the **** don't you save your attacks and snide remarks for the terrorists who are at fault?

WE are the good guys. If you don't understand that - you're an idiot - and not worth talking too.



Just because someone is the under dog in a fight - does NOT mean they have right on their side. It means they have less power than their opponent and - not a damn thing more.



Oh ... and ... as a general remark about political threads - you will know when the US has won this argument - as the Anti-US moderators will THEN shut it down. The No Political Threads Policy is ... and has always been on this site - a No Political Threads The USA Is Winning Policy. Same goes for deletion of our posts.

.


Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:09:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 01/12/2010 14:10:49


Originally by: So Sensational
Edited by: So Sensational on 01/12/2010 13:22:29
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

a) Iraq invades Kuwait.
b) The US puts troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia to protect it against Iraq.
c) Osama Bin Laden - determines he will attack the US because the Infidel Feet of it's soldiers (I'm not making this up ...) have been placed on the Holy Soil of Saudi Arabia - home to Mecca and Medina, holy sites in the Muslim religion.
d) Osama Bin Laden begins organizing terrorist activities against the US which culminate in 9/11
e) The US invades Afghanistan because the Taliban who have given sanctuary (and training facilities to terrorists) to Osama, won't give him up.
f) The US finally has had it with the former leader of Iraq - and uses the impetus of 9/11 (it's finally ****ed off enough to do what it should have done in the first place) to get rid of him.


This does NOT mean that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11. It just means that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait started the chain of events which led to 9/11. Our invasion of Iraq - was something done for it's own reasons - and should have been done 10 years earlier.


Wow, seriously? So basically I guess we should be blaming the UK as well? I mean Iraq was a UK puppet state so I guess they caused the chain of events that eventually led to ******'s dictatorship when they gave Iraq independence. Perhaps we should go further back and blame the Sumerians? Or are we cutting the chain short where it's convenient?







My, my, my - how clever.

Yes - all history is a chain of events and connections from one thing to another.

However - don't be a fool. The farther back you go - the less relevance things have. When there is a DIRECT connection then the connection has meaning and relevance.

The Gulf War didn't end until the leader of the nation who started it was removed from power - and - a relatively stable government set up in his place.

Going back 10 years - is NOT a reach.

If you can't seeeee that - Congratulations(!!!) - you're an idiot.


.


Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:11:00 - [85]
 

There was a saying made of the British in WW1 : 'Lions led by donkeys'. I think this is apt for the USA is a lot of respects. There is so much dynamism, culture, innovation in the USA but the political system is fubar. Aliens need not bother infiltrating the political system to create gridlock as Republicans, special interests and Democrats are doing a fine job of that anyway.

Britain is a generally a mediocre country that I think is still held back by a malaise of upper class polished pebbles. USA is now going a lot of different directions at once with a net effect of becoming a corporate superstate.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:22:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 01/12/2010 14:23:37
Originally by: Vogue
There was a saying made of the British in WW1 : 'Lions led by donkeys'. I think this is apt for the USA is a lot of respects. There is so much dynamism, culture, innovation in the USA but the political system is fubar. Aliens need not bother infiltrating the political system to create gridlock as Republicans, special interests and Democrats are doing a fine job of that anyway.

Britain is a generally a mediocre country that I think is still held back by a malaise of upper class polished pebbles. USA is now going a lot of different directions at once with a net effect of becoming a corporate superstate.



Ha! Ha! Ha!

I don't know about a corporate super state ... but the rest could be true. 'Lions led by Donkeys' ... Ha! Ha! ... I hadn't heard that one ...


Yeah all nations have their political baggage to carry.


One of the odd things though ... is that often ... intellect betrays it's owner. Jimmy Carter was vastly smarter than Ronald Reagan and yet - Reagan was a vastly more effective President. Now ... George W. may well not be the intellectual equal of Barrack and Bill but ... he had the guts to go into Iraq and clean up a mess that needed cleaning up. He was stuck with 9/11 and he responded by ... at least for a while ... defeating the Taliban. Now - none of that means that everything he did was done well ... but ... given Clintons just quitting and running away in Somalia ... and Barracks ... utter foolishness with regards to the military ... he wasn't that bad.

*sigh*

It's leaders like Johnson and Nixon that make you really appreciate people like the Roosevelt's ...


The thing is ... a lot of things are the public's fault.


There was a British ... possibly King ... though possibly something else ... who once derided Democracy by saying that all that would happen was that the population would just vote not to tax themselves and everything would go straight to hell - and there's a lot of truth in that. Of course ... he left out the part about ... if the King's a fool ... you pretty much have to kill him to get rid of him ... and all that's involved in doing that.


So Sensational
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:24:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 01/12/2010 14:09:16
Originally by: So Sensational
Edited by: So Sensational on 01/12/2010 13:22:29
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

a) Iraq invades Kuwait.
b) The US puts troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia to protect it against Iraq.
c) Osama Bin Laden - determines he will attack the US because the Infidel Feet of it's soldiers (I'm not making this up ...) have been placed on the Holy Soil of Saudi Arabia - home to Mecca and Medina, holy sites in the Muslim religion.
d) Osama Bin Laden begins organizing terrorist activities against the US which culminate in 9/11
e) The US invades Afghanistan because the Taliban who have given sanctuary (and training facilities to terrorists) to Osama, won't give him up.
f) The US finally has had it with the former leader of Iraq - and uses the impetus of 9/11 (it's finally ****ed off enough to do what it should have done in the first place) to get rid of him.


This does NOT mean that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11. It just means that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait started the chain of events which led to 9/11. Our invasion of Iraq - was something done for it's own reasons - and should have been done 10 years earlier.


Wow, seriously? So basically I guess we should be blaming the UK as well? I mean Iraq was a UK puppet state so I guess they caused the chain of events that eventually led to ******'s dictatorship when they gave Iraq independence. Perhaps we should go further back and blame the Sumerians? Or are we cutting the chain short where it's convenient?







My, my, my - how clever.

Yes - all history is a chain of events and connections from one thing to another.

However - don't be a fool. The farther back you go - the less relevance things have. When there is a DIRECT connection then the connection has meaning and relevance.

The Gulf War didn't end until the leader of the nation who started it was removed from power - and - a relatively stable government set up in his place.

Going back 10 years - is NOT a reach.

If you can't seeeee that - you're an idiot.

Congratulations.



I just found it funny that you chose that event as your starting point when it's just another event in the chain, just to say that "Iraq caused 9/11". In the end, even though the events have less relevance, you can still say "The Brits caused 9/11".

Brian Ballsack
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:24:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Brian Ballsack on 01/12/2010 14:25:02
arrghh

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:25:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Stuff


I assume you were trying to make a point here but I've no clue what ??? Neutral

The US government used the sad fact of a terrible loss of life due to a terrorist strike to fire up public opinion and do an invasion in a country who had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorists. Well, aside from being moslims. And there was the oil of course...but I digress.

I'm still ****ed about all this because my government gave political support to this, while knowing full well it was total bs, thereby implicating our country in this misadventure without casus belli.

A fun point that has not been touched about is that the wikileaks documents report that Saudi donors remain the chief donors of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda. The primary ally for U.S. in the middle east. Facepalm doesn't cut it here.
Of course, we would not want the U.S. public to know this because this would be...bad ?
I for one prefer to know it when my government ****s up. You know, so they might learn and no do it over and over again.




Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.01 14:30:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
stuff Toshiro said.


If the information was extremely sensitive and extremely illegal do you really think that said internal affairs department would actually let the information out and actually bring charges up where they are due?


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Just taking it into your head that YOU know what is right and releasing a lot of information you have no legal right to - is NOT justified by your motives.


And I say that if one is under the belief that the information will never be delt with properly then they should, if them deem it necessary, release said information. Whistle blowing is not solely for corporate workers in my opinion.


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk


What the hell do I care what their motives were. It doesn't matter what your motives were if you break the law - or if you've done something which SHOULD be breaking the law.

The world has all kinds of little idiots running around with all kinds of silly little ideas in their heads - which are taken up by people who don't like the US anyway and used to critcize us.

If you don't like the law - then you should have it changed. If there's something going on you don't like - there are a plethora of legal methods to do something about it.


And besides - their "motives" are to attack the US because they hate us. So - screw their motives.


So what do you believe would be the proper solution to this situation?


Slade


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only