New to the forums

[PolarisUSMC]

Just typing a "heyo!" out to everybody with small introduction. Since I'm not exactly leftist or liberal, seems like this is the appropriate place to put this.

I'm currnetly enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and am going to be shipping out in afew weeks. I like hearing all sides of an arguement and this seemed like a nice place to hear the opposite side. I hope you're welcoming of other people's opinions and I hope I can provide some metter insight from whats going on in the War on terror. ;)

[Sabocat]

Is this the war on terror you're talking about?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article5365.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

[Pete]

Greetings, and by the sound of what you said this is the right place for you. For a moment I was going to ship this off to the lounge... but Welcome!

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 09:46 PM
Is this the war on terror you're talking about?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article5365.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)
That's the war on Iraq. I ment the more global war on terror (things more like rooting out terror cells and what not, Bin Laden, what our troops are doing to counter what's going on, etc.).

War WILL bring out the worst in people. There are crazies on both sides, there's no denying that. The way these men probably saw it, if you try to kill them, they will kill you back. It's something most people wouldn't understand unless you've been shot at. (The report didn't mention whether or not he was a militia man or if he had tried to kill them.) The Iraqi soldiers were trying to kill them. The way they saw it, they were killing someone who tried to kill them.

In the heat of war, you'll see all sorts of crazy shit, much of it I'm sure you'd disagree with, but you have to understand, war is war. It's something that's never pretty, but when something that people disagree with happens, it always appears to be outstanding of everything else, especially since this si a televised war. Many people have had no idea what goes on at the front lines until now, how crazy shit happening occurs on a normal basis. Understand that that it's on both side that this occurs and not just our men who are doing it. It also should not be taken as the feelings of everyone, or every Marine for that matter.

I'm not trying to compensate for what those few men did, I'm just trying to provide some insight on what their mindset was at that time. One thing that bothers me about that video is the skippin in on part where he says "Hell ya, let's do it again." Makes me wonder whether or not he was still talking about the same thing, or something else (that's the problem I have with all news corperations, you never et to hear entirely what the soldier or Marine has to say, just little clips).

[Sabocat]

That's the war in Iraq. Not actually the war on terror then? Could you please explain then, what we are at war with Iraq for?

Some things we know....

No Iraqi's were part of 9/11

There is no tie between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein

There has been no WMD's found. In fact, as is well documented, we know that most if not all the information was falsified to give pretences to go to war.



As for Afghanistan...

Annihilating a population for the purpose of getting one ex-CIA partner, would be like bombing and killing everyone in Chicago to get Al Capone. It's not logical. The war on terror is complete rhetoric. Ask most people if they feel safer than before and they'll say no.


Regarding the video.

Since when is it acceptable to execute a wounded combatant? If indeed that person was a combatant. Sadly we'll probably never know the answer.


I would suggest that "terror" is in the eyes of the beholder.

[RedCeltic]

That's the war on Iraq. I ment the more global war on terror (things more like rooting out terror cells and what not, Bin Laden, what our troops are doing to counter what's going on, etc.).

Could you please explain that to our president then who has been trying to link Iraq to the "global war on terrorism?"

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Hey PolarisUSMC thank you for your service to our country. As a New Yorker I can’t express how much I appreciate you putting your life on the line to defend us and stand in opposition to tyranny.

Its nice that you decided to try and seek alternative points of view I’m not sure your going to find exactly what your looking for here. Anti-Americanism is the pillar upon which the Communist ideology rests rather then being an economic theory as its proponents claim. Thus everything America does is wrong and “Imperialistic”. You are unlikely to get any coherent criticism of the Iraq war of with there is plenty to be made.

As an ex-socialist I’ll save you the trouble and break down 90% of what you will see here concerning America’s foreign policy; it falls into three categories. Sadly the majority are long diatribes that amount to “Fuck Bush” and “Bush is Hitler” Second you see a lot of conflicting criticism like blaming the US for not stopping Saddam’s genocide after the first gulf war actions that would have shattered the UN collection; while simultaneously condemning the US for acting “Unilaterally” today. Lastly the abject denial “War on Terror! What war on terror! America is the real terrorist just look at what they did to Cuba!” Most will deny that the removal of Saddam was a positive event and a blow against fascism.

If your looking for more coherent opponents of the war look to the Palo-conservatives, or the Libertarians, I don’t think their solutions are practical (some are naive) but at least they are aware of the threat to civilization. Two sites I recommend are the Anti-State (http://anti-state.com/forum/) or Cato institute (http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html), or try and look for at a main stream Left-leaning board ie Salon.com.

The majority of members on this site are stuck 20 years in the past, not realizing that the collapse of the USSR has utterly discredited communism.

PS what where are you stationed?

[Bolshevika]

I don't see what kind of socialist you were Crusader, if you actually still think the Soviet Union was a communist absolutist dictatorship.

Oh yeah, and by the way, fuck America and Bush is Hitler.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Believe it or not some progressives did condemn the USSR, notably the Trotskyites and later Scope Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. Many of those individuals become the Neo-Conservatives. I was too young (23) to have been involved in those debates. However my political evolutions went along a similar path being an FDR/LBG democrat favoring an activist government with a large social welfare net to protect the poor and shelter us from the evils of large robber baron corporations. Then largely due to my experiences in college studying economics and engineering I evolved to resemble something approximating today’s Neo-Cons. That is why I post here, because I believe that using reason and logic I can persuade others rather then using ad hominem attacks and profanity witch do not convince anyone.

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:36 AM

That's the war on Iraq. I ment the more global war on terror (things more like rooting out terror cells and what not, Bin Laden, what our troops are doing to counter what's going on, etc.).

Could you please explain that to our president then who has been trying to link Iraq to the "global war on terrorism?"
Heh, sorry. I myself consider them two different things, I should have mentioned that. To me, it's more the war on terror, which is much more global and wide spread, and the theres the war in Iraq which is more centralized. My fault, I'll be more explicit next time ;) .

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da [email protected] 12 2003, 02:21 AM
PS what where are you stationed?
I'm at home right now. I got lucky and get to stay for the holidays :D . Only afew weeks left here though :( , then off to South Carolina for a while. I'm trying hard as hell though to get stationed in Japan. I've only heard positive things about Iwakuni (Good sized Marines base. If you request overseas, 90% of the time you get sent there), and since Hawaii is vurtually unattainable, I'll settle for second best.

[PolarisUSMC]

Just curious, why am I under restricted members? Does being in the Marines automatically put me in this? I can't even post in the chit chat forums :( .

[Exploited Class]

The board is for socialists, this one section is for opposing idealogies.

You are restricted to this and only this forum (and tech support if there is a technical problem).
But chit chat and all the rest is for socialists to chit chat with other socialists. If somebody wants to chit chat with people without the constraints of politics, then I would suggest not going to a political board.

It isn't saying that you are a bad person or anything, it is just so people who view one type of idealogy get to chat freely with other people that share the same idealogy.

[PolarisUSMC]

Oh, alright. Seems fair enough I suppose.

[hazard]

as far as I am concerned, a war on terror can only be a defensive campaign

america's perspective is screwed on this one

tehy're invading countries, formerly their ALLIES for fuck all, under what seems to be a threat of "terror"

additionally, weapons of mass don't really constitute teror weapons, do they? no, if you have nukes you're considered a "nuclear power", unless you're situated in the middle east and then you are a haven for terrorists

standard 84ish word games

[(*]

The problem with the war on terror is that there is no clear definition of what terrorism is.
I'm sure you've heard the saying "one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter"

The fact is that there was no justification (casus belli) for a war with iraq.


*Edit* welcome to the board :)

[PolarisUSMC]

as far as I am concerned, a war on terror can only be a defensive campaign

The best defense is a good offense. If it could be more defense, that would make the jobs of many men much much easier. Unfortunately, in order to reduce or even prevent attacks you need to keep the pressure on them. We need to constantly be down their throats showing them we take shit from on one. The capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was a major victory for us. Without leadership, the terrorists only weaken. What would be best for us would be for us would be to capture Bin Laden. I'm not sure why they haven't captured him yet (maybe they have. The world of intelligence and black ops is a dark quite place) but there are probably reasons. My best assumption can be that they're trying their damndest to root out all of the terror cells in this country and abroad. If the fact that he's either captured or killed is revealed to the media in it's early stages, it could trigger the sleeper cells in this country (we're wroking our asses off to find them) to go out and start some sort of attack. Best case scenario for an attack would be a bombing. You don't want to see what some of those chemicals can do to a person. It was enough to make me nervous. About Bin Laden though, I'm not going to rule out dumb luck on his part that we havent found him. I know our guys know the general area where he is though.


they're invading countries, formerly their ALLIES for fuck all, under what seems to be a threat of "terror"

The real threat with Saddam as far as I'm concerned is the chemical weapons. People first think that an attack on the US with chem weapons means by use of an Inter-Continental Ballitic Missile. Not true. Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons. Our troops have been finding evidence on this one quite frequently. Once it is confirmed that Saddam is either caputred or killed is when you're going to see officers come out and show you where they are, or if they don't know confirm they were present. Why they just don't tell us now? Beats me. Fear of the bathists coming back or fear of being charged with some sort of war crime I suppose.

As far as the WMD's go, Saddam had the means to produce, there's no question of that. Finding those mobile weapons labs I thought would be some sort of proof enough for people here. The problem with Saddam having these weapons is #1, Under UN regulation, he wasn't supposed to have them (our origional reason for going in), and #2, in time, he would have more than willingly lended some of these weapons to terrorists. If one of hi sons were ever to take power, this would be a guarentee. They made him look like a sweet old man. You have to understand that when I'm talking WMD's, I'm not talking 55 gallon drums. They have RPG rounds that can be fitted to carry chem or bio weapons, or artillery rockets. There's a variety of other things you can put them in too. Terrorists are masters of unconventional warfare, they would try like hell to get some weapons like that into this country. Where there's a will there's a way. Release alittle into the air, before you know it, you'll see people on the ground with their muscles tightening to the point it breaks their own bones and eventaully asphyxiates them. Nerve agents can be fun :( .


additionally, weapons of mass don't really constitute teror weapons, do they? no, if you have nukes you're considered a "nuclear power", unless you're situated in the middle east and then you are a haven for terrorists

Anything can be a weapon of terror. WMD's are the worst case scenario if they got a hold of those. The problem with some countries having nukes is whether or not they're going to use them. We saw what they can do at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We haven't used them since. When countries that support terrorism (or crazy screwball leaders) get ahold of them, that's when it becomes questionable. Would they nuke an enemy just because? Would Iran give a small tac to some terrorists?

North Korea I believe deffinately shouldn't have them, as long as they have Kim Jong Il in power anyway. That guy is batshit crazy. When crazies like him get nukes, that's when you have a problem. Since he claims to have operational weapons, the best thing we can do at this stage is work it out diplomatcaly. If we were to storm in, he would use them no doubt. That's something none of us want to see (I hope). We'll see how NK plays out within the next year or so.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da [email protected] 11 2003, 08:21 PM
The majority of members on this site are stuck 20 years in the past, not realizing that the collapse of the USSR has utterly discredited communism.
That's just a ridiculous statement. Any objective look at the Soviet Union will show that it was not even close to being a communist nation. Why do you take their claim to being socialist at face value? They also called themselves a democracy, why are you not taking that at face value as wall and shouting how the failure of the USSR has discredited democracy?

[cubist]

polaris




The best defense is a good offense.

maybe, but the best defense against terrorism is not to piss people off, don’t allow martyrs to be made.
The U$UK coalition storms around guns blasin killing 9 kids in afghan recently, killing innocents in iraq blowing up 14 million pound jets with 2 million pound missiles, is just prooving the cause to the terrorists. It would be better to search every man coming in to america than to search every country for the leader.


If it could be more defense, that would make the jobs of many men much much easier. Unfortunately, in order to reduce or even prevent attacks you need to keep the pressure on them.

pressure on who? Bin Laden isn’t scared there’s no pressure on him, he casually allows video footage out to piss on bushes bonfire. You can’t prevent terrorism you can prevent war, you can reduce damage, you can improve relations with the countries, which house the terrorists to be, but prevention is not an option. How can you prevent what you don’t see coming. I can walk around any ward in any hospital unquestioned unchallenged. I can walk through any shopping center unchallenged. I see no effort being made where I live to prevent terrorism.


We need to constantly be down their throats showing them we take shit from on one. The capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was a major victory for us. it was but how has it benifited the people, who has it justified all the dead service men let alone the dead innocent civillians.


Without leadership, the terrorists only weaken. What would be best for us would be for us would be to capture Bin Laden.

bin laden can not be caught, if you catch him and let the public know bin laden will become a martyr dying for his god he will be qouted saying something like “ go to sit with allah in heaven see you when serve your duty”. If however you kill him on the spot and tell no one then the leader still exists, it may not be bin laden but the revolution of anti west terrorists will continue.


I'm not sure why they haven't captured him yet (maybe they have. The world of intelligence and black ops is a dark quite place) but there are probably reasons. ,

military intelligence is a very large oxymoron, military intelligence bombed various places in former yugoslavia which were no longer there, it bombed a house in afghan killed children, it shot down an f 14 it killed more uk soldiers than the iraqi’s military intelligence is what the public fail to trust, DR Kelly is dead because of doctered military intelligence. The list goes on and on.

The reasons black ops is a dark place is because it is illegal it is in violation of every humanitarian law, covert operations go on all the time but wether they benefit the cause is never known as it is forgotten and denied when it goes wrong. And when it goes right they can’t tell us anyway.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 04:09 PM
Anything can be a weapon of terror. WMD's are the worst case scenario if they got a hold of those. The problem with some countries having nukes is whether or not they're going to use them. We saw what they can do at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We haven't used them since. When countries that support terrorism (or crazy screwball leaders) get ahold of them, that's when it becomes questionable. Would they nuke an enemy just because? Would Iran give a small tac to some terrorists?

North Korea I believe deffinately shouldn't have them, as long as they have Kim Jong Il in power anyway. That guy is batshit crazy. When crazies like him get nukes, that's when you have a problem. Since he claims to have operational weapons, the best thing we can do at this stage is work it out diplomatcaly. If we were to storm in, he would use them no doubt. That's something none of us want to see (I hope). We'll see how NK plays out within the next year or so.
How so you decide who is a 'crazy leader' and who has the right to decide this? wouldn't it be better if nobody at all had WMD's (including america).

[cubist]

Polaris,

i dare bush to attempt to stop north korea doing anything north korea is america it does what it wants when it wants and no one can stop it,

[PolarisUSMC]

The best defense is a good offense.

maybe, but the best defense against terrorism is not to piss people off, don’t allow martyrs to be made.
The U$UK coalition storms around guns blasin killing 9 kids in afghan recently, killing innocents in iraq blowing up 14 million pound jets with 2 million pound missiles, is just prooving the cause to the terrorists. It would be better to search every man coming in to america than to search every country for the leader.

2 million pound missles would be nuclear ;) . They jets are destroyed using what the engineers have at their disposal, not heavy ordinance weapons. If satchel charges can be used, they'll choose those over heavy bombs. As for civilian casualties, understand that civilian casualties will happen. It's been that way since the begining of time. Only now that the front lines are highly televised to people become aware of what's going on. Our men make mistakes from time to time, we're only human, but we're trying like hell to avoid civilian casualties.

As for searching people, I totally agree with you there. We are searching people of question. People coming from the middle east are being searched if deemed necessary. The problem is that for some reason people think it's racist. Humm...lets see. The people who are trying to kill us are muslim and from the middle east, the majority are arab in ethnecity, search that 80 year old woman with the nail clippers! People need to accept that in order to make an attempt to stop these people, some racial profiling will need to occur. The random screening is total bullshit. Last time I checked, little old ladies weren't the ones who go around hijacking planes. I don't know why people don't want to accept the way things are, as if they think it's everyone whose going to hijack planes, or suicide bomb some place, etc.



If it could be more defense, that would make the jobs of many men much much easier. Unfortunately, in order to reduce or even prevent attacks you need to keep the pressure on them.

pressure on who? Bin Laden isn’t scared there’s no pressure on him, he casually allows video footage out to piss on bushes bonfire. You can’t prevent terrorism you can prevent war, you can reduce damage, you can improve relations with the countries, which house the terrorists to be, but prevention is not an option. How can you prevent what you don’t see coming. I can walk around any ward in any hospital unquestioned unchallenged. I can walk through any shopping center unchallenged. I see no effort being made where I live to prevent terrorism.

Bin Laden isn't scared, but he can no longer stay in one place too long. If you go after where the terrorists are operating, you reduce their resources that they can use against us (training camps, etc.). Granted, these will still be out there, but they will be much less in number. If you take away their major bases of operations, you can make a serous blow on their effectivness. Also, the last tie I checked, the Taliban wasn't going to hand over Bin Laden or stop supporting him. It didn't matter how much we could try to coax them into it, they wouldn't have done it, plain and simple.

It is hard to prevent something you don't see coming, but we're trying. If you're seen as a questionable person or a person of interest, trust me, you're being watched. Right now they're mostly keeping tabs on immigrants from the middle east, the most likely suspects. It's not racism, it's probability. We simply don't have the resources to monitor everyone, but at least we can check up on those who are questionable. That's not really my department though, I really can't get much more specific than that.



We need to constantly be down their throats showing them we take shit from on one. The capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was a major victory for us. it was but how has it benifited the people, who has it justified all the dead service men let alone the dead innocent civillians.

Muhammad has provided a very good ammount of intelligence for our men. The vast majority of it we will probably never know anything about for security reasons. The servicemen and women went out there to fight terrorism. When you capture the #2 man, 99% of the time those fighting will see it as a victory. As for the civian deaths, it's more something the individual would see as justified or not. There are those who see one civilian casualty as one too many. That's more on an individual level.



Without leadership, the terrorists only weaken. What would be best for us would be for us would be to capture Bin Laden.

bin laden can not be caught, if you catch him and let the public know bin laden will become a martyr dying for his god he will be qouted saying something like “ go to sit with allah in heaven see you when serve your duty”. If however you kill him on the spot and tell no one then the leader still exists, it may not be bin laden but the revolution of anti west terrorists will continue.

If we capture Bin Laden, we won't kill him (Immediately anyway). To the public, they will see him as alive, but to our intelligence, he's a wealth of information. If and when he's captured, the public will eventually know of it, that you cannot prevent. The best thing to do would be not to kill him, but make him talk, and appear as a coward. Seeing that their leader allowed himself to be captured (symbolic of choosing life oer death for his cause) would have some effect on his followers (pure specualtion, but it is likely).



I'm not sure why they haven't captured him yet (maybe they have. The world of intelligence and black ops is a dark quite place) but there are probably reasons. ,

military intelligence is a very large oxymoron, Origional :P
military intelligence bombed various places in former yugoslavia which were no longer there, it bombed a house in afghan killed children, it shot down an f 14 it killed more uk soldiers than the iraqi’s military intelligence is what the public fail to trust, DR Kelly is dead because of doctered military intelligence. The list goes on and on.

As with everying, human error is always a factor. Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be perfect. The bomb that was dropped in a residential area was an obvious mistake, pilot error. He was charged for it, as was the pilots who dropped that bomb on UK troops. Intelligence comes from various sources, not just one. If one of those sources (such as a civilian source) is innacurate, then something else is bound to happen.


The reasons black ops is a dark place is because it is illegal it is in violation of every humanitarian law, covert operations go on all the time but wether they benefit the cause is never known as it is forgotten and denied when it goes wrong. And when it goes right they can’t tell us anyway.

Force Recon, Navy SEALs, the Berrets, and Delta are our primary units for finding terrist leaders and targets. Many time have the saved live, as well as taken them. These men are not solely operating in the middle east alone mind you. Terrorism is something that is global. We have Marines in the Philippines right now who are working hard to root out Al Qaeda cells. There have been numerous trips to Columbia to try to get rid of drug cartels and their leader (AKA: a source of funding. We've been working on those cartels for years now, but you can't allow them to do as they wish.). It's a dark place, much of it very secretive, but it should stay that way. If it doesn't more lives will be lost. If we were alerted to EVERY threat to our safety (specifics of potential attacks), trust me, there would be complete chaos. If it's something that they may not be able to handle, that's when you see the terror alert system rise up (granted, I'm still convinced that the terror alert system is purely a liability thing for the government to go, "well, we told you not to let your guard down.") The cover-ups in happenings in this country are good though. If there's a bomb threat, it's sometimes said to be a gas leak, or some other excuse for people to get out of a building.

As for the humanitarian thing, I'm sure some laws have been broken. I'll also tell you to take a look at the enemy, they seem to be doing a dandy job with humanitarian laws. Why don't you complain to or about them?


As for future terror targets in this country, I'm going to put my money on schools. They're numerous, is our country's youth, it's extremely easy to get a car bomb or truck bomb in front of them, and if they do enough of them at the same time, it's guarenteed to create hysteria all over the nation (i.e. perents not letting their kids go to school out of fear for their safety. This is just my thought though, I could very well be wrong.

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 08:31 PM
Polaris,

i dare bush to attempt to stop north korea doing anything north korea is america it does what it wants when it wants and no one can stop it,
Then dare him, not me. I'm not the one in charge of the country. Last time I checked though, we weren't under a dictatorship that brutally killed it's own people.


How so you decide who is a 'crazy leader' and who has the right to decide this? wouldn't it be better if nobody at all had WMD's (including america).

I agree, I woldn't mind seeing the abolishment of NBC weapons. They're terrible things and I believe they should never be used. However, I don't see other countries going along with it. I'm sure the western democracies would go with it, but it's a question of other nations like Pakistan, Isreal, India, and other nations who keep their weapons for intimidation of their enemies not to attack.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 03:54 PM


As for searching people, I totally agree with you there. We are searching people of question. People coming from the middle east are being searched if deemed necessary. The problem is that for some reason people think it's racist. Humm...lets see. The people who are trying to kill us are muslim and from the middle east, the majority are arab in ethnecity, search that 80 year old woman with the nail clippers! People need to accept that in order to make an attempt to stop these people, some racial profiling will need to occur. The random screening is total bullshit. Last time I checked, little old ladies weren't the ones who go around hijacking planes. I don't know why people don't want to accept the way things are, as if they think it's everyone whose going to hijack planes, or suicide bomb some place, etc.


There really is no threat in the United States. The government is using fear to garner support.
If my child is murdered by someone who is white, should I be fearful of all white people?

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 04:00 PM


I agree, I woldn't mind seeing the abolishment of NBC weapons. They're terrible things and I believe they should never be used. However, I don't see other countries going along with it. I'm sure the western democracies would go with it, but it's a question of other nations like Pakistan, Isreal, India, and other nations who keep their weapons for intimidation of their enemies not to attack.
The united states would never give up such weapons. That is how they police the world.
The US is the only country to have committed nuclear genocide.
They have also proudly used chemial weapons, and they continue to use DU.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 09:00 PM
I agree, I woldn't mind seeing the abolishment of NBC weapons. They're terrible things and I believe they should never be used. However, I don't see other countries going along with it. I'm sure the western democracies would go with it, but it's a question of other nations like Pakistan, Isreal, India, and other nations who keep their weapons for intimidation of their enemies not to attack.
During the cold war Stalin proposed a ban on neuclear weapons but the USA refused to accept it.

[cubist]

As with everying, human error is always a factor. Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be perfect. The bomb that was dropped in a residential area was an obvious mistake, pilot error. He was charged for it, as was the pilots who dropped that bomb on UK troops. Intelligence comes from various sources, not just one. If one of those sources (such as a civilian source) is innacurate, then something else is bound to happen.

they were the wrong maps they were out of date what kind of a moron commander orders a missile strike on an old map!! the building they wanted was 200 yards up the road,

yes human error occurs it always does, but the u$uk make too many mistakes,

human error occurred in chernobyl, wars don’t need errors they are wrong enough as they are.


As for the humanitarian thing, I'm sure some laws have been broken. I'll also tell you to take a look at the enemy, they seem to be doing a dandy job with humanitarian laws. Why don't you complain to or about them?

yes true, I don’t refute that, but the war on the axis of evil is in question what gives bush the right to act as if he has a halo over anyone else, the terrorists hate america for what it has already done,

a few qoutes from statements made after 9/11


It is our view that Tuesday’s atrocity should be regarded as the final nail in the coffin for silence and indifference towards terrorism . All terrorism. Not just officially-named terrorism committed by "them", but terrorism committed with our tacit approval by our own governments upon other peoples of the world. In the aftermath and hysteria, cowards will back away from hard questions and even harder answers. We won’t. We never have. We never will. TAKEN FROM PROPERGANDHIS' IDEAS ARCHIVE DATED 14/11/2001


We abhor terrorism -- unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing. MICHAEL MOORE ?/11/2001


We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me. Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers!
MICHAEL MOORE ?/11/2001


What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact -- WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden!

Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!MICHAEL MOORE[?/11/2001]

FOR THE REST OF THIS GO TO LOOKING BACK AT 911 (http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/propagandhi/september11th.shtml)


-I wonder if the group responsible for the attacks will make trading cards and video games and t-shirts and have parades celebrating the attacks on New York, like we did over here after killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the Gulf War? SOUNDS LIKE A REAL HUMANITARIAN GOVERNMENT AND THAT WAS GW BUSH SENIOR do you reckon bin laden would do that????

[cubist]

MISSED THIS ONE SORRY


As for searching people, I totally agree with you there. We are searching people of question. People coming from the middle east are being searched if deemed necessary. The problem is that for some reason people think it's racist. Humm...lets see. The people who are trying to kill us are muslim and from the middle east, the majority are arab in ethnecity, search that 80 year old woman with the nail clippers! People need to accept that in order to make an attempt to stop these people, some racial profiling will need to occur. The random screening is total bullshit. Last time I checked, little old ladies weren't the ones who go around hijacking planes. I don't know why people don't want to accept the way things are, as if they think it's everyone whose going to hijack planes, or suicide bomb some place, etc.

last time i checked gloucester was being searched for a bomb made by a british man
last time i checked ricin was found in england not on its why into england,




search everyone i never said the arabs are terrorists, muslims yes but white men and black men are muslim too, if you want security don't assume the white man is trust worthy,

the IRA (predomenantly white) yes the people clinton was happy to fund and macdonalds etc, they are white they have terrorised my country and we have nailed theres and we are still picking up the pieces 500 years later, war is bullshit, occupation of other countries land leads to jealousy, jealousy causes terrorism. you get what give unfortunately 1000000 of innocents die before the ones who cuaased it take the rap, if they ever do!!


white men are serial killers too
white men are rapists of their land, the ladies, and worse of all of land that isn't their's

sorry this thread made me do alot of research and i remebered why i originally joined this site and why i hate capitalistism and why GEORGE BUSH NEEDS TO BE OUT OF OFFICE

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by (*+Dec 12 2003, 09:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ((* @ Dec 12 2003, 09:07 PM)
[email protected] 12 2003, 04:00 PM


I agree, I woldn&#39;t mind seeing the abolishment of NBC weapons. They&#39;re terrible things and I believe they should never be used. However, I don&#39;t see other countries going along with it. I&#39;m sure the western democracies would go with it, but it&#39;s a question of other nations like Pakistan, Isreal, India, and other nations who keep their weapons for intimidation of their enemies not to attack.
The united states would never give up such weapons. That is how they police the world.
The US is the only country to have committed nuclear genocide.
They have also proudly used chemial weapons, and they continue to use DU. [/b]
People constantly worry about Depleted Uranuim. I&#39;m not sure if it&#39;s because of the word Uranium in it, but it&#39;s used because of it&#39;s density. Depleted Uranuim is also a component in the composit armor the the US and many other countries use, yet I don&#39;t see every tanker mysterously getting sick. DU is a touchy ubject though, but while it&#39;s easy to lable it for problems such as guld war symptom, it is pure specualtion. The long term effect are unknown. The evidence supporting and disproving this is pretty much split down the middle.


The first IOM report focused on depleted uranium, the anti-nerve gas treatment pyridostigmine bromide, the poison gas sarin, and vaccines for anthrax and botulism. But the IOM investigation team concluded that not enough evidence linked these agents with the symptoms.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/61/673...C-9531713CA348} (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/61/67347.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348})

As for the dropping of nuclear arms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although the effects and casualties were horrible, they may have saved lives in the long run. Had we invaded instead, estimates for American casualties were around one million, and Japanese casualties, many times that. They were willing to fight to the very last. Battles the Marines fought while taking the Pacific Islands shows that the Japanese were willing to fight to the very last man. That was their mindset.

As for the US never giving up it&#39;s Nuclear arms. You&#39;re right. We never will. There&#39;s no arguement to that.

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 10:33 PM
search everyone i never said the arabs are terrorists, muslims yes but white men and black men are muslim too, if you want security don&#39;t assume the white man is trust worthy
I agree, they should search everyone. I just hope the ACLU doesn&#39;t come in and ***** about it though. However, with they way security is, you&#39;ll more than likely see a bias in the way it&#39;s carried out. The best way to fix that would be internally.

I don&#39;t mind being searched, my life is worth 3 minutes of my time at an airport.

Although, I&#39;m still trying to figure out how to make my nail clippers into a weapon.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 04:40 PM
Just typing a "heyo&#33;" out to everybody with small introduction. Since I&#39;m not exactly leftist or liberal, seems like this is the appropriate place to put this.

I&#39;m currnetly enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and am going to be shipping out in afew weeks. I like hearing all sides of an arguement and this seemed like a nice place to hear the opposite side. I hope you&#39;re welcoming of other people&#39;s opinions and I hope I can provide some metter insight from whats going on in the War on terror. ;)
This is a little late - but welcome to Che-Lives&#33;
You might remember me from protestwarrior...

And I agree, terror is truly in the eye of the beholder. Who&#39;s to say whos a terrorist and whos not?

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Dec 12 2003, 09:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Dec 12 2003, 09:15 PM)
[email protected] 12 2003, 09:00 PM
I agree, I woldn&#39;t mind seeing the abolishment of NBC weapons. They&#39;re terrible things and I believe they should never be used. However, I don&#39;t see other countries going along with it. I&#39;m sure the western democracies would go with it, but it&#39;s a question of other nations like Pakistan, Isreal, India, and other nations who keep their weapons for intimidation of their enemies not to attack.
During the cold war Stalin proposed a ban on neuclear weapons but the USA refused to accept it. [/b]
Because the Soviet Unior would have more likely than not continued their nuclear arms program.

[Ortega]

What would have been in that for them? The weapons program was expensive and time-consuming and eventually contributed to the USSRs collapse.

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by (*@Dec 12 2003, 09:05 PM
There really is no threat in the United States. The government is using fear to garner support.
Proof?

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 11:36 PM
What would have been in that for them? The weapons program was expensive and time-consuming and eventually led to the USSRs collapse.
There was more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than the construction of nuclear weapons.

I&#39;d love to keep arguing tonight, but I hate to go do some things for "Toys for Tots." ;)

[Ortega]

Of course... I said that the weapons program contributed to the Soviets&#39; downfall.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by PolarisUSMC+Dec 12 2003, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PolarisUSMC @ Dec 12 2003, 05:38 PM)
(*@Dec 12 2003, 09:05 PM
There really is no threat in the United States. The government is using fear to garner support.
Proof? [/b]
you have to prove that there is a threat, not the other way around

[redstar2000]

I&#39;d love to keep arguing tonight, but I hate to go do some things for "Toys for Tots."

Toy cluster bombs, no doubt. The real ones are such a big hit with Iraqi kids.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

As for searching people, I totally agree with you there. We are searching people of question. People coming from the middle east are being searched if deemed necessary. The problem is that for some reason people think it&#39;s racist. Humm...lets see. The people who are trying to kill us are muslim and from the middle east, the majority are arab in ethnecity, search that 80 year old woman with the nail clippers&#33; People need to accept that in order to make an attempt to stop these people, some racial profiling will need to occur. The random screening is total bullshit. Last time I checked, little old ladies weren&#39;t the ones who go around hijacking planes. I don&#39;t know why people don&#39;t want to accept the way things are, as if they think it&#39;s everyone whose going to hijack planes, or suicide bomb some place, etc.

I really pray that the day comes when white people can feel what minorities have felt, not so they can suffer but so that they can understand

The only reason so many white people are fine with abandoning civil liberties in exchange for "security" is because they aren&#39;t the ones being profiled. If every white person was held up in the airport and searched because they looked suspicious, or called a terrorist by random people, or harassed you would see why we object to this state sponsored racism.

No Muslim has ever treated me unfairly because I&#39;m black, no Muslim has ever called me nigger. But white people sure as hell have so i guess that means I should be suspicious and hostile towards all white people because they COULD be racist. Just like a muslim COULD be a terrorist, but then again Timothy McViegh was a terrorist, the Ku Klux Klan are terrorists, the CIA are terrorists.

Now I&#39;m not saying that this hostility towards whites would be justified because it sure wouldn&#39;t. But by your logic racial profiling is justified, and honestly I don&#39;t think you would feel that it was if you were the one being profiled.

So when you actually feel what state sponsored racism is like then say that it&#39;s fair.

I suggest you learn this well, THE ENDS DON"T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.


Also on the off chance that you are a minority, you physically make me ill. Anyone who&#39;s people live with the stigmatism of state sponsored racism should be ashamed of themselves for wishing the same on another group.

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 12:52 AM

I&#39;d love to keep arguing tonight, but I hate to go do some things for "Toys for Tots."

Toy cluster bombs, no doubt. The real ones are such a big hit with Iraqi kids.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
:lol:

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Dec 13 2003, 12:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SonofRage @ Dec 13 2003, 12:18 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 05:38 PM

(*@Dec 12 2003, 09:05 PM
There really is no threat in the United States. The government is using fear to garner support.
Proof?
you have to prove that there is a threat, not the other way around [/b]
September 11th was proof enough for me.

Don&#39;t forget not too long ago they found a terror cell in up state New York.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 09:53 PM
September 11th was proof enough for me.

Don&#39;t forget not too long ago they found a terror cell in up state New York.
#1 Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
#2 Yes I know about the "terror cell" they found and I lived in the area at the time. It wasn&#39;t a terror cell, it was just some young guys who went on a trip to Afganistan so they were convicted of "providing material support to terrorist."

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 04:27 AM
#1 Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
I never said it did. I myself don&#39;t believe it did. Please don&#39;t put ords into my mouth.

#2, My bad, I didn&#39;t folow up on the story. I was pretty busy around that time. ;)

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 10:53 PM

September 11th was proof enough for me.


you should put that on a bumper sticker.

anyway, september 11th proved that war kills innocent people. Finally americans saw how devasting an effect "war" can have on their own soil. This is the same (actually just a fraction) violence that america perpetrates around the world.
That is the only thing 9/11 proved.

The threat that exists is not another attack on the US, but rather an attack by the US on another country.

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by (*@Dec 13 2003, 06:32 AM
The threat that exists is not another attack on the US, but rather an attack by the US on another country.
So your saying that the US is under no threat what so ever from terrorists? People I know in security jobs and intel (as well as myself) tend to think otherwise.

The only reason there&#39;s more fear now is because people finally became aware of the rest of the world and what can happen when you take a threat as nothing.

[Romulus]

Hey, Marine, pay attention to this. It has info you will need if you end up over there.


Post 9/11 America is not willing to take the chance of WMD falling into the wrong hands. I dont buy that whole argument about Saddam being a secularist either. There were members of Al Qeada in Iraq, Saddam did openly support terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizboolah with cash and weapons. Saddam also supported the terrorist orginizations of Ansar al Islam and the Mujahadin-e Khalq(MEK). The MEK through Saddam&#39;s support were the ones who perfected the large scale simultanious terrorist attacks very similar to 9/11.


These guys WROTE the playbook used by Osama and Al-Qaeda, and were pulling off these spectacular simultaneous attacks looooooong before Osama ever made the down payment on his cave. But the silly simps in the western press don&#39;t get this do they? Today&#39;s simultaneous attacks in Turkey remind them of Al-Qaeda (with the obligatory reference to the &#39;98 African Embassies bombings)...they remind me of the MEK.

Consider this: these guys whacked 70 top officials of the Islamic Republic Party in the Premier’s office with a single bomb...simultaneously blew up 13 Embassies around the world, assassinated numerous top level military officials in Iran, put down the Shia rebellion in the south (&#39;91), mount repeated incursions into Iran...and you think they&#39;re gonna have trouble in Kurdistan? You think the PUK scares these guys?

Did they "control" Kurdistan? Allot of people ask that about Ansar al Islam.

Guess that depends on your definition of control...I can tell you for a fact, the Kurds certainly respect their reach. They&#39;ve got fortified bases up and down the border with Iran and their main installation is in Falluja (some coincidence heh?)...

I have a satallite photo of an MEK base but I dont know how to post photos here. Anywho, the satellite photograph shows a new headquarters complex that Saddam Hussein has built for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq. The complex is located in Falluja, approximately 40 kilometers west of Baghdad. Construction was begun in late 1998 and is still going on. The site covers approximately 6.2 square kilometers and includes lakes, farms, barracks, administrative buildings and other facilities. The facility can accommodate between 3,000 and 5,000 MEK members. The inset shows the MEK&#39;s headquarters complex, which is used to coordinate the activities of the organization throughout Iraq and to plan attacks against targets in Iran and elsewhere.

All of the underinformed bedwetting leftists in the west who learned two years ago from Headline News that Sunnis hate Shias and fundamentalists hate secularists have a hard time explaining the MEK. As they sip their double mocha half-caf-half-decaf latte (with a scone), they wipe their noses and snort, "silly boy...Osama and Saddam would NEVER cooperate", they sniff..."Osama is a fundamentalist and Saddam is a secularist", sniff sniff, "I watched Bill Moyers (PBUH) last night on PBS and HE said it can&#39;t ever happen...and well...he would know...he was LBJ&#39;s press secretary after all&#33;" snort snort sniff.

Ask them to explain how it is possible that the Soviet foreign policy initiative known as the PLO (secular) can support Hamas (fundamentlist). Or maybe they can explain how Ba&#39;athist Syria (secular) can support Islamic Jihad (fundamentalist). And how is it possible that the Ayatollahs in Iran (fundamentalist shia), Ba&#39;athist Syria (secular sunni) and Ba&#39;athist Iraq (secular sunni) can all support Hamas (fundamentalist sunni) and Hezbollah (fundamentalist shia)?

And can you tell me: is Hezbollah fundamentalist or secular? I&#39;ve heard that they&#39;re having disagreements with the secular Ba&#39;athists in Syria. Of course you know that Hezbollah sprang out of the Amal (secular shia)...which they rejected because it was too...well...secular. And I seem to remember secular Syria cracking down on them in the 1980&#39;s...but their relationship seems to have weathered these little problems. And what&#39;s up with secular sunni Ba&#39;athist Syria supporting Iran&#39;s mini shia fundamentalist revolutionaries in Lebanon (Hezbollah)? Weirder still...why did secular sunni Ba&#39;athist Syria support funadamentalist shia Iran in their war against secular sunni Ba&#39;athist Iraq? I mean coooome on....Syria and Iraq were both Pan-Arab nationalist Ba&#39;athists cut straight from comrade Naser&#39;s Soviet technicolor dreamcoat...what&#39;s up with that? And how is it that at the exact moment that the Soviet puppet Naser is squishing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt...the Soviet foreign policy initiative known as the PLO is sucking up to the Muslim Brotherhood (later to be known as Hamas)? Ask Ceausescu...he can explain it to you. I mean...when komrade Arafat screams "jihad jihad jihad" do you go a little cross-eyed too?

Seems like there&#39;s a whoooooole lotta "mixing" goin&#39; on over there heh?

Maybe Mujehadin-e-Khalq isn&#39;t quite the contradiction in terms that the semi-literate orientalists in the western media and academia think it is? Maybe secular Muslims have no problem at all palling around with fundamentalists and viceversa. Shia - Sunni - hey - whatever floats your boat at the time right?

Maybe there is such a thing as Islammunism...and maybe Dennis Miller was right when he said it&#39;s really not that hard to believe that Osama and Saddam - the world&#39;s two leading anti-American whackjobs - might have each other on lunatic speed dial....

Al-Qaeda&#39;s tactics wreak like a warmed over version of the MEK&#39;s which predate them. Ramsey Yousef (the first WTC bomber) is a Baluchi and a known Iraqi intelligence agent (nephew of Khaled Sheik Mohammed Al-Qaeda&#39;s #3 and architect of 9/11). Yousef&#39;s computer in the Philipines, seized in &#39;95, revealed detail planning for multiple simultaneous hijackings to be crashed into high profile buildings like the Pentagon (specifically mentioned). Sounds like the MEK to me heh? Maybe Saddam and Osama did have each other on lunatic speed dial after all....

PS: Someday...ask me about the mysterious "cease fire" that the US struck with the MEK in March...that one&#39;s a hoot...

Later.

[Lardlad95]

The only reason there&#39;s more fear now is because people finally became aware of the rest of the world and what can happen when you take a threat as nothing.

Finally became aware of the rest of the world? Maybe thats the reason so many terrorist hated america to begin with.

Now I&#39;m not justifying 9/11, there is no way to do that. But when it happened to us suddenly everyone in the world is required to feel sorry for us. But americans don&#39;t feel a damn thing for when it happens in other nations.

Americans need to wake up and start living in the WORLD instead of just living in America.

America has created a culture of selfish hypocrites and maybe to prevent another 9/11 we&#39;ll all wake up and realize America isn&#39;t the only nation that matters.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 07:18 AM

So your saying that the US is under no threat what so ever from terrorists? People I know in security jobs and intel (as well as myself) tend to think otherwise.


and i&#39;m sure you are privy to US intelligence (yet another oxymoron)
What clearance do you have?

The US gets attacked once, and it sets off this widepsread panic...bunch of cattle

[Sabocat]

Polaris

If terror is such an enormous threat, why go to Japan? Last I checked, there were no real battles going on there, or is Osama now hiding in Tokyo? :lol: :lol:

Why not ask for a transfer to a unit to be sent directly to Afghanistan or Iraq?


Romulus


America is not willing to take the chance of WMD falling into the wrong hands.

Oooops....guess what? They&#39;re already in the wrong hands....America&#39;s.

[redstar2000]

All of the underinformed bedwetting leftists in the west who learned two years ago from Headline News that Sunnis hate Shias and fundamentalists hate secularists have a hard time explaining the MEK. As they sip their double mocha half-caf-half-decaf latte (with a scone), they wipe their noses and snort, "silly boy...Osama and Saddam would NEVER cooperate", they sniff..."Osama is a fundamentalist and Saddam is a secularist", sniff sniff, "I watched Bill Moyers (PBUH) last night on PBS and HE said it can&#39;t ever happen...and well...he would know...he was LBJ&#39;s press secretary after all&#33;" snort snort sniff.

It&#39;s that damp cool weather in Seattle...makes your nose run all the time.

Otherwise, your point seems to be that people who "hate America" sometimes find ways to unite in opposition.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in Damascus?

Or do you wish to suggest that their hatred is "unjustified"?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

PS: Have you checked the moisture of your own sheets lately?

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 03:12 PM

The only reason there&#39;s more fear now is because people finally became aware of the rest of the world and what can happen when you take a threat as nothing.

Finally became aware of the rest of the world? Maybe thats the reason so many terrorist hated america to begin with.

Now I&#39;m not justifying 9/11, there is no way to do that. But when it happened to us suddenly everyone in the world is required to feel sorry for us. But americans don&#39;t feel a damn thing for when it happens in other nations.

Americans need to wake up and start living in the WORLD instead of just living in America.

America has created a culture of selfish hypocrites and maybe to prevent another 9/11 we&#39;ll all wake up and realize America isn&#39;t the only nation that matters.
No shit&#33; Now you&#39;re following me ;) .

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 04:00 PM
Polaris

If terror is such an enormous threat, why go to Japan? Last I checked, there were no real battles going on there, or is Osama now hiding in Tokyo? :lol: :lol:

Why not ask for a transfer to a unit to be sent directly to Afghanistan or Iraq?
Because Japan is supposed to be the place to go ;) . Might as well get one nice duty station in before I get sent into the shit, if I ever do.

We&#39;ll see where an East Coast MEU takes me, although sometimes is purely dumb luck. Getting on a float would be great as well.

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by (*+Dec 13 2003, 03:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ((* @ Dec 13 2003, 03:28 PM)
[email protected] 13 2003, 07:18 AM

So your saying that the US is under no threat what so ever from terrorists? People I know in security jobs and intel (as well as myself) tend to think otherwise.


and i&#39;m sure you are privy to US intelligence (yet another oxymoron)
What clearance do you have?

The US gets attacked once, and it sets off this widepsread panic...bunch of cattle [/b]
The most confirmation I&#39;ve had was that these threats exist, it never went into any more detail than that (They&#39;re my friends/family, and I trust their word). A buddy of mine told me that we&#39;d probably find out if the shit was about to hit an industrial sized fan.

If I had clearence, I&#39;d probably know alot more, most of which I&#39;d never be able to talk about. It&#39;s all about your MOS as far as clearence is concerned.