Posts: 130787 Topics: 9284 LOGIN

Favourites

 

Home >> World-issues >> Time to get tough with Iran

19.02.2007, 01:10 quote

Anonymous

 

19.02.2007, 07:55 quote

Anonymous

Alleged terrorists in Guantanamo, until they are released - maybe.

Here having a breath of fresh air in the yard before it's time for lunch.


 

19.02.2007, 12:38 quote

toby

Bush also won't see any trial.....although he should be taken to Den Hague.

The problem: The USA is one of the few countries who refused to sign the contract...so the USA can commit war crimes without that anything happens....

And starting a war is illegal - it is only allowed to protect yourself or to help other countries that are invaded....starting a war itself is a crime and George Bush is a criminal.

 

20.02.2007, 11:43 quote

Anonymous

I understand that US went to war over being attacked back in 2001 - to save face. However, focus shifted rapidly from Bin laden in Afghanistan to Oil in Iraq. And cleaning up their old Middle East messes.
Most unfortunately for the Arabs cleaning means killing everyone.

On FBI's most wanted list it's not even claimed Bin Laden has anything to do with WTC. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years.

 

03.03.2007, 15:40 quote

Anonymous

Aradon wrote:
lmao SC, the US are a VERY aggresive nation, they are so busy trying to police the entire world and tbh, it's not their f*cking job
That statement is totally inaccurate. America was very slow to start a war on terrorism. American forcves were attacked by Hezbollah in 1983 in Lebanon. America was hit by Islamic terrorism in 1993 when the world trade center was bombed. It was attacked abroad when Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in 1998 and its Embasies in Tanzania and Kenya. Only when the American mainland was attacked by a massive atrocity in September 2001 did it delcare a world wide war on terrorism, stating that it would make no difference between the states that sponser terrorism and the terrorists themselves.

 

04.03.2007, 15:16 quote

francy

well why havent they bombed london, or havent you bothered to read the o'loan report, which clearly states that many people were killed by terrorists, working for, and in the payroll of the british state...or is it a case of your terrorism good, my terrorism bad

have a look at this stoney http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4552241204719421053

stonecastle wrote:
Aradon wrote:
lmao SC, the US are a VERY aggresive nation, they are so busy trying to police the entire world and tbh, it's not their f*cking job
That statement is totally inaccurate. America was very slow to start a war on terrorism. American forcves were attacked by Hezbollah in 1983 in Lebanon. America was hit by Islamic terrorism in 1993 when the world trade center was bombed. It was attacked abroad when Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in 1998 and its Embasies in Tanzania and Kenya. Only when the American mainland was attacked by a massive atrocity in September 2001 did it delcare a world wide war on terrorism, stating that it would make no difference between the states that sponser terrorism and the terrorists themselves.
Very Happy

 

04.03.2007, 17:18 quote

francy

hey lads, play the ball...fball fball


DrBrightside wrote:
chris343 wrote:
DrBrightside wrote:
You've obviosuly forgotten about when Clinton bombed a paracetamol factory. Aggression doesn't have to mean a military attack. Bullies use threats and sanctions.



Congrats, Your annoying stupid


Dude, what is your problem? Why don't you tell me why you have a problem with what I'm saying?
fball

 

04.03.2007, 19:37 quote

Anonymous

francy wrote:
well why havent they bombed london.
They have! Do you not remember the London bombings on July 7th 2005? They were later found to be the work of Al Qaeda after one of the bombers appeared in a video. Loads of other countries too have been bombed by Al Qaeda including some muslim countries such as Indonesia ie the Bali bombing. Al Qaeda are Islamic extremists who hate not just westerners but other muslims who do not subscribe to their extremist view of Islam.

 

05.03.2007, 23:11 quote

Anonymous

i'v noticed this is a touchy subject that no one wants to join in with, i think their wise not to.

 

05.03.2007, 23:13 quote

francy

thats politics....lol...


brightfame wrote:
i'v noticed this is a touchy subject that no one wants to join in with, i think their wise not to.

 

05.03.2007, 23:35 quote

Anonymous

I think i'll leave this one alone, you know what i'm like! so i wont bother giving you my views, but you seem like a very articulate, intelligent sort of guy who's able to get there point across precisly without offence to the other person, i hope you find a soloution to the problem, of a hopless cause which is terrorism. but i think your wasting your breath Smile sorry

ChiefOHara wrote:
brightfame wrote:
i'v noticed this is a touchy subject that no one wants to join in with, i think their wise not to.


Politics generally tends to be, but you have to remember some people enjoy the arguments and the debates. one positive thing about debating politics is that it either helps you to refine your viewpoint or realise your mistakes in it. I wouldn't post in this area if i didn't enjoy it.

 

06.03.2007, 15:33 quote

Anonymous

ChiefOHara wrote:
Also the Invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism and everything to do with Halliburton. There were no WMD's, there was no immenient threat.
No Saddam only murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own people. He only persecuted the Kurds and drove over a million of them from their homeland. He only refused to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors for 12 years, he only gave a safe haven to international terrorists like Abu Nidal notorious Palestinian terrorist and to one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. He only invaded Kuwait in 1990, then set fire to hundreds of oil wells while retreating, poured crude oil into the Persian Gulf and fired missiles at neutral Israel. He only went to war with Iran for eight years from 1980 to 88 resulting in a war that caused one million deaths. I think America was fully justified in removing such an evil regime.

 

07.03.2007, 01:41 quote

Anonymous

Just send in Chuck Norris, he'll sort everything out with a few well aimed roundhouse kicks.

 

07.03.2007, 10:45 quote

Anonymous

chuck is an old man now, all theyd need to do is kick away his zimmer frame and he'd be marry'd UT

 

07.03.2007, 20:20 quote

Anonymous

ChiefOHara wrote:
the moral thing would work with me, except for the fact that no one is invading Mugabe's mess of a nation enmass, and when Liberia pleaded for US intervention they were ignored. There are plenty of tinpot dictators in the world.
I know America should be acting in other circumstances as well. But they did act against Somali back in 1993, remember the film Black Hawk Down and they are now sending troops back into Somalia. But I still think that dealing with Saddam was the right thing to do. Maybe it was because he was in the Middle of the Worlds richest oil region that made America sit up and realise he was such a threat as he could hold the world to ransom if he gained control over the oil fields of the region.

 
 
Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum