Are you with us or against us?

Originally posted by kiwimac
:rolleyes: Actually folks,

No-one KNOWS whether it was Bin Laden or not, there have been reports that the Japanese Red Army Group has claimed responsibility for the attacks, Some Israeli reports have pointed the finger at Hussein.

Before you go off half-cocked and start bombing the WRONG folk, perhaps it might be useful to garner enough evidence to stand up in a court of law?

Kiwimac

Everyone knows it's Bin Laden. This "Japanese Red Army Group" never officialy claimed responsibility. This all started when the owner of a small newspaper in Lebanon said they called him and claimed responsibility. Lebanon, a country where Bin Laden killed over 200 American soldiers. Today they're ruled by the Hizbala and their Syrian allies.
The Israeli "Mosad" said that Bin Laden IS the one who did it, and that Iraq is probably not connected directly to the attack (They supported other Bin Laden attacks, but appearantly not this one).
And what court of law can decide whether terrorists are guilty or not? They believe they're fighting for the right cause, so if they're convicted the judge and the jury will be in serious danger. It's kinda like people were once afraid of gangsters, only this time they can't run to another country because it's a world wide network. And as I said before, the kind of evidence that convict a terrorist will have to come from inside the orgenization, and every informer we have in there is extremly important. They're the only way to find out about terror attacks before they occure. This time they failed, but who knows how many times they have succided? Just to give you an example, a couple of days ago two Palestinian terrorists were arrested on Alenby bridge (the passage between Israel and Jordan). They were found in time just because we had intteligence. They were on their way to put two car bombs at the parking lots beneth the "Peace towers" the three largest towers in Israel. Sounds familiar?
 
Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
It's time all of you realized, sometimes war is both right and necsesarry, and this is one of those times, wether you want peace or not.


What does it take to reach people like you?
How many innocents must die before your stirred to action?
Europe used to give in to thugs, it was called "appeasement", and it led DIRECTLY to the second world war.

[/B]

Obviously England and France had many oprtunities to stop the Germans, but that was different because it was an actual nation not just a band of terrorists. They thought that the Germans would stop once they had rejoined with Austria and Switzerland but when they attacked Polland, then we did join in.

Its interesting that you mention Europe giving into 'thugs', yet when did America truely join the war? Oh yeah when they were attacked...Now we are expected to just jump up like a nice dog and agree with fighting a war. When you did finally join, you decided to claim that you had won the war...I'm just a little disgruntled...

Juize said against who? You all said thats stupid its the terorists, but wait how do you attack aload of terrorists and a countries government without killing innocent people. I think he is trying to point out that no one knows how severe the attacks should be.

By the time America does act most of the terrorists could be in the other side of the world for all you know...
 
They thought that the Germans would stop once they had rejoined with Austria and Switzerland but when they attacked Polland, then we did join in.

The thought and sight of that disgusting worm named Neville Chamberlain (British Prime Minister before Winston Churchill) still makes me sick. The entire yellow-stained nation of 1938-40 France makes me even more sick.

BTW, Germany was not trying to "rejoin" with Switzerland, and in fact that never occurred.

And need I point out that the Anschluss (sp?) was but a pretext... Austria was not the long-lost bastard child of a greater Germany, in need of "reunification" with the "Fatherland".

Uhhh... in fact, no one rushed to Poland's aid. Britain and France did begrudgingly activate their treaties, but very little tangible help was done for Poland in 1939. In 1940, Poland was long since conquered ;).

Its interesting that you mention Europe giving into 'thugs', yet when did America truely join the war?
Oh yeah when they were attacked...Now we are expected to just jump up like a nice dog and agree with fighting a war. When you did finally join, you decided to claim that you had won the war...I'm just a little disgruntled.

Presuming you're talking about WW II, I'll first say that war is a team effort, to pay proper homage to the Allies.

That said, it was America that defeated the forces of Evil on 3 fronts simultaneously.

As much as I like Britian, they were no match for Hitler in 1940 without America's billions of US taxpayer dollars and military support. The British at least resisted the Nazis, while the French were whining and collaberating, and while Switzerland was helping the Nazis murder Jews and other civilians.

So America need not "Claim" it won the war... it did. Without America, it would not be the Bundesbank that rules Europe, it would be the Nazis.

While we're at it, China would be speaking Russian and Japanese, and be a slave race, too... were it not for America. And Konichi Wa, Australia.

But the remarkable thing is that America has never even forced any of it allies, from Russia to France (those that were not traitors, that is), England, etc. to live up to their agreements to pay the debts incurred to the US.

America did not cause Europe to get into its war, but America did save nothing less that the entire free world (and even the Communist world), Gratis. Revisionists would like to convince people otherwise.

america3.jpg
 
Originally posted by Dell19


Obviously England and France had many oprtunities to stop the Germans, but that was different because it was an actual nation not just a band of terrorists. They thought that the Germans would stop once they had rejoined with Austria and Switzerland but when they attacked Polland, then we did join in.
Both nations cowardly arbrogated the treaties then in place.
If you don't know history, don't try to argue it with me, because I promise you, I know it better than you.
Both Britain and France were so tramatized by the first world war they feared another war in europe, so they backed off and appeased.
If you can't stomach the truth, don't read history.

Its interesting that you mention Europe giving into 'thugs', yet when did America truely join the war? Oh yeah when they were attacked...Now we are expected to just jump up like a nice dog and agree with fighting a war. When you did finally join, you decided to claim that you had won the war...I'm just a little disgruntled...
The US at that time was tired of solving the problems the Europeans made in this world, just as we are now.
Make no mistake, without US support, the allies would have lost BOTH wars.
Don't think so?
Than you don't know what you are talking about.

Juize said against who? You all said thats stupid its the terorists, but wait how do you attack aload of terrorists and a countries government without killing innocent people. I think he is trying to point out that no one knows how severe the attacks should be.
He has been screaming for two weeks that the US is a nation of wild men that indescriminatly attacks all in it's way.
Again, learn what the f*ck you are talking about.

By the time America does act most of the terrorists could be in the other side of the world for all you know...
First you say the US is running off half-cocked, now you say we are to slow?
Which is it? :rolleyes:

And here is a newsflash: Where ever they run, we will follow.
Whomever shelters them are the worlds enemies and will suffer the fate as terrorists, death.

Source? George W. Bush, President, United States of America.
 
I just hope by that time you will have become enough of a man to admit that you might be wrong about this whole "The U.S. did this to itself"
You wanted me to shut up of this. Arent you happy?
My theory is full swing still, and it will not collapse before..:
1) You will go back to your normal mental health before the attack (or defense as u call it)
2) Somebody other will be proven to guilty
Now because it is forbidden to talk here things like that,
I dont mention why I do suspect the USA itself. I REALLY dont want to get banned.
 
Originally posted by Juize

I do suspect the USA itself.

You suspect the US of what? What have they done? They didn't hurt a single civilian, they didn't even hurt any terrorist. How can you always be so sure that the US is doing whatever it can just to hurt civilians? Do you think that's why the Americans pay billions of dollars a year on guided weapons?
The only things they've done untill now was lifting the sanctions on India and Pakistan, so now over 1,300,000,000 people have more rights and a better chance to have a good life. I don't know what about you, but it sounds like a good thing to me.
 
You wanted me to shut up of this. Arent you happy?

If you are being truthful and forthcoming with your lack of knowledge about basic world history and world events, then by all means ask and post.

But from your own tone, wording, and timing, it is 99% evident that you are often just trying to stir the pot. In other words, you are not being truthful or rational.

You don't even have to like America... unlike most non-Wesern nations, we actually defend you right to speak... and do it with lives on the line.

Presuming you are from Finland as your profile says, You might recall Finland fought Russia, and lost, in WW II. But at least it stood and was counted on the side of freedom and right, unlike some nations that I won't list here. It is a shame you seem to dishonor the Finish sacrifices with your evident lack of basic knowledge.

Feel free to ask question, even have different opinions... but don't expect to kick America in the teeth with twisted half-truths and untruths, and expect some of us to let it slide by.

Understand something else. You have heard of the American "Freedom of Speech", yes?? Then if you didn't know, that does not mean you can actually say anything at any time... for instance, you can't yell "FIRE!!" in a theater... or stand up on an airliner and state "I hate America. This is a hijacking."

Now because it is forbidden to talk here things like that, I dont mention why I do suspect the USA itself. I REALLY dont want to get banned.

You are not forbidden to talk about you honest, rational thoughts. Just don't be an ass. If you have some serious, logical basis for what you say, then state it in a reasonable way, and give your sources or documentation for the basis, if the info is not aluready common knowledge (e.g., in the world news and/or in reputable texts).

That's my input, but I'm not a Mod and have no input to "Banning" decisions ;)

america1s.jpg
 
Originally posted by Juize

You wanted me to shut up of this. Arent you happy?
My theory is full swing still, and it will not collapse before..:
1) You will go back to your normal mental health before the attack (or defense as u call it)
2) Somebody other will be proven to guilty
Now because it is forbidden to talk here things like that,
I dont mention why I do suspect the USA itself. I REALLY dont want to get banned.

You've already told us why you think the U.S. did it and your flat out ****ing wrong. Accusing the U.S. government of doing this to itself is by far the most ignorant, half-witted pile of monkey **** I have ever heard. You're not even willing to listen to anything other than your cocked up lies. You just sitting here, ignoring everything everybody other than yourself is saying with your feet in the air. Sit your ass down and think through this **** for a change instead of spouting anti-american lies. Jesus Christ! Just looking at the names of these terrorists takes away the possibility of Americans doing it to ourselves. Take a look:

Mohamed Atta
Wail Al-Shehri
Waleed Al-Shehri
Abdulaziz Al-Omari
Satam Al-Suqami
Ahmed Al-Ghamdi
Hamza Al-Ghamdi
Marwan Al-Shehhi
Mohald Al-Shehhi
Fayez Mohamed
Ahmed Al-Shehry
Khalid Al-Midhar
Majed Moqed
Nawaq Al-Hamzi
Salem Al-Hamzi
Hani Hanjour
Saeed Al-Ghamdi
Ahmed Al-Haznawi
Ahmed Al-Nami
Ziad Jarrahi
Habib Zacarias Moussaoui
Moataz Al-Hallak
Mohammed Jaweed Azmath
Ayub Ali Khan
Nabil Al-Marabh

All these names aquired via: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_suspects.html Why don't you read up on some news for a change, Juize.
 
Hey Starlifter:

Don't let that kid get to you, bro! He's 14, and kids that age often try to find an identity that is "tough" or "shocking", because they want to assert themselves somehow. Just like when I was 14, I remember some of the off-the-wall sh*t I came up with. And no, I didn't actually sit and think those things out either; nor did I consider much what my elders (trying to helpfully inform me) said in response--I just said, sometimes screamed, what I hoped would "strengthen" my frail identity. And I see that it's no different for Juize.... I TRIED to argue reasonably and rationally with him for awhile, too, but found it did no good--I don't think he thought at all about my posts, if he even read them carefully, or at all.... So I guess the best we can do is just not give him the attention he craves--i.e. ignore him, in spite of all temptations not to. If he wants to run with the big dogs, he should at least try to show the same thoughtfulness that we "big dogs" (of ALL opinions) try to bring to our posts--if he doesn't he should just go hang out with his teenage friends, and we shouldn't encourage him to continue participating here.... And anyone knows that if everyone ignores an annoying poster on a forum, that poster goes away, because what fun is it to post when no one ever responds? Simply put, I just don't think he's mature enough to participate here--NOT because of his opinions, but because he doesn't demonstrate thoughtfulness at all in expressing them.... But since we (not being moderators) can't ban him, we can only ignore him.
 
I agree. I've had my share of arguments, with people that didn't agree about all kinds of things (especially Israeli policy). But these were all arguments.

Here's how arguing with juize is like

Some of you may know the sketch. Juize - read it. Believe me, it can teach you more then you think...
 
Originally posted by allan
...But since we (not being moderators) can't ban him, we can only ignore him.

We mods don't have the power to ban him either, only our dark ruler, Thunderfall, has that power. If you really feel that his character is way out of line, PM Thunderfall and he'll think about it. But don't expect him to just come across our annoying little friend; TF doesn't come in here often and relies on Corn and Albo to keep him on level about Off-topic activities.
 
by Allan:

Don't let that kid get to you, bro! He's 14, and kids that age often try to find an identity that is "tough" or "shocking", because they want to assert themselves somehow.
LOL, he can't possibly get to me, at least in a forum. In real life, maybe. Unlikely, but a small chance if he was far more extreme, or actually a harmful influence. But then, most people, esp. 14 year olds, won't act that way in real life! At least, he won't be able to sit down on his newly tanned backside and think about it, LOL.

Like that Cleese skit, G-Man. Cleese is a riot. Ever see "A Fish Called Wanda" ? :)
 
Just as I excepted. ****ing, thats all.
And BM, I wouldn't trust a word of American news services.
The news did say they are suspects. But did it tell why? No.
So, are these suspects because of 2 facts:
1) They're muslims
2) They're in USA?

I have thought it since 9/11. Thats why I actually am talking this.
But since you had nothing new to say, why the #censored# did you bring this up?
It looks like you have nothing else than insults.
And still- no proofs.
 
Originally posted by allan
Hey Starlifter:

Don't let that kid get to you, bro! He's 14, and kids that age often try to find an identity that is "tough" or "shocking", because they want to assert themselves somehow. Just like when I was 14, I remember some of the off-the-wall sh*t I came up with. And no, I didn't actually sit and think those things out either; nor did I consider much what my elders (trying to helpfully inform me) said in response--I just said, sometimes screamed, what I hoped would "strengthen" my frail identity. And I see that it's no different for Juize.... I TRIED to argue reasonably and rationally with him for awhile, too, but found it did no good--I don't think he thought at all about my posts, if he even read them carefully, or at all.... So I guess the best we can do is just not give him the attention he craves--i.e. ignore him, in spite of all temptations not to. If he wants to run with the big dogs, he should at least try to show the same thoughtfulness that we "big dogs" (of ALL opinions) try to bring to our posts--if he doesn't he should just go hang out with his teenage friends, and we shouldn't encourage him to continue participating here.... And anyone knows that if everyone ignores an annoying poster on a forum, that poster goes away, because what fun is it to post when no one ever responds? Simply put, I just don't think he's mature enough to participate here--NOT because of his opinions, but because he doesn't demonstrate thoughtfulness at all in expressing them.... But since we (not being moderators) can't ban him, we can only ignore him.

So, because you were stupid, I am.
And no, I am not screaming. And no, I have no troubles with my parents.
At least YOU haven't been demonstrating 'thoughtfulness' or at
least 'expressing' them. All you have done (IN THIS FORUM)
is ****ing with me. And yet, no proofs, altough that's the only
thing I've asked. If you don't have them, don't claim so.
 
Hi All,

Juize's "arguments" leave a lot to be desired but, in my opinion, those of some of his detractors are also quite poor.

There is an example in this thread where G-Man has presented an opinion which is then taken up by Blue Monday. Blue Monday implies (as I read it) that G-Man's views carry greater weight than those of others in this forum by virtue of the fact that he is an Israeli and as such has had experiences the like of which most of us never have (and hopefully never will).

The problem with this reasoning is, however, that there is a diversity of views amoungst Israelis. Some hold views contrary to those of G-man. I understand that this is true even for some who have been personally touched by terrorism- (but maybe G-man will set me straight on that point).

If we argue that G-man's position gives him some greater force of argument, then we must give the same consideration to the views of all people in a similar position- even those with whom we disagree. Someone who disagreed with Blue Monday and G-man could point to an Israeli who aggreed with them and claim the same support for their "argument".

At best it is an emotive arguement- but really no argument at all.


Now, to answer the topic question of this post I am in support of measures military and otherwise to to make a decisive and measured assult on terrorism.
 
It's time for me to do an Albo style response:

And BM, I wouldn't trust a word of American news services.

Didn't I just tell you to apply Occum's Razor? Think about it. For every news service both in America and the entire world to come up with the same information would require a conspiracy of impossible proportions. They all get their news from different sources, have different writers, and different editors. Not only that, but every investigative service involved in this affair confirms the exact same thing -Bin Laden is behind it. To get every law enforcement agency across the world to to come up with the same man implies but one thing: Bin Laden is the man responsible. Only an anti-social half-wit would doubt every news service and law enforcement agency in the world.

So you don't trust American News services? Fine, go check out the BBC or some other European service. They're all a little more reputable than the craker f*** barrel you're getting your news from.

The news did say they are suspects. But did it tell why? No.

That one quote alone tells me that you've not read the article. Those were the names of the terrorists who killed themselves and those who helped them plus one man who was supposed to on the plane but was arrested shortly before F-day.

So, are these suspects because of 2 facts:
1) They're muslims
2) They're in USA?

Once again, do some reading before you open your mouth again. The article clearly states why they are suspects. It says it all right in the article: The FBI has suicide notes, hotel reservation slips, phone records, video surveillence tapes, student records, green cards/visas, driver's licenses, and -most damning of all- eye witnesses. All of these confirming that these were the names of the men getting on the planes and helping them out.

I have thought it since 9/11. Thats why I actually am talking this.

Yeah, and you're dead wrong, and to egocentric to listen to any reason on this matter. Instead, you continue with your narrow-minded lies.

But since you had nothing new to say, why the #censored# did you bring this up?

Pot calling the kettle black? I bring up new reasons prooving you're wrong in every reply and you continue with your lies and demogoguery. I've counterd your every move and answered every one of your bumbling questions backing them up with sources where I needed. You on the other hand are saying the same lie over and over and over in the slim hope that if someone hears it enough times they'll think you're right. Well, that might work on the street with drooling idiots, but the people here aren't morons and we can see easily through pandering lies like that.

It looks like you have nothing else than insults.

And to me, this qoute once again solidifies in my mind that you aren't listening to anything that anybody is saying. Read the posts, and learn something for a change. I bring you evidence and a new viewpoint and you let it fly right through your head without even thinking about it.

And still- no proofs.

What the hell do you want from me? Would you like me to bring you a taped confession from Bin Laden himself? Damn it, you're not going to get absolute proof untill years from now -when we find and kill these *****es. When that time comes law enforcement will have all the proof both you and I need to bussa a cap in somebody's ass.

Now, I've spent so much time mud-slinging with you I know exactly what you are going to say in reply to that last paragraph:

"Aha! so i see you don't have proof. well if you don't have proof that means they didn't do it and that means that im right about the american government doing this to itself."

They key word here is 'proof.' Proof is something you have only after it's all done. But evidence -which is another key word here- EVIDENCE...all of it, every last little bit found points to one and only one situation. Foreign terrorists assisted by Bin Laden used the Student Visa loophole to gain access to our country where they got lessons in how to fly commercial airliners. Twenty (minus the one who was arrested prior to F-day) got on four planes and flew them into the the WTC, Pentagon, and Pennsylvanian rural areas. You'll notice that there is not one shred, not even an inlkling of a clue to support your cockameme bull**** story that the U.S. did this to itself in an effort to declare war.

What are you going to say next? That the collisions never happened? That those images we saw were digitally created in a hollywood basement and the government was able to convince every New Yorker that the Twin Towers were destroyed. That the government used mass hypnosis to convince the entire world that the Twin Towers were destroyed?
 
"If we argue that G-man's position gives him some greater force of argument, then we must give the same consideration to the views of all people in a similar position- even those with whom we disagree."

Absolutely! I for one tend to listen to "the voice of experience" and weigh it more than "the voice of inexperience" (i.e. "talking out one's ass"). Not that all people who lack experience necessarily talk out their ass, just certain people.... It is in fact possible to make reasoned, thoughtful statements WITHOUT the authority of personal experience--and experience is not the only gateway to truth....

BUT I do tend to respect experience a lot when listening to an argument--experience DOES carry authority, and I recognize this even in people whose views I disagree with. I ALWAYS can learn from other, experienced perspectives.... Non-experienced people who reason thoughtfully will also have my consideration (I, too, can think in the abstract without direct experience, so I know others can), BUT people without experience WHO TALK OUT THEIR ASS (uh-hm, cough) do not earn my consideration.

Life is all about separating the good information from the crap--it's at base a survival skill.... And experience DOES carry weight.
 
Just as I excepted. ****ing, thats all.
And BM, I wouldn't trust a word of American news services.
The news did say they are suspects. But did it tell why? No.
So, are these suspects because of 2 facts:
1) They're muslims
2) They're in USA?

They are more than suspects. They are hijackers, terrorists, and mass murders.

1. They are now dead. They hijacked the planes, and did not hide their identities.

2. Some were identified IN FLIGHT and BY SEAT NUMBER in cell phone calls.

3. Some were in possession of stolen American Airlines pilot's uniforms and ID badges.

4. Some had been passing themselves off as American Airlines pilots for months.

5. The flight training records are now in possession of the US Govt... and they clearly show the training of the ones that flew the jets.

6. At least 2 are known, proven, and acknowleded members of bin Laden's network.


7. I could go on, but you have access to the internet. Read a French or German paper if you don't like the truth from an American source.

I am going to refrain from trying to help you until you start making more sense, so don't run and :cry: to mama.

america1s.jpg
 
by Blue Monday:

Would you like me to bring you a taped confession from Bin Laden himself?
Actually, there is a taped confession from bin Laden himself. There are several. He actaully does take responsibility for killing Americans, and states very clearly that all American are targets for him, and we should all be killed. He further explains that it is not a violation of Islam because we are infidels.

As far as the specific NY/DC/PA killings, he has not yet accepted responsibility for that. But he has for at least 4 major incidents, ranging from Somalia in 1993, to Khobar Towers, to the Embassy bombings in Africa, to the US Destroyer Cole in 2000. These killings are actually used and bragged about on terrorist recruiting CDs sold in public stores in India and Pakistan, among other nations.

So yes.... bin Laden himself has stated on several occasions that he's killed hundreds of people! That alone, even without the events of Sept 11, 2001, are many times more than enough to hunt the bastard down like a dog, and kill him on the spot. But the US will try and capture him alive, since we are a nation of laws. But if he should die, it will be because he did not surrender himself when he had the chance.

america1s.jpg
 
mrog: It was not my intention to imply that G-man carried a greater weighted view around here. I was merely trying to add some context to the message he was trying to convey. Juize and G-man were arguing with G-man taking the offensive position and Juize taking the role over and die position. I share some of G-man's views on the offensive stance and I was trying to illuminate my opinion of the need for the U.S. to take an offensive role by using the Israeli position as a badkdrop -a country that lives and breathes violence in almost every corner.

Please understand that I was in no way trying make anyone sound more important than anyone else.

In addition: please also note that between the time those posts were made and the time you wrote out this reply (which I equate with the time you read it) that several forum members have altered or deleted certain statments usinig the edit option. As such, the views you read now are not necessary there in the meaning they once had nor the meaning that was replied to by myself and other members of the forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom