PDA

View Full Version : America's Reasons



DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 04:50 AM
These events have all happened to american's, other country's should understand the reason's america is attacking terrorists finally. We have waited for well over enough time. Its time to destroy all terrorists america can get there hands on..

Here are a few of the reasons why america is attacking some countrys in the middle-east that support terrorists....


1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered in his wheelchair and thrown overboard by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered (and his body tossed to the tarmac) by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up in flight via a bomb planted by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

9. In 1996, nineteen American servicemen died when Khobar Towers was bombed by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

10. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

11. On October 12, 2000, seventeen sailors died when the USS Cole was bombed by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

12. On September 11,2001 four U.S. airliners were hijacked and thousands of people were murdered by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by Muslim Males males mostly between the ages of 17-40.

This is the reason many American's are greatly offened when other country's say America should not attack the middle-eastern countrys that support terrorism.

3RA1N1AC
06-17-2003, 04:52 AM
all of this was completely unprovoked, of course, because america is just in the business of minding its own business. poor widdle innocent us, why can't the baddies just leave us alone? WAH WAH FRICKIN WAH.

DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 05:02 AM
If America minded its own bussiness the world would be in chaos until other countrys decided to either....A: Take out terrorists in there countrys....or B: Closed all borders and Trade Routes resulting in years of War to get food and money from other countrys

3RA1N1AC
06-17-2003, 05:09 AM
you have a very weak grasp of how the pieces all fit together, don't you? and of the motivations that drive politics?

DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 05:37 AM
No,...the fighting wont stop....and if america went away....it would affect nearly every country...Making them losing billions of dollars etc....The world needs amercia to stay alive.

Here's some pics i wanted to show...

http://www.nzz.ch/bilder/dossiers/2001/usa/usa_indexbild.jpghttp://www.klauswilleke.de/Aerial_World_Trade_Center_Explosion.jpg
http://www.september11-tribute.org/images/Gallery13/20wtc_plane_091101.jpg

Ad
06-17-2003, 05:40 AM
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares6.jpg

Just let the American blow up all their KIND :devil: :devil:

DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by adthomp@17 June 2003 - 00:40
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares6.jpg
:( ........American's..but ur Australian

Ad
06-17-2003, 05:44 AM
that not what i metn DB I ment Go the americans and who gives a f*ck about Arabs or the Iraqis

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 05:51 AM
@DarkBlizzard

Why dont you look into what happened on 9/11 1973 in Chile? The US has committed terrorist acts of this nature for years.

How does toppling a democratically elected Gvt, and installing a dictator who then goes on to kill thousands of his own people fit into your world view of the USA being an innocent victim?

Open your eyes and you will see why the foreign policy of the US has created so much hatred. If the only people who were killed in the trade centre were former US Presidents who organised these terrorist actions it would have been natural justice.

But no... the US politicians create the hatred and the US citizens die for it. The sooner you and the rest of your nation grasp that simple fact and hold your leaders accountable the better.

DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 06:04 AM
The president's dont really know about all the operations until they are already carried out...The Generals carry them out because they belief it is nessecary at the moment. Example...right now General Tommy Franks is in control of US Forces in Iraq.

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 06:46 AM
The president's dont really know about all the operations until they are already carried out...The Generals carry them out because they belief it is nessecary at the moment. Example...right now General Tommy Franks is in control of US Forces in Iraq.

You must be joking? America is not some 3rd world country where the military just go off and do their own thing, and if you think toppling the democratically elected Gvt of Chile and installing a homicidal dictator was a one off your mistaken.

How can you describe that as what "the Generals" believe is necessary? If it were a Communist Gvt they toppled I could almost see your point. But these are democratically elected Gvts so there is NO justification.

If you really want to know the causes of terrorism and anti-US sentiment this is the sort of stuff you need to look into. Don't keep on returning to the Trade Centre attack as a justification for invading any country you please. Especially when there is no proven link between that country and the attack.

Afghanistan was the exception to this and thats why all the Western world supported the USA in that area, although it seems most Americans I speak to have conveniently forgotten about that.

MUSLEMAN
06-17-2003, 07:00 AM
can you say politics, dady's mistacke and oil??

Rat Faced
06-17-2003, 07:47 AM
Anyone got a list of the IRA's activities they can post?

Then tell Darkblizzard who funded them....


THEN point out that UK didnt drop fucking bombs on Irish Republic's towns and cities.


.............because the IRA are INDIVIDUALS, not a fucking country.

crazy_billy_bats
06-17-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2003 - 07:47
Anyone got a list of the IRA's activities they can post?

Then tell Darkblizzard who funded them....


THEN point out that UK didnt drop fucking bombs on Irish Republic's towns and cities.


.............because the IRA are INDIVIDUALS, not a fucking country.
Well just recently in Northern Ireland one of the biggest bombs ever found here was intercepted in Londonderry i think it was.
It is thought the IRA or the Continuity IRA were responsible for the transportation of the bomb.
Some Americans hold fund-raising "evenings" in which to raise money for the CIRA.
I saw a program on it once.

Almost laughable....but people get killed.
That aint funny

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 08:18 AM
Some Americans hold fund-raising "evenings" in which to raise money for the CIRA.
I saw a program on it once.

Almost laughable....but people get killed.
That aint funny


On the contrary, the Americans must find us Brits very funny. They bombed us in peace time by providing funds for the IRA for over 30 years, then they bombed us when we helped them in Iraq. Twice.

With allies like that who needs enemies? It does raise a good point about 'smart' weapons though, i.e they're only as smart as the weekend warrior who's firing them. It makes you think...how come we never 'accidentally' drop bombs on them?

Perhaps its a conspiracy to keep the UK population under control? What with 60 million people on this little island it is getting a little crowded.

Oh I'm sorry we're being Anti-American again arent we? Naughty us. Lets have a go at the French, thats acceptable and completely different. It'll keep us busy till the next time the US needs us for target practice anyway.

chalice
06-17-2003, 08:21 AM
Inept, romantic expatriotism is, to a large extent, responsible for a lot of the funding that the IRA and similar factions have received over the years.
They have also been funded by the PLO, Cuba and South American drug lords. There has been recent alledged IRA (I won't wade into the alphabet soup) activity in Columbia and other South American countries considered ill at ease on the world stage.
The network of cash and arms being constantly applied to paramilitaries is a symptom of a much greater global unrest.
This is nothing new. Terrorists, being by nature pariahs, tend to habour sympathetic politics.
The UVF have been linked to the National Front and BNP.
Racketeering will only go so far if you're intent on creating as many corpses as possible. Other avenues must be explored if the war machine needs to be oiled.
USA's policy of stirring up the Middle East has been ongoing for decades.
It was a long term solution which is only now coming to fruition. I refer to America and Britains' insertion of an evil dictator in Iraq, the ensuing Iraq/Iran conflict, engineered and sustained by the CIA.
I won't even mention the recent barbarity as I'm still nauseous from it.

DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 03:18

Some Americans hold fund-raising "evenings" in which to raise money for the CIRA.
I saw a program on it once.

Almost laughable....but people get killed.
That aint funny


On the contrary, the Americans must find us Brits very funny. They bombed us in peace time by providing funds for the IRA for over 30 years, then they bombed us when we helped them in Iraq. Twice.

With allies like that who needs enemies? It does raise a good point about 'smart' weapons though, i.e they're only as smart as the weekend warrior who's firing them. It makes you think...how come we never 'accidentally' drop bombs on them?

Perhaps its a conspiracy to keep the UK population under control? What with 60 million people on this little island it is getting a little crowded.

Oh I'm sorry we're being Anti-American again arent we? Naughty us. Lets have a go at the French, thats acceptable and completely different. It'll keep us busy till the next time the US needs us for target practice anyway.
Brits wish to keep a strong allie ( USA ) so thats why they dont 'accidently' drop a bomb on america...anyway...i dont really see any reason for them flying over the USA and accidently dropping a bomb..( well maybe if they are flying to a USA air base or something) but if a plane drops a bomb its gonna get shot down right when it does it no matter what country its from.

crazy_billy_bats
06-17-2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 08:18


On the contrary, the Americans must find us Brits very funny. They bombed us in peace time by providing funds for the IRA for over 30 years, then they bombed us when we helped them in Iraq. Twice.

With allies like that who needs enemies? It does raise a good point about 'smart' weapons though, i.e they're only as smart as the weekend warrior who's firing them. It makes you think...how come we never 'accidentally' drop bombs on them?

Perhaps its a conspiracy to keep the UK population under control? What with 60 million people on this little island it is getting a little crowded.

Oh I'm sorry we're being Anti-American again arent we? Naughty us. Lets have a go at the French, thats acceptable and completely different. It'll keep us busy till the next time the US needs us for target practice anyway.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

We cant speak out against the Americans.....too naughty as you say...

The people of my country have suffered 30 years of a civil war (this could be debated endlessley....) and violence, and as you say the Americans have contributed to this because of their fund raising. For terrorists. For killers, murderers and drug dealers.

And they're still doing it !!

Or maybe they have stopped their raising of funds for the "Irish Nationalists", or the ones that are for "irish independance", im not sure quite how they put it.
I think a lot of them put it down to their "irish ancestory" - call themselves "Irish americans" - now thats, funny.

DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by crazy_billy_bats+17 June 2003 - 03:25--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (crazy_billy_bats @ 17 June 2003 - 03:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 08:18


On the contrary, the Americans must find us Brits very funny. They bombed us in peace time by providing funds for the IRA for over 30 years, then they bombed us when we helped them in Iraq. Twice.

With allies like that who needs enemies? It does raise a good point about &#39;smart&#39; weapons though, i.e they&#39;re only as smart as the weekend warrior who&#39;s firing them. It makes you think...how come we never &#39;accidentally&#39; drop bombs on them?

Perhaps its a conspiracy to keep the UK population under control? What with 60 million people on this little island it is getting a little crowded.

Oh I&#39;m sorry we&#39;re being Anti-American again arent we? Naughty us. Lets have a go at the French, thats acceptable and completely different. It&#39;ll keep us busy till the next time the US needs us for target practice anyway.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

We cant speak out against the Americans.....too naughty as you say...

The people of my country have suffered 30 years of a civil war (this could be debated endlessley....) and violence, and as you say the Americans have contributed to this because of their fund raising. For terrorists. For killers, murderers and drug dealers.

And they&#39;re still doing it &#33;&#33;

Or maybe they have stopped their raising of funds for the "Irish Nationalists", or the ones that are for "irish independance", im not sure quite how they put it.
I think a lot of them put it down to their "irish ancestory" - call themselves "Irish americans" - now thats, funny. [/b][/quote]
who in america funds for it?.....The America Government Directly?

crazy_billy_bats
06-17-2003, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@17 June 2003 - 08:28

who in america funds for it?.....The America Government Directly?
Im not sure.

Normal people, business men, etc, which im sure have several ties to the government.

But i doubt directly from the government.

That doesnt deny the fact that Americans are funding terrorists here.

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 08:37 AM
who in america funds for it?.....The America Government Directly?

No its a minority of Irish Americans. The point is that it doesnt take 30 years to put a stop to it.

If we allowed Al-Queda to fund raise for that length of time we&#39;d be invaded by year 5.


anyway...i dont really see any reason for them flying over the USA and accidently dropping a bomb..( well maybe if they are flying to a USA air base or something)

Wow, there must be a good 50 feet of air in between your head and the point I was making. I wasnt referring to the US dropping bombs on the UK (give it time though). I was referring to their complete incompetence in Iraq even though they have the most advanced targetting systems known to man.

My point is that we have never &#39;accidentally&#39; bombed US troops in Iraq or any other warzone where we have fought as &#39;allies&#39;.

(edited to make explicit the fact that not all Irish Americans engage in this despicable behaviour)

DarkBlizzard
06-17-2003, 08:40 AM
My family came from Ireland like 250 or so years ago and think the UK rocks

:lol: :lol: :lol: .......I really like the UK more than i do Ireland :lol: :lol:

crazy_billy_bats
06-17-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@17 June 2003 - 08:40
My family came from Ireland like 250 or so years ago and think the UK rocks

:lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol: .......I really like the UK more than i do Ireland&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol:
I must admit, you didnt harm one ounze of my feelings with that, just incase you thought you did.

Ireland is one of the most beautiful countries in the world you idiot.

EDIT:
What has this to do with Americans reasons?

What age are you anyway?

chalice
06-17-2003, 08:46 AM
And we&#39;re not all terrorists.
Although I wouldn&#39;t mind the cash.

crazy_billy_bats
06-17-2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by chalice@17 June 2003 - 08:46
And we&#39;re not all terrorists.
Although I wouldn&#39;t mind the cash.
Me too....

But then again we could become a politician here and get paid for doing nowt.

Sounds better to me, and you dont have to kill anyone....

maybe u dont make as much tho

hypoluxa3k
06-17-2003, 10:30 AM
"America&#39;s Reasons, For attacking the Middle-East"&#33;?&#33;?&#33;
"muslim males" this and "muslim males" that &#33;?&#33;?&#33;
&#33;?&#33;?&#33; :angry:

Never Forget&#33;

http://www.shianews.com/snObjects/images/1491.jpg


Picture removed by Rat Faced:

You want to link to it, fine..but please dont post this type of photo. ;)

TheDave
06-17-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@17 June 2003 - 08:40
My family came from Ireland like 250 or so years ago and think the UK rocks

:lol: :lol: :lol: .......I really like the UK more than i do Ireland :lol: :lol:
:o I thought you were a redneck :P

Lamsey
06-17-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@17 June 2003 - 06:37
No,...the fighting wont stop....and if america went away....it would affect nearly every country...Making them losing billions of dollars etc....The world needs amercia to stay alive.

Here&#39;s some pics i wanted to show...

http://www.nzz.ch/bilder/dossiers/2001/usa/usa_indexbild.jpghttp://www.klauswilleke.de/Aerial_World_Trade_Center_Explosion.jpg
http://www.september11-tribute.org/images/Gallery13/20wtc_plane_091101.jpg
Far more innocent people died in the war on Iraq than died in the attacks on 9/11.

Both are atrocities in my opinion. If innocent civilians die then no matter what the end, the end does not justify the means.



And why isn&#39;t this in the forum specially designed for this?

RGX
06-17-2003, 11:41 AM
I think my statistics may be a little wrong, but feel free to correct me

In the world trade centre disasters, bout 4000 people died, right?

absoloutley terrible, and my heart goes out to all those who were affected, and beleive me im not being patronizing.

but

On that same day, something like 16000 people died of hunger in 3rd world countries. Ever since hearing that statistic, whenever i see those pictures of the WTC, I dont think of revenge, I think of what a terrible place this world is becoming.

A lot of crap in this world needs to be sorted out. I have heard of American people funding the IRA in northen ireland, and i have, indirecly, felt its effects, when my step dad&#39;s hotel was bombed, and he only just made it out on time.

What I am trying to say with this post is that so much of this world needs to be sorted out, yet the politics always stand in the way. A famous person once said:

"One death is a tradegy. A thousand is a statistic"

And it sadly seems that way. All the civilian casualties in Iraq, look like a statistic. But when you think that its however many voices silenced, however many families grieving, it truly is terrible. I fully supported this war in Iraq, as I beleived saddam hussein and his evil dictatorship of Iraq should be ousted. However, now it is over and we have seen the effects, im not so sure.

chalice
06-17-2003, 11:51 AM
It was Stalin who said " One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic"
How prophetic.

Spindulik
06-17-2003, 02:57 PM
I think Americans just don&#39;t want to take crap from terrorists and such. Other countries that are used to terrorists have come to accept that as the norm, thus no real fuss or pressure to eliminate it.

There was no election by the American people. There was not an extra lever in the voting polls for the average American, to use, for attacking Iraq. The only people who decided to attack were the politicians. Yeah, yeah, people voted for them, but once the election is over, the politician can virtually decide what they choose to do, no matter what the poeple want.

Somebody1234
06-17-2003, 03:49 PM
I thought we had a section to discuss war &#39;Ongoing US/Coalition vs. Iraq War Discussion&#39;

Move this there.

Spindulik
06-17-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Somebody1234@17 June 2003 - 16:49
I thought we had a section to discuss war &#39;Ongoing US/Coalition vs. Iraq War Discussion&#39;

Move this there.
Well, the war is over. And Jpaul or somebody will move this discussion there.

j2k4
06-17-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by crazy_billy_bats@17 June 2003 - 03:25
The people of my country have suffered 30 years of a civil war (this could be debated endlessley....) and violence, and as you say the Americans have contributed to this because of their fund raising. For terrorists. For killers, murderers and drug dealers.
.
Yes, fund-raising for the I.R.A. does go on, and generally takes place in nice, cozy Irish pubs with certain Irish "pseudo-royalty" providing a veil of legitimacy for the activities being conducted "to support the effort back home, don&#39;cha know".

Focus on the name Kennedy for just a moment.

To blame the U.S. for these goings-on, to accuse the U.S. of sanctioning these "events" is to flaunt one&#39;s ignorance.

Rat Faced
06-17-2003, 05:23 PM
Sorry if you took it that way j2k4.

The thread started with "Muslim males"...not "Iraq" etc...

Was trying to point out "US Citizens" not US Government ;)



Its hard arguing with him....you have to try and sink to the logic he uses.


Next time i&#39;ll get my son to argue with him....he&#39;s 12; the logic he uses will probably be similar :P

J'Pol
06-17-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Spindulik+17 June 2003 - 17:53--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Spindulik @ 17 June 2003 - 17:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Somebody1234@17 June 2003 - 16:49
I thought we had a section to discuss war &#39;Ongoing US/Coalition vs. Iraq War Discussion&#39;

Move this there.
Well, the war is over. And Jpaul or somebody will move this discussion there. [/b][/quote]
What does that mean ?

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 05:50 PM
To blame the U.S. for these goings-on, to accuse the U.S. of sanctioning these "events" is to flaunt one&#39;s ignorance.


How about this then. Why doesnt the UK Gvt turn a blind eye to fund raising for Al-Queda, lets say for about 30 years? Then when you complain about it we&#39;ll argue that what happens in the UK is not the responsibility of the Gvt. :lol:

j2k4
06-17-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2003 - 12:23
Sorry if you took it that way j2k4.

The thread started with "Muslim males"...not "Iraq" etc...

Was trying to point out "US Citizens" not US Government ;)



Its hard arguing with him....you have to try and sink to the logic he uses.


Next time i&#39;ll get my son to argue with him....he&#39;s 12; the logic he uses will probably be similar :P
No problem with you whatsoever, Rat-

I just can&#39;t understand how some (others) can continually make the mistake of allowing their tongues/fingers out so far ahead of their brains.

I learned long ago (as I believe most of us did) how to think far more quickly than I could speak; or in this case, type.

They shoot/swing/punch/kick/scratch etc. before a worthy target presents itself, then try to cover for their lack of effect by exhibiting pissy behavior.

They are ruled by their glands, I think. ;)

j2k4
06-17-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 12:50

To blame the U.S. for these goings-on, to accuse the U.S. of sanctioning these "events" is to flaunt one&#39;s ignorance.


How about this then. Why doesnt the UK Gvt turn a blind eye to fund raising for Al-Queda, lets say for about 30 years? Then when you complain about it we&#39;ll argue that what happens in the UK is not the responsibility of the Gvt. :lol:
EBP-

The degree of pure contrarianism you demonstrate continues to amaze. :o

Should you ever become P.M., we will know the end is nigh. ;)

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 06:17 PM
The degree of pure contrarianism you demonstrate continues to amaze.

hehe, thats the 2nd time you&#39;ve used that word without explaining yourself. What was it about my post that you believed defies conventional wisdom? This is the 2nd time I&#39;ve been forced to ask you that. Any chance of an explanation or are you going to continue making irrelevant statements?

Are your implying that the US Gvt is incapable of stopping IRA fund raising that has been going on for over 3 decades? If that doesnt defy conventional wisdom I dont know what does.

I see a pattern emerging here.. when you get backed into a corner and cant defend your views you break out the thesaurus. :lol:

edited: typo

TheDave
06-17-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 18:17

The degree of pure contrarianism you demonstrate continues to amaze.

hehe, thats the 2nd time you&#39;ve used that word without explaining yourself. What was it about my post that you believed defies conventional wisdom? This is the 2nd time I&#39;ve been forced to ask you that. Any chance of an explanation or are you going to continure making irrelevant statements?

Are your implying that the US Gvt is incapable of stopping IRA fund raising that has been going on for over 3 decades? If that doesnt defy conventional wisdom I dont know what does.

I see a pattern emerging here.. when you get backed into a corner and cant defend your views you break out the thesaurus. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: so its not just me then.

J'Pol
06-17-2003, 06:24 PM
He made it up.

j2k4
06-17-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 13:17

The degree of pure contrarianism you demonstrate continues to amaze.

hehe, thats the 2nd time you&#39;ve used that word without explaining yourself. What was it about my post that you believed defies conventional wisdom? This is the 2nd time I&#39;ve been forced to ask you that. Any chance of an explanation or are you going to continue making irrelevant statements?

Are your implying that the US Gvt is incapable of stopping IRA fund raising that has been going on for over 3 decades? If that doesnt defy conventional wisdom I dont know what does.

I see a pattern emerging here.. when you get backed into a corner and cant defend your views you break out the thesaurus. :lol:

edited: typo

I actually don&#39;t own a thesaurus, EBP; I do, however, have a job.

I shall return @2300 hrs to settle up, fella. ;)

crazy_billy_bats
06-17-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2003 - 16:55

To blame the U.S. for these goings-on, to accuse the U.S. of sanctioning these "events" is to flaunt one&#39;s ignorance.
nah sorry to dissapoint you mate, i wasnt generalising.

It just plain sickens me that any human being (American or not) can fund raise for people who murder.
Therefore, these Americans sicken me.

J'Pol
06-17-2003, 06:35 PM
I believe the citizens of the United States have the right to freely express themselves protected under their constitution. As indeed do most citizens of civilised countries.

There are things which are allowed in my own city, which support political views, both by demonstration and by actual fundraising with which I do not agree. I find the things which they are supporting to be personally abhorrent. In a very real sense.

However as long as I support every persons right to express themselves then I must also accept this.

As I have said on many occasions here, that freedom extends to me.

crazy_billy_bats
06-17-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@17 June 2003 - 18:35

However as long as I support every persons right to express themselves then I must also accept this.

I myself agree and support every human beings right to express themselves.

However, i believe people who express a will to give money to murderers should not be allowed to proceed in their "activities", whatever they may be.

Views or not, people are being murdered in my country as a result (and i am not suggesting this is the only reason, as of course it is not) of people in America (both Irish, American, Irish-American, as well as other races and creeds im sure) giving money to known terrorists.
People who have been known to engage in terrorist activities in Northern Ireland, namely, Martin McGuiness who himself admits to being a member of the IRA (and this whole ridiculous facade of his is being played out in the Bloody Sunday Enquiry, which im sure you are aware of, where he denies involvement with the IRA).
Besides, I could go on a lot about this, but the fact remains that no one should have the right to take a life. And no one should have the right to give money to fund murderer&#39;s, as is clearly happening. Although on a much smaller scale i am led to believe as a result of 9/11 and the whole "War on terrorism".
Thank u and goodnite&#33; Peace&#33;
Bill :D

DanB
06-17-2003, 07:29 PM
i have a funny video about this. Search for bush war. :lol:

clocker
06-17-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by crazy_billy_bats@17 June 2003 - 12:43

I myself agree and support every human beings right to express themselves.

However, i believe people who express a will to give money to murderers should not be allowed to proceed in their "activities", whatever they may be.


Make up your mind, Billy.

J'Pol
06-17-2003, 11:19 PM
It&#39;s easy to support the first amendment rights, or their equivalent, until the person says something you disagree with.

clocker
06-18-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@17 June 2003 - 17:19
It&#39;s easy to support the first amendment rights, or their equivalent, until the person says something you disagree with.
How right you are.

When I lived in D.C. I dated a woman who worked for the ACLU.
She was Jewish.
At the time, one of the ACLU&#39;s high profile cases involved defending the rights of the American Nazi Party to hold a rally in Skokie, Ill.
She was conflicted, to say the least.
In the end she decided that her belief in the necessity of defending the 1st Amendment superceded her religion/history.

All of the people I met at the ACLU were well aware of the contempt and disdain that many people held towards them. They could see how absurd and distasteful some of their cases appeared to the majority. I believe that we just saw such expressions here on the Board in the thread concerning the Muslim woman in Florida.
Disagree if you must, but you really can&#39;t doubt these folks&#39; sincerity and resolve.

echidna
06-18-2003, 02:16 AM
@DB :: Your understanding is pathetically flawed, and your aggressive attitude is unfortunately typical.
i agree with Rat Faced & crazy_billy_bats and others regarding the USAs hypocrisy. this hypocrisy is further exposed by the US funding of insurgency in south and central america, Afghanistan etc. beyond the IRAs boston bank-rollers,
as to why the rest of the world is a bit peeved at the USA and why we don&#39;t trust the USA, maybe this list will help you notice that the USA is overtly aggressive and prone to violence.
[note almost all US military personnel referred to by this list were US males mostly between the ages of 17-40.]

Originally posted by Compiled by Zoltan Grossman :: revised October 8 @ 2001 :: reformatted by echidna - added 2003 Iraq engagement - 18 June 2003

From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan a century of US military interventions



U.S. military spending (&#036;343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend &#036;14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2000. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilisations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defence Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilisations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities.



SOUTH DAKOTA :: 1890 (-?) :: Troops :: 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA :: 1890 :: Troops :: Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE :: 1891 :: Troops :: Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI :: 1891 :: Troops :: Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.
IDAHO :: 1892 :: Troops :: Army suppresses silver miners&#39; strike.
HAWAII :: 1893 (-?) :: Naval, troops :: Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO :: 1894 :: Troops :: Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed
NICARAGUA :: 1894 :: Troops :: Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA :: 1894-95 :: Naval, troops :: Marines land in Sino-Jap War.
KOREA :: 1894-96 :: Troops :: Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA :: 1895 :: Troops, naval :: Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA :: 1896 :: Troops :: Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA :: 1898-1900 :: Troops :: Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES :: 1898-1910(-?) :: Naval, troops :: Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA :: 1898-1902(-?) :: Naval, troops :: Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO :: 1898(-?) :: Naval, troops :: Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM :: 1898(-?) :: Naval, troops :: Seized from Spain, still used as base.
MINNESOTA :: 1898(-?) :: Troops :: Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA :: 1898 :: Troops :: Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA :: 1899(-?) :: Troops :: Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA :: 1899 :: Troops :: Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO :: 1899-1901 :: Troops :: Army occupies Coeur d&#39;Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA :: 1901 :: Troops :: Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA :: 1901-14 :: Naval, troops :: Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.
HONDURAS :: 1903 :: Troops :: Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP. :: 1903-04 :: Troops :: U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA :: 1904-05 :: Troops :: Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA :: 1906-09 :: Troops :: Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA :: 1907 :: Troops :: "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS :: 1907 :: Troops :: Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA :: 1908 :: Troops :: Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA :: 1910 :: Troops :: Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS :: 1911 :: Troops :: U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA :: 1911-41 :: Naval, troops :: Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA :: 1912 :: Troops :: U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA :: 19l2 :: Troops :: Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS :: 19l2 :: Troops :: Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA :: 1912-33 :: Troops, bombing :: 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO :: 19l3 :: Naval :: Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC :: 1914 :: Naval :: Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO :: 1914 :: Troops :: Breaking of miners&#39; strike by Army.
MEXICO :: 1914-18 :: Naval, troops :: Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI :: 1914-34 :: Troops, bombing :: 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC :: 1916-24 :: Troops :: 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA :: 1917-33 :: Troops :: Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I :: 19l7-18 :: Naval, troops :: Ships sunk, fought Germany
RUSSIA :: 1918-22 :: Naval, troops :: Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.
PANAMA :: 1918-20 :: Troops :: "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA :: 1919 :: Troops :: Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
HONDURAS :: 1919 :: Troops :: Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA :: 1920 :: Troops :: 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA :: 1920-21 :: Troops, bombing :: Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY :: 1922 :: Troops :: Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).
CHINA :: 1922-27 :: Naval, troops :: Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS :: 1924-25 :: Troops :: Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA :: 1925 :: Troops :: Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA :: 1927-34 :: Troops :: Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR :: 1932 :: Naval :: Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC :: 1932 :: Troops :: Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II :: 1941-45 :: Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear :: Fought Axis for 3 years; 1st nuclear war.
DETROIT :: 1943 :: Troops :: Army puts down Black rebellion.
IRAN :: 1946 :: Nuclear threat :: Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan).
YUGOSLAVIA :: 1946 :: Naval :: Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.
URUGUAY :: 1947 :: Nuclear threat :: Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE :: 1947-49 :: Command operation :: U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
CHINA :: 1948-49 :: Troops :: Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
GERMANY :: 1948 :: Nuclear threat :: Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES :: 1948-54 :: Command operation :: CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO :: 1950 :: Command operation :: Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA :: 1950-53 :: Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats :: U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN :: 1953 :: Command operation :: CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM :: 1954 :: Nuclear threat :: Bombs offered to French to use against siege.
GUATEMALA :: 1954 :: Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat :: CIA directs exile invasion after new govt nationalises U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT :: 1956 :: Nuclear threat, troops :: Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners
LEBANON :: 1958 :: Troops, naval :: Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ :: 1958 :: Nuclear threat :: Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA :: 1958 :: Nuclear threat :: China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA :: 1958 :: Troops&nbsp; /&nbsp; Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM :: 1960-75 :: Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats :: Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.
CUBA :: 1961 :: Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY :: 1961 :: Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA :: 1962 :: Nuclear threat, Naval :: Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.
LAOS :: 1962 :: Command operation :: Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA :: 1964 :: Troops :: Panamanians shot for urging canal&#39;s return.
INDONESIA :: 1965 :: Command operation :: Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC :: 1965-66 :: Troops, bombing :: Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA :: 1966-67 :: Command operation :: Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT :: 1967 :: Troops :: Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES :: 1968 :: Troops :: After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA :: 1969-75 :: Bombing, troops, naval :: Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN :: 1970 :: Command operation :: U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS :: 1971-73 :: Command operation, bombing :: U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA :: 1973 :: Command operation :: Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST :: 1973 :: Nuclear threat :: World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE :: 1973 :: Command operation :: CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA :: 1975 :: Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA :: 1976-92 :: Command operation :: CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN :: 1980 :: Troops, nuclear threat :: aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets war-ned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA :: 1981 :: Naval jets :: Two Libyan jets shot down in manoeuvres.
EL SALVADOR :: 1981-92 :: Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights :: aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA :: 1981-90 :: Command operation, naval :: CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbour mines against revolution.
LEBANON :: 1982-84 :: Naval, bombing, troops :: Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.
HONDURAS :: 1983-89 :: Troops :: Manoeuvres help build bases near borders.
GRENADA :: 1983-84 :: Troops, bombing :: Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN :: 1984 :: Jets :: Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA :: 1986 :: Bombing, naval :: Air strikes to topple nationalist govt.
BOLIVIA :: 1986 :: Troops :: Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN :: 1987-88 :: Naval, bombing :: US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA :: 1989 :: Naval jets :: Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS :: 1989 :: Troops :: St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES :: 1989 :: Jets :: Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA :: 1989-90 :: Troops, bombing :: Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA :: 1990 :: Troops :: Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA :: 1990-91 :: Troops, jets :: Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ :: 1990-? :: Bombing, troops, naval :: Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT :: 1991 :: Naval, bombing, troops :: Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES :: 1992 :: Troops :: Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA :: 1992-94 :: Troops, naval, bombing :: U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA :: 1992-94 :: Naval :: Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA :: 1993-95 :: Jets, bombing :: No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI :: 1994-96 :: Troops, naval :: Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
CROATIA :: 1995 :: Bombing :: Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.
ZAIRE (CONGO) :: 1996-97 :: Troops :: Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA :: 1997 :: Troops :: Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA :: 1997 :: Troops :: Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN :: 1998 :: Missiles ::Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN :: 1998 :: Missiles :: Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ :: 1998-? :: Bombing, Missiles :: Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA :: 1999-? :: Bombing, Missiles :: Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.
YEMEN :: 2000 :: Naval :: Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.
MACEDONIA :: 2001 :: Troops :: NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES :: 2001 :: Jets, naval :: Response to hijacking attacks.
AFGHANISTAN :: 2001 :: Massive U.S. mobilisation to attack Taliban, Bin Laden.
IRAQ :: 2003 :: Massive U.S. mobilisation ostensibly to capture weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Husein

For more information or with comments and additions please contact:
Zoltan Grossman, 1705 Rutledge, Madison, WI 53704
Phone Fax (608)246-2256. [email protected]

Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service.
echidna sourced this list from Znet (http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm)


DarkBlizzard unfortunately you are a fine example as to how the USA can elect someone who doesn&#39;t know who the leader of Pakistan is [they (pakistan) just got &#39;the bomb&#39; :nuke: you know]
As the combat ops in iraq demonstrate americans are more of a danger to themselves than anyone else :: or didn&#39;t you notice that the majority of casualties were americans shooting other americans [oh, oops, i mean &#39;friendly fire&#39;]

you might also want to notice that ALL of the jounalists killed or wounded in the iraq conflict were hit by US forces :: i don&#39;t believe that 1st amendment rights really mean anything to the US forces. :ph34r: :blink:


[you try to tell us you&#39;re &#39;the good guys&#39; :: good for what? i ask, fertilizer?] :ph34r: :( :angry: :o :ph34r:

Ed. typo

j2k4
06-18-2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by TheDave+17 June 2003 - 13:20--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheDave &#064; 17 June 2003 - 13:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 18:17

The degree of pure contrarianism you demonstrate continues to amaze.

hehe, thats the 2nd time you&#39;ve used that word without explaining yourself. What was it about my post that you believed defies conventional wisdom? This is the 2nd time I&#39;ve been forced to ask you that. Any chance of an explanation or are you going to continure making irrelevant statements?

Are your implying that the US Gvt is incapable of stopping IRA fund raising that has been going on for over 3 decades? If that doesnt defy conventional wisdom I dont know what does.

I see a pattern emerging here.. when you get backed into a corner and cant defend your views you break out the thesaurus. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: so its not just me then.[/b][/quote]
I promised to answer you two; let it not be said that I was backed down by such a pair of ankle-biting neophytes.

I&#39;m including you, TheDave, as you decided to buy in cheap by hitching a ride on EPB&#39;s rather short and fragile coat-tails-I&#39;m sure he&#39;s noticed the extra weight and drag of your Johnny-come-lately presence.

I won&#39;t address the entirety of our postings; to do so would be redundant-and even more boring, frankly, than this post will probably be.

It should quite suffice to say this, instead:

Were the points I have made anything less than perfectly clear, you would be part of a chorus, instead of the feckless pair of squallers you are.

Neither is it my responsibility to instruct you as to any standard of decorum; if you cannot be troubled to learn from the abundant examples here (not mine, mind you), then you deserve the contempt of all who post here.

I have encountered many in this forum with whom I&#39;ve had a knock-down, drag-out disagreement-some have even descended to the rhetorical level of this one.

In the end, however, respect is always rendered, and corners retreated to, with the intent of doing it all over again at the first opportunity.

I can forecast no such denouement in your case.

You see, although I can count something less than a handful of members with whom I share a more-or-less total empathy, the rest stand at all different points of the spectrum of opinion.

Nonetheless, one thing is certain: They are all worthy of true respect; and we all try to at least play at conducting ourselves with reasonable dignity.

You two demonstrate no such inclination.

One more thing:

The decorum I mentioned earlier would ordinarily restrain me from commenting, but, arrogant bastard that I am, I have to say I have noticed about both of you a distinctly Gaullist air-in light of this, I feel it my duty and pleasure to re-christen you as "Jacques" and "Gilles".

Please enjoy your stay, guys; volley at your leisure- :D

crazy_billy_bats
06-18-2003, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by clocker+17 June 2003 - 23:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 17 June 2003 - 23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-crazy_billy_bats@17 June 2003 - 12:43

I myself agree and support every human beings right to express themselves.

However, i believe people who express a will to give money to murderers should not be allowed to proceed in their "activities", whatever they may be.


Make up your mind, Billy. [/b][/quote]
:lol:

Boy oh boy......

I have made up my mind, those American&#39;s make me sick.


They shouldnt be allowed to express their right to murder people.
Obvious enough?

:lol:
:lol:

J'Pol
06-18-2003, 07:04 AM
One can only assume that anyone willing to sweepingly generalise all American citizens as funders of terrorism and murder would afford the Irish the same and accuse them all of being terrorists and murderers. Or would that just be ludicrous.

With due deference to myfiles lack of comfort at the visual emphasis.

crazy_billy_bats
06-18-2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@18 June 2003 - 07:04
One can only assume that anyone willing to sweepingly generalise all American citizens as funders of terrorism and murder would afford the Irish the same and accuse them all of being terrorists and murderers. Or would that just be ludicrous.

Oh my goodness....

This begins to get even more ridiculous.

I made the point i wasnt generalising, you might want to read my posts.

I say those Americans make me sick, referring to the idiots who fund-raise.

I dont mean all of them, as im sure anyone else who read that would realise.

My point has been made, human beings who fund murderers make me sick, both Irish and Americans.

DarkBlizzard
06-18-2003, 07:53 AM
whoa&#33;....i havent red this topic for like 2 days.....u guys sure have been talkin.....anyway

billy_bats i didnt mean to be mean to you....i forget u were Irish....i was just saying its sort of odd that i like people from Great Britian more than i do from Ireland because my family is from Ireland

crazy_billy_bats
06-18-2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@18 June 2003 - 07:53
whoa&#33;....i havent red this topic for like 2 days.....u guys sure have been talkin.....anyway

billy_bats i didnt mean to be mean to you....i forget u were Irish....i was just saying its sort of odd that i like people from Great Britian more than i do from Ireland because my family is from Ireland
Its all right my man no offence is taken, honestly :D &#33;&#33;

life is too short ;)

see ya around&#33;
Cheers&#33;

:D Bill :D

DarkBlizzard
06-18-2003, 08:03 AM
Ok thats good....i sort of noticed how people always get pissed off when i talk about anything related to America....so maybe this will be my last american topic :lol: :lol:

( I get the point that 99% of people that dont live in america hate most american&#39;s)

echidna
06-18-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2003 - 17:47
Anyone got a list of the IRA&#39;s activities they can post?

Then tell Darkblizzard who funded them....


THEN point out that UK didnt drop fucking bombs on Irish Republic&#39;s towns and cities.


.............because the IRA are INDIVIDUALS, not a fucking country.
i was going to post here is a list of those killed in the troubles between 1969-2001, it demonstrates the truth of michael franti&#39;s lyric &#39;we can bomb the world to peices but we can&#39;t bomb it into peace&#39;.
as Rat Faced says the UK didn&#39;t declare war on the IRA [or any of the other organisations]
it also shows that killing a lot of people is not a good way to effect the political situation
http://echidna.by.ru//img/klb/Capture_giantIRAlist.gif
the list is way too big @3523 entries so unless there is popular demand beyond RFs request i&#39;m just linking to the site i assembled it from;
Malcolm Sutton&#39;s Index of deaths from the conflict in Ireland (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html)

chalice
06-18-2003, 09:53 AM
Echidna, thanks for that last post.
It was well researched and a wholly necessary component of this argument.

crazy_billy_bats
06-18-2003, 10:01 AM
Yeah thanks man, that was a valid post.

I like valid posts, you know? Ones that actually mean something and let people realise the true horrors of terrorism, Northern Ireland, and Americans (only some) who fund terrorism.

It saddens me to know that that list of victims of the troubles here will only continue to swell.

This oncoming summer is the start of the onslaught of punishment beatings, fights and murders that plague our streets.
I pray for peace and better people in this world.

Before i start to sound too "high and mighty", i realise there are many more countries in the world who are much worse off than here. Both in terms of terrorism and violence.
But well, we arnt talking about that, i would just like to make that point.

Just incase, that is, i am ridiculed for saying something completely innocent.

J'Pol
06-18-2003, 11:59 AM
"Those Americans" without a qualification e.g. "those americans who fundraise ..." means all Americans. It&#39;s simple English

I do read your posts and respond to what they say. Perhaps if you were to take more time when writing them there would be less confusion. Remember people can only go by what you actually write, not what you think you are writing.

crazy_billy_bats
06-18-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@18 June 2003 - 11:59
Perhaps if you were to take more time when writing them there would be less confusion.
:lol:

The confusion only seems to be coming from one person im afraid&#33;&#33;

I explained what i meant and nothing else needed to be said, I made it clear i wasnt generalising and that is simple English.

The individuals that fund raise in America and the rest of the world for terrorists in Northern Ireland sickens me - thats plain and simple. This is the last time i will make this point - as it is becoming quite tiresome.

Ill take as much time as I feel is necessary on the posts (and people) i want, thanks.

Bye &#33;&#33;&#33;

Bill :D

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 01:03 PM
I promised to answer you two; let it not be said that I was backed down by such a pair of ankle-biting neophytes.&nbsp;


@jk24 you promised to answer us? All I can see in that post are more &#39;impressive&#39; words, quite a few insults and thats about it. The fact you managed to write all that without addressing one issue raised in this thread is rather comical&#33; :lol:

Again.. the pattern of using huge words, insults and a complete disregard for the issues at hand emerges when you can&#39;t defend your views or , in this case, the double standards of US foreign policy in regard to terrorism. <_<

It&#39;s good to see you dropping the illusion of being a reasonable person, it was pretty transparent anyway. The fact you use such terms as &#39;backed down&#39; is a good indication of what kind of mentality we&#39;re dealing with here. You mentioned something about "conducting ourselves with reasonable dignity."... would you like an extra helping of irony with your hypocrisy? Or perhaps I should quote your inital reply to angellynn26 from the "World Opinion Of The Usa" thread?



Spoken like a true "unruly teenager", angellynn26.

Arianna Huffington, eh? Isn&#39;t she the gal who married that homosexual Republican rep Michael Huffington, then became embittered when he "came out"? She&#39;s become the new darling of the Libs now that she hates SUVs and she apparently has cornered the market on "truth".
I would characterize her as an extremely high-rent social-climber in the mold of an ersatz Zsa Zsa Gabor-she&#39;s got the accent down.

You&#39;ll find we don&#39;t allow our rabble to be roused so easily.

Do you know what a Fascist government really is?

Not the rhetorical "Fascist" government of your anti-Bush liberalism, but true Fascism?

Forgive me, but before you began posting here, were you riding in the back of a turnip truck? Perhaps not holding on too tightly?

Such phrases should not be thrown around so cheaply, as you will learn if you persist with this sort of screeching, scatter-shot approach you seem to favor.

Don&#39;t get offended or huffy now; I promise-it won&#39;t help.

Of course, if you would like to try our wading pool

"unruly teenager"..."riding in the back of a turnip truck""

Such dignity&#33; How moving&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:

But.. I am a forgiving individual. I will grant you another chance to answer the issues at hand instead of "going off on one", as we say in the UK.



Are your implying that the US Gvt is incapable of stopping IRA fund raising that has been going on for over 3 decades? If that doesnt defy conventional wisdom I dont know what does.


PS Taking all threads into account this is now the 4th request for an explanation of why my views are contrarian. I wonder what&#39;ll happen first, WMD are found in Iraq, you explain your wild statements or hell freezes over. My moneys on the latter :P