Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election Page: <<   < prev  164 165 [166] 167 168   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 8:29:16 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18245
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
Another boo-boo from Romney. He is become quite adept at saying the wrong thing,

It will be interesting when it comes to the debate.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 4951
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 9:19:42 AM   
furrybastard

 

Posts: 5180
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation
. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.


Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.

(in reply to Saltire)
Post #: 4952
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 9:33:55 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18245
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
People are strange when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to furrybastard)
Post #: 4953
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 12:25:34 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

An umbrella term actually dreamt up by the Americans


No they, really didn't. This is something that's been existing since the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

Have a look at that link I provided. The term Al Qaida to describe a terror network only started being used after 9/11.


quote:

Come on most of the hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden's Saudi connections are common knowledge.


But did this come as a direct order from King Saud and his government or some elements within Saudi Arabia?

Regardless if Saudia Arabia is behind terrorism in any way shape or form why are they completely untouched?

quote:

This is my point though - American purport to be fighting this civilisation-saving battle against terrorism and yet they completely ignore the Saudis, a country clearly involved in radicalisation. What conclusions can you draw from this? Makes no sense unless you look for darker motives


Because the relationship between them is far more complex. There are elements, including the King, who are claiming to be on the side of the Americans and fighting the terror cells. Do I have to repeat what I typed previously?

It's not a complex relationship at all. They are a US backed dictatorship, America say jump they say 'how high'. They can choose to go against America of course but then they are on their own and will risk ending up like Gaddafi, Hussein and Assad. The fact is America can crack down on them at any point but choose not to. Surely you've heard about tampered, annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?

quote:

'The US had fed the al-Qa'ida scorpion and now it had bitten America. And so Washington now supports the opposition against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was helping Saudi Arabia and Qatar pour cash and weapons to the militias (including Salafists and al-Qa'ida) and would, inevitably, be bitten by the same "scorpion" if Assad was overthrown.'


It doesn't, it rather shows that they might have common enemies. Iran and the Taliban have had a proxy alliance recently, and they are ideological enemies, but they had a common adversary. The relationships can be a hell load more complex.


So basically you are saying that islamists are fighting alongside the Syrians to bring down their mortal enemies - the Syrians?

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 4954
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 12:39:21 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Hmm, I'm no expert on Saudi Arabia or terrorism but there's plenty of evidence to suggest the term al Qaeda was used long before 9/11, and if it was dreamt up that day it didn't half spread bloody fast as it was mentioned on every news channel that night.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 4955
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 12:45:48 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Yeah, it was actually the name of the group long before 9/11. But nowadays I think it's more of a blanket term, because it's since split up into many different factions.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 4956
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 12:52:02 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
I stand corrected there - the term has been about for a while but it's application to a global terror network was created by the Americans.

Have a watch of the link I provided :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

Another interesting link - former CIA officer Micheal Scheuer speaks out about US foreign policy :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Do4lbL6-aw&feature=related

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 4957
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 1:48:25 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

Have a look at that link I provided. The term Al Qaida to describe a terror network only started being used after 9/11.


I did, I know the documentary and even saw some bits of it. It's by far Adam Curtis' weakest work.

quote:

Regardless if Saudia Arabia is behind terrorism in any way shape or form why are they completely untouched?


Because the government is fighting it itself. It's a bit like Indonesia. You have terror cells emerging from there, however they also have spent a lot of money with groups like Detachment 88 to show that this is not the governments doing, is this truly a hard concept to grasp?

quote:

It's not a complex relationship at all. They are a US backed dictatorship, America say jump they say 'how high'. They can choose to go against America of course but then they are on their own and will risk ending up like Gaddafi, Hussein and Assad. The fact is America can crack down on them at any point but choose not to. Surely you've heard about tampered, annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?


I honestly doubt most of the Saudis give a damn about being in an absolute monarchy, and if the US weren't intervening here, the King Saud would be at the hands of the Wahhabis and the instability in the country would grow to no end (let alone the problems that can arise in Iran, it's no mystery that the Arabs and Persians have a tendency of detesting each other). And we all like the Wahhabis right and they've constantly proven to be champions of democracy. It's not possible that Saud's opponents in Saudi Arabia are even worse than who the US are backing. So yes, you have various factions at work. I truly have to repeat what I posted before.

quote:

Or maybe because Saudi Arabia is a politically unstable place and you have an oppressive King trying to satisfy both the Wahhab front, the more "liberal" front and the Americans, who is also doing its (very questionable and dubious) part in fighting terrorism there. It's a very divided and conflicted state. Also, they weren't all Saudis, there was also an Emirati and a Lebanese. There's a hell lot of problems in Saudi Arabia and on what their actions are (their aid in expanding Wahhibism is undeniable), but they are, or at least the Saudi government sell themselves as being, on the side of the States and not the people who orchestrated 9/11.


But you're seeing the Saudis as just one entity, well done, that's a very Gravitas way of looking at things.

Also, Gaddafi didn't go agaisnt America, he went agaisnt everyone and pissed off everyone. From Al Qaeda, to the Islamists to the British to the Libyans. Being from Malta I don't need any further explanations of how much of a psychotic infantile manchild he was and how his actions represented that trait. America hasn't attacked Assad and Hussien was no fucking angel himself (even if a means of control).

quote:

annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?


Because the Saudi deny it and honestly, it is within their rights to do such a thing. America isn't a country to attack you for publishing a book.

quote:

So basically you are saying that islamists are fighting alongside the Syrians to bring down their mortal enemies - the Syrians?


No, I'm saying the Islamists are fighting along the Syrians (and Syrian Islamists) to bring down their mortal enemy, Assad's Baathist SOCIALIST SECULAR government, and increase their influence.


< Message edited by Deviation -- 18/9/2012 1:59:45 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 4958
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 2:13:51 PM   
sharkboy


Posts: 6286
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: Belfast
Fluke, surely you can see the error in failing to differentiate between the various franchises of Islam?

There is such a breadth of difference between Sunni and Shia theology that bin Laden effectively condemned every Shi'ite to death when he issued his jihad against the west.  In his eyes, they were apostates and therefore legitimate targets.  That's why jihadists attacked Sadr City and various mosques in Iraq - not to kill occupying forces, but to wipe out more infidels.  al Qaeda see no distinction between the two - to paraphrase Bush, you were either for them or against them. 

al Qaeda's war is as much sectarian as it is anti-West.  Put it this way - questioning why Syrian would fight Syrian is akin to wondering why the IRA and UVF spent decades killing each other when they are both (notionally at least) Christian.  And to keep the comparison going, suggesting that the US should come down hard on Saudi Arabia is like invading Ireland because that's where Michael Collins was born.


_____________________________

WWLD?

Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless

I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 4959
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 2:25:57 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

Have a look at that link I provided. The term Al Qaida to describe a terror network only started being used after 9/11.


I did, I know the documentary and even saw some bits of it. It's by far Adam Curtis' weakest work.

So you only saw some bits of it and it's his weakest work? Are you saying it's inaccurate?

quote:

Regardless if Saudia Arabia is behind terrorism in any way shape or form why are they completely untouched?


Because the government is fighting it itself. It's a bit like Indonesia. You have terror cells emerging from there, however they also have spent a lot of money with groups like Detachment 88 to show that this is not the governments doing, is this truly a hard concept to grasp?

What's hard to grasp is the fact that they are clearly involved in radicalising muslims outside of Saudi Arabia - and yet America do nothing. It's not just about an internal struggle by the Saudis, it's their direct impact on external terrorism.


quote:

It's not a complex relationship at all. They are a US backed dictatorship, America say jump they say 'how high'. They can choose to go against America of course but then they are on their own and will risk ending up like Gaddafi, Hussein and Assad. The fact is America can crack down on them at any point but choose not to. Surely you've heard about tampered, annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?


I honestly doubt most of the Saudis give a damn about being in an absolute monarchy, and if the US weren't intervening here, the King Saud would be at the hands of the Wahhabis and the instability in the country would grow to no end (let alone the problems that can arise in Iran, it's no mystery that the Arabs and Persians have a tendency of detesting each other). And we all like the Wahhabis right and they've constantly proven to be champions of democracy. It's not possible that Saud's opponents in Saudi Arabia are even worse than who the US are backing. So yes, you have various factions at work. I truly have to repeat what I posted before.

The problem is you peddle is the standard line of those who back dictatorships. They are better off under one because they can't govern themselves, they'll turn instantly to terrorism etc. etc. It's codswallop.

quote:

Or maybe because Saudi Arabia is a politically unstable place and you have an oppressive King trying to satisfy both the Wahhab front, the more "liberal" front and the Americans, who is also doing its (very questionable and dubious) part in fighting terrorism there. It's a very divided and conflicted state. Also, they weren't all Saudis, there was also an Emirati and a Lebanese. There's a hell lot of problems in Saudi Arabia and on what their actions are (their aid in expanding Wahhibism is undeniable), but they are, or at least the Saudi government sell themselves as being, on the side of the States and not the people who orchestrated 9/11.


The Saudi government are a US backed dictatorship involved in radicalising muslims. Does this not filter into your mind? What 'liberal' front are they trying to satisfy here, women can't even drive in this country alone.

But you're seeing the Saudis as just one entity, well done, that's a very Gravitas way of looking at things.

HOW DARE YOU

Also, Gaddafi didn't go agaisnt America, he went agaisnt everyone and pissed off everyone. From Al Qaeda, to the Islamists to the British to the Libyans. Being from Malta I don't need any further explanations of how much of a psychotic infantile manchild he was and how his actions represented that trait. America hasn't attacked Assad and Hussien was no fucking angel himself (even if a means of control).

The whole destabilisation of Syria smacks of foreign involvement. You saying these heavily armed rebels just popped up out of nowhere? And lest we forget Gaddafi was a tosser for decades while we sold him arms and extradited people to be tortured by him. Do these double standards not register with you.

quote:

annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?


Because the Saudi deny it and honestly, it is within their rights to do such a thing. America isn't a country to attack you for publishing a book.

So you are saying the Saudis have a right to send doctored Korans around the world and the Americans shouldn't give a shit despite them being involved in a war on terror?


quote:

So basically you are saying that islamists are fighting alongside the Syrians to bring down their mortal enemies - the Syrians?


No, I'm saying the Islamists are fighting along the Syrians (and Syrian Islamists) to bring down their mortal enemy, Assad's Baathist SOCIALIST SECULAR government, and increase their influence.

Lol Assad's socialist secular government is their mortal enemy? Or just a non-compliant Arab country being knocked over like they've been knocked over in a variety of fashions over the past 100 years.



(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 4960
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 2:50:54 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy

Fluke, surely you can see the error in failing to differentiate between the various franchises of Islam?

There's clearly hatred between different sects of islam - my point is that the west is stoking these hatreds - classic divide and rule.


There is such a breadth of difference between Sunni and Shia theology that bin Laden effectively condemned every Shi'ite to death when he issued his jihad against the west.  In his eyes, they were apostates and therefore legitimate targets. 

Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation


That's why jihadists attacked Sadr City and various mosques in Iraq - not to kill occupying forces, but to wipe out more infidels.  al Qaeda see no distinction between the two - to paraphrase Bush, you were either for them or against them. 

US history shows that they use groups within countries to commit atrocites and start conflicts within their people. It has never been proved who has been conducting bombing campaigns in Iraq - but if we go by past tactics emplyed by the CIA it's clear false-flag terror is something they have used before to weaken nations.

al Qaeda's war is as much sectarian as it is anti-West.  Put it this way - questioning why Syrian would fight Syrian is akin to wondering why the IRA and UVF spent decades killing each other when they are both (notionally at least) Christian.  And to keep the comparison going, suggesting that the US should come down hard on Saudi Arabia is like invading Ireland because that's where Michael Collins was born.



America should come down hard on Saudi Arabia because they are a clear radicalising influence, the fact they don't is staggering and says it all - as I've said before there's no Al Qaeda just different terrorist groups loosely associated with each other. Some of these groups are now being used as tools of western foreign policy and being radicalised by the Saudis who are exporting the Salafi brand of Islam to middle eastern theatres of conflict. America choose to turn a blind eye because in fact they condone these acts.

(in reply to sharkboy)
Post #: 4961
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 3:35:47 PM   
sharkboy


Posts: 6286
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: Belfast

quote:

There's clearly hatred between different sects of islam - my point is that the west is stoking these hatreds - classic divide and rule.

 
Sunni/Shia tension outdates the existence of the United States by over a thousand years, never mind it's foreign policy on the middle east!  The fact that it has continued even while Iraq was occupied was less to do with the west's influence and more to do with extremists on both sides exploiting the country's instability to engage in a centuries-old feud.  Likewise, the Sunni/Shia killings in Pakistan are largely reprisal attacks - no push from the west necessary.  If anything, the hatred is largely being stoked by other states in the area.

quote:



Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation




Bin Laden's concern was fighting the enemies of "Islam" which, in his interpretation, meant his particular brand of jihadism.  He called for the death of Americans and their allies which was everyone who didn't follow his extremism.  Al Qaeda and its supporters have openly stated that Shi'sm is heresy and therefore the enemy of true Islam.  This is how they justified their attacks on Shi'ite mosques.

quote:

US history shows that they use groups within countries to commit atrocites and start conflicts within their people. It has never been proved who has been conducting bombing campaigns in Iraq - but if we go by past tactics emplyed by the CIA it's clear false-flag terror is something they have used before to weaken nations.

 

So, your argument is based on post hoc ergo propter hoc?  Ignoring the fact that the attacks came following a call to arms against the shi'ites by Al-Zarqawi (sp?)?  Or that Shia has been declared takfir which under shariah law is punishable by death?

quote:



America should come down hard on Saudi Arabia because they are a clear radicalising influence, the fact they don't is staggering and says it all - as I've said before there's no Al Qaeda just different terrorist groups loosely associated with each other. Some of these groups are now being used as tools of western foreign policy and being radicalised by the Saudis who are exporting the Salafi brand of Islam to middle eastern theatres of conflict. America choose to turn a blind eye because in fact they condone these acts.



You're doing it again.  Saudi Arabia isn't a clear radicalising influence.  Some people who happen to be Saudi Arabian are, no doubt, guilty of this.  Not the entire nation, not its ruling family, and not the government, which has been instrumental in identifying the various funding mechanisms used by the terrorists and turning off the tap.  And which has also arrested and detained plenty of terrorists, including some highly placed al-Qaeda members.  We let Abu Hamza radicalise god knows how many young muslims in London.  Are you saying that we should expect repercussions from Uncle Sam too?  And Salafism is as much Sunni as Wahhabi - you can be salafist without being an extremist, just like you can be a Baptist without being a Klansman

< Message edited by sharkboy -- 18/9/2012 3:37:19 PM >


_____________________________

WWLD?

Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless

I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 4962
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 5:10:52 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy


quote:

There's clearly hatred between different sects of islam - my point is that the west is stoking these hatreds - classic divide and rule.


Sunni/Shia tension outdates the existence of the United States by over a thousand years, never mind it's foreign policy on the middle east! The fact that it has continued even while Iraq was occupied was less to do with the west's influence and more to do with extremists on both sides exploiting the country's instability to engage in a centuries-old feud. Likewise, the Sunni/Shia killings in Pakistan are largely reprisal attacks - no push from the west necessary. If anything, the hatred is largely being stoked by other states in the area.

That's true but there's no doubt tensions have been stoked by western powers in the region. And radicalisation is a relatively recent thing historically speaking.

quote:




Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation




Bin Laden's concern was fighting the enemies of "Islam" which, in his interpretation, meant his particular brand of jihadism. He called for the death of Americans and their allies which was everyone who didn't follow his extremism. Al Qaeda and its supporters have openly stated that Shi'sm is heresy and therefore the enemy of true Islam. This is how they justified their attacks on Shi'ite mosques.


But that's really connected to my point about Al Qaeda being a disparate network of terrorists. Bin Laden's primary target was the west, at no point did he himself sanction killing muslims. Other terrorists clearly took it upon themselves to interpret what Bin Laden said for their own ends. So there's no real over-arching terror network such as Al Qaeda working towards a common goal.


quote:

US history shows that they use groups within countries to commit atrocites and start conflicts within their people. It has never been proved who has been conducting bombing campaigns in Iraq - but if we go by past tactics emplyed by the CIA it's clear false-flag terror is something they have used before to weaken nations.



So, your argument is based on post hoc ergo propter hoc? Ignoring the fact that the attacks came following a call to arms against the shi'ites by Al-Zarqawi (sp?)? Or that Shia has been declared takfir which under shariah law is punishable by death?


What Al-Zarqawi that US invented uber-terrorist that was apparently behind all the attacks in Iraq? False flag terror at it's finest designed to instigate civil war in Iraq.

quote:




America should come down hard on Saudi Arabia because they are a clear radicalising influence, the fact they don't is staggering and says it all - as I've said before there's no Al Qaeda just different terrorist groups loosely associated with each other. Some of these groups are now being used as tools of western foreign policy and being radicalised by the Saudis who are exporting the Salafi brand of Islam to middle eastern theatres of conflict. America choose to turn a blind eye because in fact they condone these acts.



Saudi Arabia isn't a clear radicalising influence.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-is-biggest-funder-of-terrorists-2152327.html


The reason the Saudis are untouched is quite simply because they are a US owned dictatorship.







(in reply to sharkboy)
Post #: 4963
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 6:50:29 PM   
Saltire


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/7/2011
From: Dundee

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation
. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.


Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.



I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.

(in reply to furrybastard)
Post #: 4964
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 7:07:44 PM   
furrybastard

 

Posts: 5180
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.


It went a bit beyond pontificating. And America hasn't taken any baton from Britain, both countries are running side by side when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. If anything, the US is at least held to account more often in these modern times than Britain ever were in the last couple of centuries of imperialism.

I'm all for reasonable criticism of their foreign policy (which, as you say, could be learnedbehaviour from their former rulers ) but let's not throw stones in glass houses.

(in reply to Saltire)
Post #: 4965
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 7:21:32 PM   
Keyser Sozzled


Posts: 5999
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire


quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation
. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.


Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.



I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.




Buckets of wrong on this post.

_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to Saltire)
Post #: 4966
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 10:32:39 PM   
Timon


Posts: 14588
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire


quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation
. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.


Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.



I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business....



That is putting it in the mildest possible form.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Saltire)
Post #: 4967
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 10:42:38 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Just seen some more of the Romney video. What in the name of shitting christ is he going on about when he starts saying if he were Iranian he'd bomb Chicago? Eastwood wants a slap for even being in the same room as this fucking clown.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 4968
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 10:46:30 PM   
Saltire


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/7/2011
From: Dundee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire


quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation
. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.


Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.



I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.




Buckets of wrong on this post.


Then please elucidate.

(in reply to Keyser Sozzled)
Post #: 4969
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 10:48:56 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4381
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Just seen some more of the Romney video. What in the name of shitting christ is he going on about when he starts saying if he were Iranian he'd bomb Chicago? Eastwood wants a slap for even being in the same room as this fucking clown.


got a link?
That sounds ridiculously stupid from Romney.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 4970
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 10:51:24 PM   
Saltire


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/7/2011
From: Dundee

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.


It went a bit beyond pontificating. And America hasn't taken any baton from Britain, both countries are running side by side when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. If anything, the US is at least held to account more often in these modern times than Britain ever were in the last couple of centuries of imperialism.

I'm all for reasonable criticism of their foreign policy (which, as you say, could be learnedbehaviour from their former rulers ) but let's not throw stones in glass houses.



The Americans went in first in those instances, and we followed like the little lapdogs we are. The world was a far different place when we had our Empire; now the Americans are the world's only superpower (possibly China and Russia are on the way back though), they throw their weight around and demand Middle Eastern countries conform to their ideas - its no wonder they are hated throughout that region.

(in reply to furrybastard)
Post #: 4971
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 10:52:47 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
No but if you've got ITV+1 it'll be on again in a minute.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 4972
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 10:54:51 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Just seen some more of the Romney video. What in the name of shitting christ is he going on about when he starts saying if he were Iranian he'd bomb Chicago? Eastwood wants a slap for even being in the same room as this fucking clown.


got a link?
That sounds ridiculously stupid from Romney.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9551740/Mitt-Romney-struggles-to-keep-on-track-as-further-video-revelations-emerge.html


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 4973
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 18/9/2012 11:14:11 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4381
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No but if you've got ITV+1 it'll be on again in a minute.


@horribleives

quote:


Shifty Bench
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9551740/Mitt-Romney-struggles-to-keep-on-track-as-further-video-revelations-emerge.html



Unbelievable.
Scare-mongering the USA citizens into a vote for his party is just despicable but that is one of the many unfortunate things which has happened after 9/11.And its that vote that can win him his election/big audience ,because frankly he doesn't look out of place concerning other nut-job Presidents that have followed that lead.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 4974
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 19/9/2012 2:25:03 AM   
furrybastard

 

Posts: 5180
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ireland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire
The Americans went in first in those instances, and we followed like the little lapdogs we are. The world was a far different place when we had our Empire; now the Americans are the world's only superpower (possibly China and Russia are on the way back though), they throw their weight around and demand Middle Eastern countries conform to their ideas - its no wonder they are hated throughout that region.


America, for all its faults, is still far more diplomatic than the British empire ever was. In the Middle East, Africa, India, Europe and everywhere else. I'm not excusing the at times destructive and ill-thought-out foreign policy of the US but to claim that Britain weren't all that bad is absolutely ridiculous and untrue.

You're going to have to define 'first' for me too. Britain imposed a ruling elite in Iraq after World War I, carved the country up with no thought at all towards the different sections of society, plundered their oil reserves, occupied the country and brutally put down any uprisings. Sound familiar? This caused massive amounts of problems for Iraq once they achieved independence (a somewhat loose term), which still carry through to today. There's a hell of a lot of bad blood throughout history between the West and these countries in the Middle East; America are relative newcomers to wading around in it.

You could cynically argue that because of modern technology and a greater emphasis on global issues, it's much harder for governments to get away with the kinds of things they used to get away with. In which case I would cynically agree with you!

EDIT: Just re-reading this, I hope I don't come across as too hostile or argumentative! I just don't like this almost reflex habit of anti-US rhetoric that's heard so much around Europe and the world (and at times throughout this thread from multiple posters) when almost every single big European country is, historically, more than a little culpable in the absolute mess that some of these nations are currently in. Maybe we need to look inward and at our own history before assigning blame to others. How else will anyone learn from their past mistakes?


< Message edited by furrybastard -- 19/9/2012 2:32:55 AM >

(in reply to Saltire)
Post #: 4975
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 19/9/2012 2:37:51 AM   
furrybastard

 

Posts: 5180
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ireland
As for that Romney 47% percent clip, it's unbelievable isn't it? There's another clip where he's extolling the virtues of a Chinese sweatshop that he was given a tour of. He not only expresses extreme naivity but actually seems to think that this would be a good thing for America. Get all those desperate, hungry and poor people into some sweatshops!

Forget everything else, Romney is a profoundly awful politician. And he might be a genuinely terrible person if he truly believes these things.

I just read a funny/not funny tweet saying something along the lines of "if this is what Romney says when he's well-rested and fully aware, imagine what could happen if he's woken up at 3am for a crisis" It's a return to a familiar question of US presidents that H. Clinton hit Obama with back in 2008 and it was rather effective then. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Obama campaign making this move pretty soon.

(in reply to furrybastard)
Post #: 4976
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 19/9/2012 3:00:30 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

So you only saw some bits of it and it's his weakest work? Are you saying it's inaccurate?


Yes, though I'm actually saying it's by far his weakest argument from what I've seen. Other commentaries on the films seem to support that.

quote:

What's hard to grasp is the fact that they are clearly involved in radicalising muslims outside of Saudi Arabia - and yet America do nothing. It's not just about an internal struggle by the Saudis, it's their direct impact on external terrorism.


BECAUSE. THEY. ARE. ALSO. FIGHTING. ISLAMIST. CELLS. IN. AID. OF. THE AMERICANS. The Saudi government, like most governments, is not one Borg collective, there are differing views within it and different allegiances.

quote:

The problem is you peddle is the standard line of those who back dictatorships. They are better off under one because they can't govern themselves, they'll turn instantly to terrorism etc. etc. It's codswallop.


Not it isn't, it's damned real thing that those who are under control of the government tend to be even more radicalised than what is on shown in government. The Americans were invited there by the King himself for a reason while keeping them at 5,000 to prevent more anger aimed towards it.

Also, please don't tell me about backing dictatorships when you were the guy who said that the Iraqis preferred Hussien or keep criticizing the Western forces for taking out dictatorships.

quote:

The Saudi government are a US backed dictatorship involved in radicalising muslims. Does this not filter into your mind? What 'liberal' front are they trying to satisfy here, women can't even drive in this country alone.


And recently, women got the chance to vote after protests. Gee, I wonder why they did that, I think THE PROTEST bit is a reason why. Again, SAUDI ARABIA. IS. PLAYING. A. DOUBLE. GAME. It's doing its best to satisfy every front. It's fighting the militant Islamists (who have attacked the country), it's fighting those who want to throw the monarchy, the country is a politically instable one. Again, its official position, the one of the Royal Family, is that it is fighting the terrorists.

quote:

The whole destabilisation of Syria smacks of foreign involvement. You saying these heavily armed rebels just popped up out of nowhere? And lest we forget Gaddafi was a tosser for decades while we sold him arms and extradited people to be tortured by him. Do these double standards not register with you.


Double standards? In geopolitics and diplomacy? NO WAI WHAT NONSENSE IS DIS? If you think that you can function on this planet without a degree of double standards, then well done, you're being a bigger idealist than a pragmatist. Oh, and Gaddafi constantly put off diplomatic problems on a tantrum. He had oil and business so people needed to neogtiate with him, he also constantly created problems. Malta under Mintoff till his death veered to being close allies to him to maintaining close political ties, yet it was occasionally a begrudging one because the man was insufferable.

Also, pretty hypocritical to defend Assad there, even if the man is repulsive.

quote:

So you are saying the Saudis have a right to send doctored Korans around the world and the Americans shouldn't give a shit despite them being involved in a war on terror?


No, I'm saying that you can't just piss off and attack a nation that is proving to be the strongest ally in the region. Again, for fuck's sake again, their official position is one that is aiding the West on the war on terror. The closest comparison is Pakistan, it is fighting the terrorist forces in its region, but the army has a very similar ideology to that of the fundamentalists.

quote:

Lol Assad's socialist secular government is their mortal enemy? Or just a non-compliant Arab country being knocked over like they've been knocked over in a variety of fashions over the past 100 years.


I'm sorry, who the hell started the protests in the first place and who is also aiding them? Which countries does Syria border? Oh I forgot, Assad's Syria was a Land of Serenity, why would anyone protest agaisnt him after the success of the overthrowing of some Arab dictators, he is such a nice man. Speaking of which, did the West overthrow Mubarak and Ben Ali too? And as we all know, Islamists LOVE the Baathists. They don't see them as a Godless philosophy or anything.

quote:

Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation


Tell that to the Muslims who lost their members to terrorist attacks. Tell that to the Muslims who have died because of the Islamic Jihadists. The that to the more moderate Muslims who are killed for not being ultra-conservative. Tell that to the Sufis. A big majority of the victims of Islamic terrorism has been Muslims themselves.

quote:

US history shows that they use groups within countries to commit atrocites and start conflicts within their people. It has never been proved who has been conducting bombing campaigns in Iraq - but if we go by past tactics emplyed by the CIA it's clear false-flag terror is something they have used before to weaken nations.


Yes, because the area doesn't have people that have hated each other for thousands of years.

quote:

What Al-Zarqawi that US invented uber-terrorist that was apparently behind all the attacks in Iraq? False flag terror at it's finest designed to instigate civil war in Iraq.


What the hell are you talking about?






_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 4977
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 19/9/2012 3:17:57 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Oh and game over Romney. Game over.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 4978
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 19/9/2012 8:22:14 AM   
Keyser Sozzled


Posts: 5999
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin
quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire


quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation
. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.


Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.



I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.




Buckets of wrong on this post.


Then please elucidate.



I was going to but then Furry posted.....

quote:

America, for all its faults, is still far more diplomatic than the British empire ever was. In the Middle East, Africa, India, Europe and everywhere else. I'm not excusing the at times destructive and ill-thought-out foreign policy of the US but to claim that Britain weren't all that bad is absolutely ridiculous and untrue.

You're going to have to define 'first' for me too. Britain imposed a ruling elite in Iraq after World War I, carved the country up with no thought at all towards the different sections of society, plundered their oil reserves, occupied the country and brutally put down any uprisings. Sound familiar? This caused massive amounts of problems for Iraq once they achieved independence (a somewhat loose term), which still carry through to today. There's a hell of a lot of bad blood throughout history between the West and these countries in the Middle East; America are relative newcomers to wading around in it.

You could cynically argue that because of modern technology and a greater emphasis on global issues, it's much harder for governments to get away with the kinds of things they used to get away with. In which case I would cynically agree with you!



So this basically.


_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to Saltire)
Post #: 4979
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 19/9/2012 11:51:03 AM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
Historically European nations have been as bad if not worse than the Americans simply down to the brutal racist colonialism bent on exploiting places like Africa, we ourselves extended our influence due to the power of our Empire in India and with the creation of Pakistan and Israel.

More recently however the power has shifted and the Americans have taken up the baton with relish. As it stands no one has actually done more damage to world peace than America over the last 50 years. Despicable sums it up - people call it anti-American 'rhetoric' but the extent of their terrorism (and it is terrorism) is well documented and the cost in lives runs into the millions.

On a more recent note Romneys mumblings are shocking aren't they - what does this actually say about America's democracy exactly when someone like this has a shot as becoming president. I think it's clear - Republican leaders are the puppets of the corporations. You don't need someone with any intellectual capacity, you need a vessel to channel your corruption through.


(in reply to Keyser Sozzled)
Post #: 4980
Page:   <<   < prev  164 165 [166] 167 168   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election Page: <<   < prev  164 165 [166] 167 168   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.219