Yannis, I believe if you succumb to the threat of terrorists, you have succumbed to the terrorists. If France and Germany are afraid of terrorist repercussions, they have lost their countries already.
Al Qaeda take responsibility for Madrid bombings?
- Thread starter keith
- Start date
- Status
Some interesting numbers.
September 11 2001- New York
October 12 2002 - Bali, at a nightclub known to be full of Aussies and Brits.
Now Spain, and the internet gossip is that it's 911 days since september 11. (I've not checked the numbers, but it must be pretty close)
September 11 2001- New York
October 12 2002 - Bali, at a nightclub known to be full of Aussies and Brits.
Now Spain, and the internet gossip is that it's 911 days since september 11. (I've not checked the numbers, but it must be pretty close)
Hey, that is interesting stuff. I kind of thought myself that the date September 11, 2001, was selected because of the 911 (9-11-01). You know, like an emergency call.
But if the major attacks are taking place 911 days apart (for whatever reason known only to the terrorists) that could be important. Of course, they could change their routine at any time. What would be the date 911 days after what happened in Spain?
But if the major attacks are taking place 911 days apart (for whatever reason known only to the terrorists) that could be important. Of course, they could change their routine at any time. What would be the date 911 days after what happened in Spain?
It is different when you have to face the consequenses.
Which is the easiest target for Al Qaeda?
Europe or the USA?
You can make your war and return safely home but we don't have two oceans to separate us from the rest of the world.
I don't want to live in **** like Israel
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Yes, Yannis, we have the luxury of filtering most of our overseas immigrants unlike the Euros. An intersting article in Playboy titled "Sleepers" pointed out that in Europe ...terrorists hide in plain sight. The Arab and non-Arab Muslim European population is just too abundant to know who to watch.
I don't think this terrorist thing is going to go away in our lifetime. There are too many that desire power ..and too many "have nots" to provide the expendable suicide bombers. I think that the groups will change and the targets ..but it will be a game of "Whack-a-Mole". They'll just keep popping up where you are not prepared for them.
Life comes cheap where they come from....
I don't think this terrorist thing is going to go away in our lifetime. There are too many that desire power ..and too many "have nots" to provide the expendable suicide bombers. I think that the groups will change and the targets ..but it will be a game of "Whack-a-Mole". They'll just keep popping up where you are not prepared for them.
Life comes cheap where they come from....
How exactly are the leaders of the western superpowers denying girls the right to schooling, women the right to vote, women the right to employment and women the right to show their face in many Arab nations?
If you believe that the western nations are so influential and powerful, why are they not able to prevent the teaching of hatred in the mosques? The power that you assign to the western nations doesn't exist out there in the real world, out there in the stone huts and dusty roads.
I will grant you that the issue of Israel is used by some to build and perpetuate the hate. Nations that have moved on, such as Egypt, are far ahead of their neighbors.
Until the billionaire Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat, is out of the picture, there will not be sustainable peace. For as long as he is tolerated, even admired, by the worlds leftists, progress will be slow and painful. Sad to say, that is precisely what the enemies of the US desire and the human cost is secondary.
Keith.
primarily by supporting the house of saud. we may whoop *** in iraq and afghanistan, but the root cause of these problems can be found in saudi arabia. saudi arabia is not exactly a beacon of freedom, and much of the terrorist funding comes from there.
and it could easily be said ...It is the leaders of these western superpowers that maintain these conditions. To date, the west has shown themselves unwilling to reform or alter these conditions that they maintain. [/QUOTE]
George Bush got rid of the worst, the Taliban and Saddam. We are pressuring the ones that replaced the Shah of Iran after we withdrew our support for him. Libia is yielding to pressure. there is only so much we can do with many of the countries.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I could go into great detail here ...but basically WE support these monarchies because so many of our trade partners are dependant upon the free flow of oil. One hiccup in the middle east and oil prices go sky high ..let alone an internal Islamic uprising. The House of Saud is a very corrupt monarchy. The have a strict wahabbi Islamic society that doesn't allow their people to learn anything except Islamic studies (men) and liberal arts (women) ..they import all their tech help. All this and many of the thousands of princes party with white women in Beverly Hills and drive Lamborginis. That is, they are milking the wealth from the land and NOT doing anything for their people. This is not a case of Exxon in Chile where you are buying goods from a facist regime ..this is our directly protecting the integrity of this corrupt monarchy.
If not for us ..this corrupt regime would not be in power.
You seem to think that this is as simple as "Okay I'll buy your oil ..and leave the local politics to you" type thing. Sorry ..it's not that one dimensional. The oil monarchies have the wealth and the influence to transform the poverty in the middle east into a sustainable florishing region ..yet they are content to allow the masses at their feet to remain in poverty. This would, hopefully, end the power base that all these regional trouble makers feed themselves on. Have you heard of an uprising in Japan, South Korea, Gemany?? WHY? Because people who have a home, food, employment, and security don't have much to fight about ...and we gave them that option to wars of conquest ...yet our track record in the middle east is much more spotty.
If those people choose to have an Islamic society ..so be it. The corruption of the monarchies has nothing to do with democracy and women's rights. It has everything to do with keeping a bunch of theives in power who are robbing the region of wealth ....and leaving the people of the region in despair.
That is why we are blamed for this.
French Military History in a Nutshell
Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."
Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tied.
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.
War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".
French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.
War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Try putting "French Military Victories" in the Google search engine for a laugh.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Absolutely! Don't assume that the House of Saud is all on 'one page". There is a constant power stuggle within the royal family. The current "rulers" are quite good friends with the US (these are the one's that drive the Lamboginis). There are however "conservative" elements within the royal family that don't want this "way" to be. The supporters of these conservative elements ...the wealthy businessmen are the ones who fund such terrorist enterprises.
Consider it the Arabic version of the CIA's "dirty tricks" department. Just like the USA ..there are some who profit from global stability ...and there are those who profit from global instability.
Do you think that we've got this "recipe" locked up like Kentucky Fried Chicken??? How many regimes have we supported ..or toppled because it suited our "needs"? We tend to look at our history through rose colored glasses. Our foreign policy is a mishmash of issues that frequently involved direct or collateral damage to others. Some out of necessity (as in lesser of two evils) ..and others out of convenience ...and profit/gain.
- Status
Similar threads
