The terrorism theory President Bush refuses to hear (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

Why? What has the DPRK ever done to another nation?

When they launched a few missiles towards japan.. they have taken militaric action recently.. iran hasnt really.

 

[JayB]

see comrade, the whole idea of a pre-emptive strike is to attack before you are attacked. therefore its not what the DPRK have done to other countries, but what a totalitarian fascist regime threatens to do. not a single one have ever been stable enough to resist conquest by fire or the sword. or in this case, the atomic bomb.

 

[JayB]

iran hasnt really.

they do like to threaten the complete destruction of other countries though. and to train terrorist groups. and to incite violence. and the list goes on. how many other countries boast that, and a fledgling nuclear program, that has already been promised to be used once developed?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Well the US has an 'actual' nuclear program that has 'actually' been used to kill millions of people. Couple that with the arrogant presumption that America is the best country in the world, and that other western courntires are just their poor cousins and you have the kind of dangerous athmosphere present in terrorist countries.

So yeah, I think the danger comes from there, not from the new smokescreen they are trying to create.

It's 'praise allah' now then 'god bless america and the american way'

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

When they launched a few missiles towards japan.. they have taken militaric action recently.. iran hasnt really.

Yeah, except that those missiles weren’t ‘at Japan’ as you put it, they weren’t aggressive action, they were missile testing in the ocean.
It’s legal, it’s fine, it’s just because it’s Korea and not a western country we think there’s something wrong with it.

 

[JayB]

where has america ever killed millions of people with atomic weapons? the figures from hiroshima and nagasaki are well below that.

america has never threatened to wipe a country off the map in the last 20 years. iran continues to do so. besides which, like i've tried to explain already, the terrorism now is islamic expansionism,nothing more. thats the root of the problem. they (the fascist governments) want to enforce their way of life on everybody. this isnt just me saying this, or assuming this. this is from the speeches of their religious leaders, and from their government (as if it can really be called that) leaders. and to compare america to germany is just disgusting. germany was a sick fascist regime in which free speech was crushed, and genocide was publicly supported. america stands diametrically opposed to those "values".

 

[JayB]

isnt it also interesting to note now, that we are only talking about countries who have dictators being threats. this must mean something interesting.

north korea cant feed its people, there is somehting wrong with it. not because its not a western country. just because its not a very successful one.

 

[onebytwo]

where has america ever killed millions of people with atomic weapons? the figures from hiroshima and nagasaki are well below that.

america has never threatened to wipe a country off the map in the last 20 years. iran continues to do so. besides which, like i've tried to explain already, the terrorism now is islamic expansionism,nothing more. thats the root of the problem. they (the fascist governments) want to enforce their way of life on everybody. this isnt just me saying this, or assuming this. this is from the speeches of their religious leaders, and from their government (as if it can really be called that) leaders. and to compare america to germany is just disgusting. germany was a sick fascist regime in which free speech was crushed, and genocide was publicly supported. america stands diametrically opposed to those "values".

why do continually refer to whats a threat and whats not. the US has invaded iraq, afghanistan and vietnam and has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, but you continue to see them as the good guys. iraq nor iran would ever have been able nor be able to fire any weaponary at the US, anything unidentified flying over the Atlantic/ Pacific would be shot down in a matter of minutes. so there is never any direct outside threat. scaremongering has been the most prominent feature of the US gov.. i wonder if anybody has ever counted the number of times Bush has used the words terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.heres a video that i think explains quite well the motives behind the US gov foreign policy and the infamous wolfowitz doctrine that almost predicts 911. http://youtube.com/watch?v=aJ8KpSczlNc
how many birth defects have occured in Japan since the atomic bombs were dropped?

 

[JayB]

america doesnt slaughter its citizens for no reason, nor gas them for the hell of it. iraq did. iran is the home to some of the most blatant, disgusting racism in the world, not only against jews or the western world, but agianst other sects of Islam as well. and gee, wow, the reason he uses those words, could it possible be because they exist? i know, its shocking huh?

its funny how the world complains when america does nothing to protect them, and yet complains that they act like the world police.

and what exactly are you insinuating with the video? that america is to blame for 9-11? or that they were behind it? both are ludicrous.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

onebytwo, America is not to blame for 911 and they weren't behind it! I know theories like that are tempting when faced with the smug arrogance of Bush but they lead nowhere.

quote: "where has america ever killed millions of people with atomic weapons? the figures from hiroshima and nagasaki are well below that."
Hundreds of thousands then. Far more than the amount of americans killed by terrorists.

I haven't heard Australia complain that the US doesn nothing to protect them, but I have heard them complain about thr world police thing so I don't think its just a case of 'help us then F off'.
America doesn't slaughter its own citizens because those citizens are indoctrinated already. They already believe they are the best country in the world, that they have the right to impose their beliefs on the world. America doesn't have a problem with slaugtering other countires citizens however. Vietnam an excellent historical example...America doesn't like communism so they force a civil war on Vietnam.
Afghanistan- America went in to find Bin Laden, instead killed hundreds of civillians, and 5 years on, still havent found Bin Laden, Bush family friends.
Iraq- find weapons of mass destruction...still havent found any...havent found evidence that iraq was really threatening america at all...America drops atomic bomb...thousands die, more develop cancer and birth defects generations after the bomb. but heck, they're only asians after all!

 

[Comrade nathan]

see comrade, the whole idea of a pre-emptive strike is to attack before you are attacked. therefore its not what the DPRK have done to other countries, but what a totalitarian fascist regime threatens to do. not a single one have ever been stable enough to resist conquest by fire or the sword. or in this case, the atomic bomb.

The DPRK has made no threats of attack. They only state they will protect themselves. In imperialist countries the citizens equate national sovereignty and armed defence of a indepenent socialist country with agression. It is a similar fear that was common during the anti-colonial movements in the 1900's.

 

[JayB]

no, they dropped the bomb on japan to finish the war, which in all essentials it did. and i know you will argue about the lives it saved vs the lives it killed, but the other thing you need to note is that they were at war, which means an us and them mentality, so the dropping of the bombs did literally save thousands at least, if not many many more american lives.

america doesnt slaughter their citizens because they are a democracy. it would be unlawful and unjust, and completely against everything that makes america a great nation. they also have freedom of speech, while iraw didnt and iran definately does not, niether the dprk. which would you prefer to live in? for whatever reasons they declared war on iraq, the act removed a dictator, and freed thousands of people from a totalitarian regime.

im talking about world governments, im talking about normal people who like to complain that america are the world police, but when atrocities are committed, turn to them, whether directly or indirectly to save everyone.

can i assume then, that you oppose australias role in east timor then? a military action in another country?

 

[JayB]

i can't fault you comrade, what you've said is totally true. but america percieves a threat there. not many countries will "declare" war before they declare it, if you see what i mean.

 

[Comrade nathan]

not many countries will "declare" war before they declare it, if you see what i mean.

What do you mean?

 

[onebytwo]

and what exactly are you insinuating with the video? that america is to blame for 9-11? or that they were behind it? both are ludicrous.

who do you suggest was behind 911 then? let me guess, a bunch of shonky desert arabs, 6 of whom are still alive today and have been interviewed by the BBC, who probably dint know how to use a tv remote, mastermineded by some loser in the caves of some desert? <this is easily the most ludicrous theory.
if you think the above is the case then i would like you to present me with your explanation or link about how WTC 7 collapsed so suddenly and why molten steel was found below the rubble days after 911. the 911 commision doesnt even mention the collapse of WTC 7. also, if you do believe the above then you are a devout follower of the most proposterous "pancake theory"

even the FBI admit they dont have solid evidence relating anybody to 911.
lets not forget larry silverstein (WTC lease owner) said they decided to "pull" wtc 7 that afternoon, as shown in a PBS interview

 

[JayB]

umm, gee i wonder who was behind it. could it possibly be the freaking terrorists who hijacked the planes, and crashed them into the towers?

nah couldnt be. its too obvious.

who else needs to be related. i didnt try and relate it to iraq or afghanistan. the people who where behind it were american yeah, but it wasnt the government. islamic terrorists come in all nationalities. its part of the fun. just like the london bombers. unlless your gonna tell me that that was also just a big government conspiracy. while were at it, we didnt really go to the moon, jfk wasnt really assasinated, and elvis is alive and haunting shopping centres in south africa.

you cheapen the memory of those who perished there with your pathetic excuses for conspiracy theories.

 

[HotShot]

who do you suggest was behind 911 then? let me guess, a bunch of shonky desert arabs, 6 of whom are still alive today and have been interviewed by the BBC, who probably dint know how to use a tv remote, mastermineded by some loser in the caves of some desert? <this is easily the most ludicrous theory.
if you think the above is the case then i would like you to present me with your explanation or link about how WTC 7 collapsed so suddenly and why molten steel was found below the rubble days after 911. the 911 commision doesnt even mention the collapse of WTC 7. also, if you do believe the above then you are a devout follower of the most proposterous "pancake theory"

even the FBI admit they dont have solid evidence relating anybody to 911.
lets not forget larry silverstein (WTC lease owner) said they decided to "pull" wtc 7 that afternoon, as shown in a PBS interview

ur grossly underestimating the intelligence of these terrorists. Just have at OSama at wikipedia and see where and what studied etc.

no, they dropped the bomb on japan to finish the war, which in all essentials it did. and i know you will argue about the lives it saved vs the lives it killed, but the other thing you need to note is that they were at war, which means an us and them mentality, so the dropping of the bombs did literally save thousands at least, if not many many more american lives.

i wonder what would happened if Japan dropped a nuke on america. Its stupid argument that pro-americans use to justify their actions against Japan. There are so many ways to end the way - Japan were already losing.. and I am sure america could have arranged a diplomatic solution. Another argument they used they wanted to test it? there are so many places to test nukes in the world by testing and taking video footage and showing japs - i am sure they could have reached a diplomatic solution.

america doesnt slaughter their citizens because they are a democracy. it would be unlawful and unjust, and completely against everything that makes america a great nation. they also have freedom of speech, while iraw didnt and iran definately does not, niether the dprk. which would you prefer to live in? for whatever reasons they declared war on iraq, the act removed a dictator, and freed thousands of people from a totalitarian regime.

No they are true democracy - they have yet to have black president. KKK has had ridiculous sucess. New Orleans was a sight. freedom of speech - to be honest has little value if no one heeds to it.

it freed thousands of people into more violent situationa and a civil war. i am not going to argue about iraq here though. not relevent.

m talking about world governments, im talking about normal people who like to complain that america are the world police, but when atrocities are committed, turn to them, whether directly or indirectly to save everyone.

Maybe because they are the superpower and they have greater responsibility.

can i assume then, that you oppose australias role in east timor then? a military action in another country?

east timor's situation is vastly different the country was under turmoil prior to australia intervention.

i can't fault you comrade, what you've said is totally true. but america percieves a threat there. not many countries will "declare" war before they declare it, if you see what i mean.

american had already declared war through its actions.. by arming and massing military around the region. they only pretended to give warnings. that they knew iraq wouldnt listen to - propaganda.

 

[JayB]

hotshot, i was referring to north korea about the decleration. not iraq.

the justification of nuclear weapons isnt the point, you cant to some people, and thats fine, that what democracy is about. you're free to express your opinion, and the famous saying goes, "i disagree with what you say but i'll defend to my death your right to say it". you wouldnt have had that if japan had won the war. nor germany.

with the no black president, the thing is, democracy doesnt mean lack of discrimination, and far be it form my opinion that america is perfect. but in america you are free to criticize the government without fear of death. not so in many other countries, and none of them are western ones. but, not having a black president doesnt make it any less of a democracy, jsut that the majority of people in america dont want any of the people who've gone for it so far. the most popular person gets the job.

iraq was arguably under turmoil, a fascist ditator was gassing the people in it if they didnt agree with his political stance. thats a fairly good indication of turmoil. besides, if a country is so beaten down that they cant fight back, unlike east timor, then does it make the situation any less dire?

and you cant have it both ways. you either want america to look after the worlds interest and act as the police or you dont. if you do, then dont complain when they do. and if you dont, dont ask for them when you need their help.

 

[onebytwo]

umm, gee i wonder who was behind it. could it possibly be the freaking terrorists who hijacked the planes, and crashed them into the towers?

nah couldnt be. its too obvious.

who else needs to be related. i didnt try and relate it to iraq or afghanistan. the people who where behind it were american yeah, but it wasnt the government. islamic terrorists come in all nationalities. its part of the fun. just like the london bombers. unlless your gonna tell me that that was also just a big government conspiracy. while were at it, we didnt really go to the moon, jfk wasnt really assasinated, and elvis is alive and haunting shopping centres in south africa.

you cheapen the memory of those who perished there with your pathetic excuses for conspiracy theories.

the moon and elvis are nowhere near the same thing

 

[JayB]

why? what sets those theories apart from what you're spouting?