War on Terrorism. Do You feel Safer?

[YT2095]

this was a poll also on Sky News today, the results were quite remarkable. Please give your reason with your vote (eitherway).

[YT2095]

No, I think if anything it seems to have agravated matters.

[matter]

I voted yes because I never had any fear of any backwards terrorists in the first place. Their goal is to spread fear and atleast for me, I won't let that happen. They're a joke. They're psychotic. They believe Allah will reward them for their actions. The fact that they blow themselves up is sad but it also makes me shake my head and laugh a little, because it's pathetic.

[iglak]

i voted no

it's not that i feel unsafe from terrorists. quite the contrary, i feel very unsafe from people that are paranoid of terrorists. also, this heximester in U.S. history we are practically learning about everything that is and was violently wrong with th U.S..

 

before the war i was content, thinking that the average person is at least somewhat intelligent. since the war, i noticed that i was wrong....

[Sayonara]

Where are the "no change" and "don't care" options?

 

[greg1917]

I feel safer but only because of the DISCUSSION that has taken place in Ulster in the past few years. rather than wandering into Dublin and randomly blowing up schools, debate and talking seem to have caused a major climb down in paramilitary operations. the two sides still hate each other but at least they aint killing each other as often.

 

As for 'war on terror' no it hasnt made me safer. if someone wanted to commit mass murder there are still many ways to do it. Since the Afghanistan war, heroin has soared in value and is still being imported in the same quantities. the whole of the middle east is now virtually a no-go zone for westerners because they hate us so much. North korea now wants to nuke us because that playdo US president lumped them in the same pot as all the other 'axis of evil' nations. So no. not safe at all.

[atinymonkey]

Do you feel safer since the American lead War on Terrorism, if you live in the US?

 

or

 

Do you feel safer since the Americans decided to use the phrase 'War on Terrorism' as carte blanch for illegal military action to protect oil investments in the birthplace of Christianity?

[Squintz]

I don't feel more safe. I have 2 friends over in iraq who write me twice a month and tell me about some of the horrifying things that they have seen and done. For instance one of my friends is a medic and his job was to walk along the streets of iraq and pick up body parts. He said he's had arguments with other medics about which body parts belong together and shit like that.

 

He sounds F*cked up! Hes not the same and im not sure if he will ever be right again. I hate bush and his party for sending our troops to iraq. He has done more harm than good IMO.

 

I won't vote for him next time! I walk in fear because bush has not completed the task at hand and will not do so for a long time. He has just ignited a fire usder these terroist asses and pissed them off which makes them wat to hurt the US twice as much.

[Dudde]

Sayonara³ said in post #5 :

Where are the "no change" and "don't care" options?

 

.....you're a moderator

 

anyway, I'm with whoever said they've noticed people are stupid since then, people are acting worse than ever. Hate crimes are up since the war ("patriots" who should be shot) and we're not doing anything constructive really, just threatening people

 

EDIT: having the same opinion as he whom I quoted, I didn't vote

[newbie]

Terrorists typically attempt to justify their use of violence by arguing that they have been excluded from, or frustrated by, the accepted processes of bringing about political change. They maintain that terrorism is the only option available to them, although their choice is a reluctant—even a regrettable—one. Whether someone agrees with this argument or not often depends on whether the person sympathizes with the terrorists’ cause or with the victims of the terrorist attack. The aphorism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” underscores how use of the label terrorism can be highly subjective depending upon one’s sympathies.

 

I voted yes, we coined the term "War on Terrorism" because of the psychotic people who say things like “To kill Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it” ---Osama Bin Laden

 

 

FYI atm, this has nothing to do with oil or the birthplace of Christianity.

[YT2095]

There, Hows that

[atinymonkey]

newbie said in post #10 :

 

 

FYI atm, this has nothing to do with oil or the birthplace of Christianity.

 

Well, it has bugger all to with terrorism or Osma Bin Laden. Mr Laden has a Jhilhad against Mr Hussain, and has been apposed to the guy for quite a few years previous to that occuring. The oil production from Iraq represents 12% of the worlds oil production and since the trade embargo, the US economy suffered directly. The US state department issued a statement to that effect on commencement of the oil embargo. The first official act the US commenced on occupying Iraq was to lift the trade embargo.

 

As for the birthplace of Christianity being involved, that is the country that the 'war' is bombing and where the civilians are being slaughtered. That's a fairly strong link for you. Do you see it? Birthplace of Christianity = Iraq, Iraq = US Led war. Is the link clear enough for you? Google it, if your not convinced.

 

In regard to the 'prevention of terror' more than 15,000 Iraqis - 4,300 of those were civilians , have died in the conflict so far. Add to that the 229 American Solders, not counting the UK, Italian and UN forces. How safe do you think they felt? Who did you say the psychotic people are?

 

People are apposed to the war, for justifed reasons. You can't just contradict valid points by saying FYI, that's crazy talk.

[Sayonara]

newbie said in post #10 :

I voted yes, we coined the term "War on Terrorism" because of the psychotic people who say things like “To kill Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it” ---Osama Bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden - well known for having a major axe to grind over US foreign policy - says some unsurprisingly anti-American things, therefore the USA has carte blanche to label whomever they wish as terrorists and steamroll their country?

 

That's a bit like me calling Bush an ignorant fuckwit, and the US forces laying waste to Belgium as a result.

 

OBVIOUSLY A WINNING ARGUMENT.

[newbie]

Atm there is no link. This has nothing to do with oil. This has nothing to do with Christianity.

"civilians are being slaughtered"

I have been reading aljazeera, the most anti-American webpage I can find since before the war ever started and I have yet to see any headline that has 'civilians' or 'slaughtered' in them.

FYI, atm I didn't contradict any valid points.

 

Sayonara³, you really believe Osama bin Laden just says bad things about America and this is the cause of my reasoning? That the whole United States says wow, this guy is an idiot for talking bad about us lets go bomb him? He didn't establish al-Qaeda, an organization that connects and coordinates fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups around the world. He didn't bomb the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, he didn't bomb the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993, he didn't bomb an apartment complex that housed U.S. servicemen in Dhahran, and he didn't arrange the suicide bombing in 2000 of the USS Cole, he's not the primary suspect behind the hijacking of airplanes that were deliberately crashed into the Pentagon near Washington D.C., and the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 2001. NO he can't be right? He is just as you say a 'fuckwit'?

I guess your right Sayonara³ maybe I don't have a winning argument. NOT[/n]!!!

[Sayonara]

See, if you'd bothered to put all that in your original post it would have been a much more impressive argument

[matter]

Osama Bin Laden is not a freedom fighter. He is a radical, he is a militant, he is a rich son of a bitch who has convinced enough morons that he is the one to spearhead his 'Jihad.' He is not a freedom fighter because he has nothing that he needs to be freed from. Was anyone occupying his land? I don't believe so. He's fighting for what has happened in the past. He's fighting for a cause that doesn't exist in the real world. He's fighting for fightings sake. He can afford to, and he wants his name in history. The pathology of this piece of garbage is quite easy to understand. He's nothing more than a piece of garbage with a billion dollars to spend. He is quite simply a coward.

 

I laugh at the possibility of Bin Laden actually being a formitable fighter. The freedom fighters of the past have all presented themselves face to face with their enemy, sword to sword and have either lived or died. Osama is currently in hiding. He is the biggest coward on the planet and I would take him out myself if I had the chance.

[atinymonkey]

newbie said in post #14 :

Atm there is no link. This has nothing to do with oil. This has nothing to do with Christianity.

"civilians are being slaughtered"

I have been reading aljazeera, the most anti-American webpage I can find since before the war ever started and I have yet to see any headline that has 'civilians' or 'slaughtered' in them.

FYI, atm I didn't contradict any valid points.

 

 

Read my original post. I didn't claim it was a war on Christianity, I wrote quite clearly ' Do you feel safer since the Americans decided to use the phrase 'War on Terrorism' as carte blanch for illegal military action to protect oil investments in the birthplace of Christianity?'. Iraq is birthplace of Christianity, so please just conceed what is a obvious and valid point.

 

The issue of the oil interests is obvious to all people outside the US. Presumably they gave some sort of speech to the American public that we outsiders are not privy too. Find balanced viewpoints here:-

 

http://www.alternatives.ca/article869.html

 

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/casp-n16.shtml

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/Special+Reports/Iraq+Oil+Target.html

 

As for the civilian casualties you didn't find on the aljazeera website, try these:-

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82168,00.html

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

 

A picture of a wounded civilian, about 6 years old:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/story_of_the_war/html/18.stm

 

http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html

 

 

Or indeed, the lead story on the Aljazeera website that apparently was so very hard to spot:-

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/10F37678-0962-46DC-86ED-7A931AED01AE.htm

[newbie]

 

Atm I will not go back and forth here, if you didn't want anyone to bring up Christianity then please explain why you mention it in all three of your posts? It cleary serves no purpose. Please excuse me but I did not have time to run through all the links you provided but I found something very satisfying that I read in one of the articles "They believe the United States is virtuous and has a mission to remain indefinitely as the world's sole superpower. They don't really care about specific oil interests."

In any case the ones I did read I still did not find any civilians being slaughtered. Yes it is very tragic that civilians have died, and believe me I have nor want to come out with an excuse for that but it is a war after all.

[Sayonara]

It's more of an invasion than a war to be honest.

 

It was not legal in the eyes of the UN, and whether or not you respect the UN or think they are worthwhile the simple fact is that as a member nation the USA is bound by their rules.

 

Not to mention its own laws.

 

 

 

Cue standard "we were defending ourselves" response...

[VendingMenace]

Iraq is birthplace of Christianity

 

Perhaps i am just a bit undereducated about this whole christianity thing, but i think when the area contained in the nation of Isreal hears about this, they are going to be pissed! I mean gee wiz man, you have a guy that starts a religion and he is;

a) Decended from your coutry (Nazereth)

a₁) Decended from a king of your coutry (David)

b) Born in your country (betheham i belive)

c) Dedicated to his paternal faith in your coutry (Jerusalem)

d) Baptized in your coutry (Jordan river, was it?)

e) Preaching in your coutry (everywhere, but alot around galile)

f) Died in you coutry (Jerusalem again)

g) Has his followers start their preaching in your country (Jerusalem again, musta been a happening place)

h) Have the center of his faith located in your country for the first 70-100 some odd years (Jerusalem again, i belive)

i) Oh yeah, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that he was ever in Iraq

 

and then people just go and ascribe the birthplace of one of the major religions to another country?! And it is IRAQ??!! I mean, shoot if i was Isreal i would like WTF!? OK that is it, now we are going to freakin' bomb iraq, stealing our religious birthplace bragging rights. Shoot, man!

 

 

Anyways, like i said, i am open to the possiblility that i am wrong, but i kinda think Christianity was born in Isreal. Is it just me?

[newbie]

Sayonara³

 

I really don't wish to discuss the illegal speak anymore its really getting old. It was not illegal. To say that it was is demeaning to every nation in the UN. If it was then why has nothing happened since it started? Where are all the sanctions or punishment? Truly if rules where broken or this was an illegal act then surely there should have been some type of action taken. Before you even go there let me say this; please don't say because it’s America, "the sole superpower", "the richest and largest country". That is complete bull and means nothing, to bring anything like that up as an excuse is disgraceful to all other nations in the UN. I personally like the UN, even though at times it doesn't seem to serve its purpose at least it stands for something good, something that if worked on could probably fulfill what it was created for; to promote world peace.

[Sayonara]

"I can't argue against that so I will just ignore it" is getting old too.

 

The UN can't impose sanctions on the USA, because the USA are on the security council. This means they can veto anything.

 

[edit]

 

Looking for information on the UN (re: America's breach) at the moment, to see if any badness actually has happened other than sanctions.

 

Although it is horribly biased and not at all relevant I did find this quite funny:

http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/03/07/07.html

[newbie]

"I can't argue against that so I will just ignore it" is getting old too.

 

That is not what I said, but your welcome to use that as your own argument which I have taken as so.

 

The UN can't impose sanctions on the USA, because the USA are on the security council. This means they can veto anything.

 

I believe something can be done against a permanent member of the council but I am in the process of researching that. What I did find so far is a piece that to me shows the US did nothing illegal and it comes right from the UN website. http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/sg-4dec2003.htm I did not find an illegal US action on that website so far. The UN was undecided on the issue it seems.

 

Although it is horribly biased and not at all relevant I did find this quite funny:

http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/03/07/07.html

Grant it, that was funny but to me you lost some creditability for that one.

[Sayonara]

newbie said in post #23 :

That is not what I said, but your welcome to use that as your own argument which I have taken as so.

I did not accuse you of taking any such stance. Do not make the mistake of assuming that anything I say in reply to your posts is directly aimed at you.

Incidentally I find it ironic that you are so affronted at the idea of having words put in your mouth, yet so quick to do it to somebody else.

 

I believe something can be done against a permanent member of the council but I am in the process of researching that. What I did find so far is a piece that to me shows the US did nothing illegal and it comes right from the UN website. http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/sg-4dec2003.htm I did not find an illegal US action on that website so far. The UN was undecided on the issue it seems.

Reading it now

 

 

Grant it, that was funny but to me you lost some creditability for that one.

Taking into account your - shall we say - problematic history on this forum, I am amazed you consider I have any credibility to diminish. On the other hand, since giving and taking credibility from up on high is not something one does in response to being linked to an article as an aside (especially when one agrees that the article was, as stated, amusing), I think I'll just chalk that one up to you being bloody minded.

[Sayonara]

newbie said in post #23 :

I believe something can be done against a permanent member of the council but I am in the process of researching that. What I did find so far is a piece that to me shows the US did nothing illegal and it comes right from the UN website. http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/sg-4dec2003.htm I did not find an illegal US action on that website so far. The UN was undecided on the issue it seems.

OK, so your main argument is that this short entry to the UN web-site by Kofi Annan - the Secretary-General of the United Nations - fails to point the finger of blame?

 

Some thoughts on that:

 

- Pointing the finger is not the intention of the article. It is aimed at salving the many angry throngs worldwide who want assurances that the UN will put its house in order.

 

- What is he meant to say exactly? "By the way folks, we wanted to stop the US but they vetoed all our sanctions against them. This is just like being back at school. Mock me. Lose any faith you ever had in our organisation."

 

- The UN is as responsible in whole for the USA's actions as the USA is on its own. Admitting that the US not only broke the rules of the Security Council, but also got away with it, is very very bad for the reputation and the authority of the entire organisation. Labelling it as an internal problem is a lot less emabrassing. Read between the lines.

 

- Finally, Kofi Annan fails to mention Egypt in the article. By your logic Egypt does not, therefore, have to exist.