Terrorism equals a WAR forever

[Psychoblues]

As long as we can even intimate disagreement with "terrorism" we will have WAR. As long as we ignore the wishes of the population, we will have WAR. As long as we put aside the plights of the masses in order to enrich the views and wealth of the powers that be, WE WILL HAVE WAR.

The threats and damages of the powerful are well documented. Their lies, in the light of a free press, are as well. I listen to all of it. It's my right and your right. You may pick and choose. I try to get and understand a truly balanced and fair view of the way things are.

As a United States citizen, I abhor WAR. If disagreement in the face of WAR is prevalent in attitude, whether in general or political, then it is WAR that we will have.

I think of WAR as being rather juvenile and uncivilized. I presently think of WAR as being an extention of Imperialistic ideals.

The Viet Nam War was actually won. It was won by the people that lived there. We had a problem, at that time, with a fear of a spreading Communism. Capitalism ultimately won out but the American stylists were sent packing with their tails between their legs. Viet Nam was a state/country in transition as it still is. Was our interference necessary? I think not. We, Americans, were a hindrance to the evolution of Vietnamese growth and politics. And we were quite murderously a party to the prevention of natural human inclination. That inclination being Democracy.

The Vietnamese I see today are much happier than the Vietnamese I knew many years ago. The Vietnamese then were apprehensive, even afraid. The Vietnamese of today welcome the jobs as afforded by the Japanese, the Germans, the Swedish and even the Philipinos and yes the jobs that Americans offer them. Was our interference necessary? Were the wasted lives of 58,000 Americans necessary? Was it politics or prudence? You figure it out?

The liberals in Viet Nam embrace the changes that benefit the population. The conservatives reject anything that doesn't benefit them personally. The liberals there are winning and identify on the positive end of that equation. The conservatives mount an ever increasing amount of propaganda to retain their own power and throttle the increasing power of the little people, the liberals. Viet Nam goes on, as the United States of America will go on. I hope we don't invade them once again or invade any other sovereign people for some ideologically flawed purpose or political endearment. We are better than that.

Don't you agree?


Psychoblues

 

[Hobbit]

You cannot please all of the people all of the time. The only way the Muslims will leave us alone is if we institute a Muslim state. If that happens, then there will be terrorists from other religions. There is no way to end terrorism, so we can either be like Belgium and the Netherlands, bending over backward and giving in to every threat that comes along, or we can fight and show that we'll never back down. If preserving our way of life means war forever, then war it is.

 

[insein]

You cannot please all of the people all of the time. The only way the Muslims will leave us alone is if we institute a Muslim state. If that happens, then there will be terrorists from other religions. There is no way to end terrorism, so we can either be like Belgium and the Netherlands, bending over backward and giving in to every threat that comes along, or we can fight and show that we'll never back down. If preserving our way of life means war forever, then war it is.

Well said. I dont think an aging hippy douchebag like psycho understands the meaning of self preservation.

 

[Psychoblues]

Holy Shit!!!!!!

I don't think Hobbit or insein understand the difference between self-preservation and self-annilation. What is so wrong with Belgium or the Netherlands? Are they next in OUR agenda of WORLD DOMINATION?

Neither of you have an idea of the present Islamic state. Geographically or politically.

If either of you are indicative of American thought, we are in deeper shit than I ever imagined.


Psychoblues

 

[insein]

Holy Shit!!!!!!

I don't think Hobbit or insein understand the difference between self-preservation and self-annilation. What is so wrong with Belgium or the Netherlands? Are they next in OUR agenda of WORLD DOMINATION?

Neither of you have an idea of the present Islamic state. Geographically or politically.

If either of you are indicative of American thought, we are in deeper shit than I ever imagined.


Psychoblues

Unfortunately no one knows how America truly thinks since there is a campaign of misinformation in the public due in large part to the Mass Media controlled by socialists and communists. American troops are made to look like Terrorists and Terrorists are made to look like Freedom Fighting Evangelicals. Not the Christian evangelicals either because those are evil in communist eyes. Islamic Evangelicals. Thats the current enemy of America so it msut be good for communism. Pawns like Psycho and Max Power believe so. And anyone that opposes America has to be good because it advaces the agenda in their eyes.

 

[Hobbit]

Holy Shit!!!!!!

I don't think Hobbit or insein understand the difference between self-preservation and self-annilation. What is so wrong with Belgium or the Netherlands? Are they next in OUR agenda of WORLD DOMINATION?

Neither of you have an idea of the present Islamic state. Geographically or politically.

If either of you are indicative of American thought, we are in deeper shit than I ever imagined.


Psychoblues

If we were in it for world domination, we'd start with Cuba, then hit Mexico and Venezuela for their oil, then conquor the rest of our own continent first. We also wouldn't be letting conquored citizens vote.

The problem with Belgium and the Netherlands is that when the Nazis came for them, they rolled over and took it, opeing the door for Germany to completely take Western Europe. We, however, never just roll over and take it, although that's what you and your ilk would really like us to do, because you're living under the delusion that it will make us 'safe' somehow.

And if you were indicative of American thought, we wouldn't be worrying about any 'dirty bombs' because a single 'dirty arab' could take over the whole country with a pocket knife.

 

[Gunny]

As long as we can even intimate disagreement with "terrorism" we will have WAR. As long as we ignore the wishes of the population, we will have WAR. As long as we put aside the plights of the masses in order to enrich the views and wealth of the powers that be, WE WILL HAVE WAR.

The threats and damages of the powerful are well documented. Their lies, in the light of a free press, are as well. I listen to all of it. It's my right and your right. You may pick and choose. I try to get and understand a truly balanced and fair view of the way things are.

As a United States citizen, I abhor WAR. If disagreement in the face of WAR is prevalent in attitude, whether in general or political, then it is WAR that we will have.

I think of WAR as being rather juvenile and uncivilized. I presently think of WAR as being an extention of Imperialistic ideals.

The Viet Nam War was actually won. It was won by the people that lived there. We had a problem, at that time, with a fear of a spreading Communism. Capitalism ultimately won out but the American stylists were sent packing with their tails between their legs. Viet Nam was a state/country in transition as it still is. Was our interference necessary? I think not. We, Americans, were a hindrance to the evolution of Vietnamese growth and politics. And we were quite murderously a party to the prevention of natural human inclination. That inclination being Democracy.

The Vietnamese I see today are much happier than the Vietnamese I knew many years ago. The Vietnamese then were apprehensive, even afraid. The Vietnamese of today welcome the jobs as afforded by the Japanese, the Germans, the Swedish and even the Philipinos and yes the jobs that Americans offer them. Was our interference necessary? Were the wasted lives of 58,000 Americans necessary? Was it politics or prudence? You figure it out?

The liberals in Viet Nam embrace the changes that benefit the population. The conservatives reject anything that doesn't benefit them personally. The liberals there are winning and identify on the positive end of that equation. The conservatives mount an ever increasing amount of propaganda to retain their own power and throttle the increasing power of the little people, the liberals. Viet Nam goes on, as the United States of America will go on. I hope we don't invade them once again or invade any other sovereign people for some ideologically flawed purpose or political endearment. We are better than that.

Don't you agree?


Psychoblues

The only thing you got right is the very first sentence. The rest is your "usual" attempting to rethink the Vietnam War. Fortunate for the masses it is that YOU are not indicative of American thought.

As long as groups choose to use terror as a weapon, there will be those willing to stand up to them instead of cowering in a corner or pretending they don't exist. Too bad for backwards-assed thinking people like you who continually apologize and/or attempt to legitmize the REAL evil while attempting to villify those willing to stand up to it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

[/b]

Well said. I dont think an aging hippy douchebag like psycho understands the meaning of self preservation.

Oh, he understands it well enough.

The COWARD loves it that others will die supporting his freedom so that he can call those who died defending him war mongers, idiots, terrorists.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The only thing you got right is the very first sentence. The rest is your "usual" attempting to rethink the Vietnam War. Fortunate for the masses it is that YOU are not indicative of American thought.

As long as groups choose to use terror as a weapon, there will be those willing to stand up to them instead of cowering in a corner or pretending they don't exist. Too bad for backwards-assed thinking people like you who continually apologize and/or attempt to legitmize the REAL evil while attempting to villify those willing to stand up to it.

we need to add onto your sig..

"and it will triumph even faster when idiotic COWARDS like Psycho get their way"

 

[manu1959]

so how do you explain england and northern ireland these days?

 

[Bullypulpit]

You cannot please all of the people all of the time. The only way the Muslims will leave us alone is if we institute a Muslim state. If that happens, then there will be terrorists from other religions. There is no way to end terrorism, so we can either be like Belgium and the Netherlands, bending over backward and giving in to every threat that comes along, or we can fight and show that we'll never back down. If preserving our way of life means war forever, then war it is.

Your assertion is simply wrong. While SOME Muslims may find western culture to be decadent and distasteful, they are not going to kill anyone over it. Muslim extremists will also not kill us over our social norms. What they will do is react violently to any percieved attack on Islam as embodied by western policies in general and US policies in particular with regards to the Middle East over the last 50-60 years.

Having propped up decadent, corrupt and oppressive regimes in order to keep oil flowing lies at the root of the Muslim extremists anti-Western sentiment. The presence of US troops on Saudi Arabian soil at the end of the 1st Gulf War was percieved as a direct affront to Islam by Osama bin Laden and others of his ilk, and was the genesis of his decalration of jihad against the US.

But the US is not entirely at fault. Rather than opening up their societies to democratic reforms that their oil wealth would have helped secure, the emirates and sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf sought to cling to power by any means at their disposal. They were, and are, corrupted by their wealth and power. And a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam was their key to power. They demonized the West on one hand. On the other, they sougth to curry favor from bot West and East block nations during the cold war. After the cold war, they simply ruled with an iron fist all the while continuing to whip up anti-western sentiment at home.

This religious fundamentalism, however has come back to bite them in the ass. With the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in these oil emirates, the fundamentalist Imams have begun to turn their ire on their royal families as being puppets of the West, which they are. It was no coincidence that most of the 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

So, until we end our dependence on oil and can leave the region to its own devices, there will continue to be US troops in the Middle East serving as tinder to the flames of Islamic extremism. Contrary to anything the President says tonight, we will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. With some 14 permanent military bases and one of the largest embassies in the region, the Bush administration has committed this country to a long term presence in Iraq. The insurgency there, as well as the "war on terror" will continue apace until we have a rational policy towards the region and a rational administration to implement it, Republican or Democrat.

 

[Annie]

Your assertion is simply wrong. While SOME Muslims may find western culture to be decadent and distasteful, they are not going to kill anyone over it. Muslim extremists will also not kill us over our social norms. What they will do is react violently to any percieved attack on Islam as embodied by western policies in general and US policies in particular with regards to the Middle East over the last 50-60 years.

Having propped up decadent, corrupt and oppressive regimes in order to keep oil flowing lies at the root of the Muslim extremists anti-Western sentiment. The presence of US troops on Saudi Arabian soil at the end of the 1st Gulf War was percieved as a direct affront to Islam by Osama bin Laden and others of his ilk, and was the genesis of his decalration of jihad against the US.

But the US is not entirely at fault. Rather than opening up their societies to democratic reforms that their oil wealth would have helped secure, the emirates and sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf sought to cling to power by any means at their disposal. They were, and are, corrupted by their wealth and power. And a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam was their key to power. They demonized the West on one hand. On the other, they sougth to curry favor from bot West and East block nations during the cold war. After the cold war, they simply ruled with an iron fist all the while continuing to whip up anti-western sentiment at home.

This religious fundamentalism, however has come back to bite them in the ass. With the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in these oil emirates, the fundamentalist Imams have begun to turn their ire on their royal families as being puppets of the West, which they are. It was no coincidence that most of the 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

So, until we end our dependence on oil and can leave the region to its own devices, there will continue to be US troops in the Middle East serving as tinder to the flames of Islamic extremism. Contrary to anything the President says tonight, we will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. With some 14 permanent military bases and one of the largest embassies in the region, the Bush administration has committed this country to a long term presence in Iraq. The insurgency there, as well as the "war on terror" will continue apace until we have a rational policy towards the region and a rational administration to implement it, Republican or Democrat.

In the past, I would have agreed with you Bully. Not anymore. They are truly looking for an 'Islamic World' with no borders. You are dead wrong on this.

 

[Bullypulpit]

In the past, I would have agreed with you Bully. Not anymore. They are truly looking for an 'Islamic World' with no borders. You are dead wrong on this.

What proof have you of this assertion?

And, of course, there's the religious right in this country in seach of a 'Christian world' without borders.

 

[Annie]

What proof have you of this assertion?

And, of course, there's the religious right in this country in seach of a 'Christian world' without borders.

What proof have you of this assertion?

I'll worry more about the RR when they start attacking people in the streets or blowing themselves up. I may find some annoying, but I've yet to find any that will not let me close a door, hang up the phone, or even move onto others on a messageboad. Far too many of the RR are like Jeff and others that have their pov, will let you know it, then stand back. I can live with that. I could live with Muslims that did the same.

 

[Gunny]

What proof have you of this assertion?

And, of course, there's the religious right in this country in seach of a 'Christian world' without borders.

You could look in the Koran, or you could listen to what these Islamic fundamentalists are saying instead of ignoring them in favor of defaming your own.

 

[theHawk]

Your assertion is simply wrong. While SOME Muslims may find western culture to be decadent and distasteful, they are not going to kill anyone over it. Muslim extremists will also not kill us over our social norms. What they will do is react violently to any percieved attack on Islam as embodied by western policies in general and US policies in particular with regards to the Middle East over the last 50-60 years.

I can agree with that for the most part. Though I would say that Muslim fundamentalists' characterization of America as the great "Satan" isn't far off. Its not that we're evil at heart or go around conquering like an empire, its our open and liberal society that is just so seductive. The things they see and dislike in our society are probably the same things conservative Christians see and don't like either. The fundamental difference between the two cultures is that Muslims don't want you to have the choice to defy "God's will", while Christianity wants you to make a choice....if we made it law to worship Jesus then how can you ever really 'choose' to accept Jesus in your heart?

So, until we end our dependence on oil and can leave the region to its own devices, there will continue to be US troops in the Middle East serving as tinder to the flames of Islamic extremism.

Yup, would be nice if we could drill for our own oil on anywhere on our own soil someday wouldn't it? But liberals keep blocking such attempts citing environmental reasons. Though now with Iran trying to get nukes and no one else stepping up to stop them, we'll probably need to stay in the region untill that is delt with...

Contrary to anything the President says tonight, we will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. With some 14 permanent military bases and one of the largest embassies in the region, the Bush administration has committed this country to a long term presence in Iraq. The insurgency there, as well as the "war on terror" will continue apace until we have a rational policy towards the region and a rational administration to implement it, Republican or Democrat.

Probably right, will need a military presense there for a long time. Wouldn't bother me too much to have bases there, but I think we all don't want to see our troops patrolling the streets for years to come....that should be handed over to Iraqis asap.

 

[Bonnie]

Psycho...The Viet Nam War was actually won. It was won by the people that lived there. We had a problem, at that time, with a fear of a spreading Communism. Capitalism ultimately won out but the American stylists were sent packing with their tails between their legs. Viet Nam was a state/country in transition as it still is. Was our interference necessary? I think not. We, Americans, were a hindrance to the evolution of Vietnamese growth and politics. And we were quite murderously a party to the prevention of natural human inclination. That inclination being Democracy.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/fields.html

A Summary of Cambodia and
The Killing Field Years
From 1970 thru 1975, approximately 1,100,000 Cambodian people died in the war.

From 1975 thru 1979, approximately 2 million Cambodian people died under the Khmers Rouges.

From 1978 onward, an estimated 500,000 Cambodian people died as a result of the Vietnamese invasion and occupation and subsequent guerilla wars.

The Khmers Rouges (Red Cambodians) came into prominence when Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), and others left Phnom Penh and began an insurrection in 1963. Saloth Sar, born 1928, was educated in Paris, where he committed himself to the French Communist Party. He was a private school history and geography teacher in Phnom Penh, and later worked as a journalist. After joining the illegal Communist Party, he advanced to Deputy Secretary-General.

Khieu Samphan was born in 1931, and went to France on scholarship in 1954. His 1959 thesis, Cambodia's Economy and Industrial Devleopment would become the cornerstone of the economic/social policies of the Khmers. The thesis dictated that ruling-classes and cities were parasites, aragrarian/labor society was utopia, and that the entire populace needed to be removed to the countryside. Samphan was also a journalist, and joined the Khmers Rouges in 1967.

Although 'neutral', Cambodia is sucked into the already escalating Vietnam war in 1963.

18 March '70 - General Lon Nol takes power from Norodom Sihanouk.

30 April '70 - Formal invasion of Cambodia by US and SVN forces to 'clear cut the sanctuaries' of Communist guerillas.

By 1972, North Vietnamese occupy eastern and southern Cambodia, while the Khmers Rouges occupy the West and North.

1973, Paris Peace Accords - Although the warring factions abated their activities, the US continued a barrage of bombing on the Khmers Rouges in Cambodia through August. The Khmers Rouges had by then in excess of 50k troops.

New Year's 1975 - The Khmers begin a final assault against their own people. By April, Lon Nol flees, the American ambassador and staff are evacuated on 12 April, and the Khmers Rouges enter Phnom Penh on 17 April.

The immediate implementation of the agrarian/labor policy of Khieu is begun, with 2.5 million Cambodians driven from Phnom Penh. The high number of people is the result of war refugees who had sought refuge in the city after their villages were destroyed during the war. Hospitals and schools were emptied. All public officials that were captured, were slaughtered, along with the tribal Chans, of whom 60,000 were murdered outright for their religious beliefs.

Three years and eight months of Khmers Rouges control left the country - now named Democratic Kampuchea - without a single city or currency. Abolition of family, property rights and religion was immediate. They religiously followed Samphan's thesis to create a peasant class and rebuild a totalitarian, Communst society upon it.

Beginning in 1975, virtually anyone who went to school, wore glasses, read a book or worked was deemed an enemy, and they and their families were either murdered outright or worked to death as slave labor.

To save ammunition, beating people to death and disembowelment was encouraged.

1977 - Pol Pot sends Khmer troops into Vietnam, murdering hundreds, perhaps thousands. Vietnam retaliates with a full-scale incursion. Pol Pot breaks diplomatic relations with Hanoi. Hanoi responds by creating a guerilla army of dissident Cambodians, many of whom had either been a part of the slaughter of Vietnamese or had survived Pol Pot's rampage.

1978 - Massacres begin in the eastern Cambodian corridor. Senior cadres were butchered, along with everyone who had contact with the Vietnamese, which wasn't hard given that Vietnam bordered this section of Cambodia and Saigon was a mere 40 miles away. A breakaway opposition group fled to the bush and in response, Pol Pot ordered the murder of everyone he could find... 100,000 people in 3 months, and 1/3 of the population sent on a forced march to western 'Democratic Kampuchea'. Border excursions accounted for thousands of Vietnamese peasants being butchered as well.

24 December '78 - Vietnam invades Cambodia and takes Phnom Penh by January 1977. By February, most of Cambodia is occupied by Vietnam.

1979 - Vietnamese invasion troops enter Tuol Sleng (S21), the Central Committee's security office. It was a torture and execution center for 'important prisoners', where over 20,000 people had been murdered. The cadre at Tuol Sleng had maintained meticulous records of their atrocities... names, numbers of victims, identification numbers, photographs before, during and after execution, and summaries of the day's activities. If one looks at the photos of those who suffered through Tuol Sleng, one will find pages of photos of young girls... so much for 'important or high-ranking prisoners.' Only seven survivors are known to have escaped the horrors of Tuol Sleng. Lower classed prisoners were taken to The Killing Fields and simply butchered.

During this nightmare, Prince Sihanouk was allowed to return and be a figurehead in Cambodia. Therefore, he bears some of the blame for these atrocities. Once the 'enemies' of the Angka - Organization of Khmers Rouges, the official government - had been slaughtered, Pol Pot turned his hate against anything connected to Vietnam. As a result, more than half of the Cambodian Communists and 4 of the 10 people who led the Khmers to victory in 1975, were also destroyed. Their torture and interrogations were found in Tuol Sleng.

In retreat, the Khmer Rouges took several hundred thousand peasants and fled to the mountains of northern Cambodia. However, by year end, Vietnam defeated most pockets of resistance and drove the hard-core Khmers into camps along the Thailand border.

1989 - Vietnam, after a 10 year occupation and continued battle with the Khmers Rouges, withdraws its troops from Cambodia.

The Khmers Rouges continued to use the northwest, Anlong Veng, as a stronghold until last year with mass defections from the senior ranks impacting the group. They continued their policy of brutal slaughter and taking captives, such as Christopher Howe from Great Britain, until early 1997, when the inner circle within the Khmer Rouge came undone.

May/June 1997 - Pol Pot angers his supporters by executing one of his most loyal lieutenants and his entire family of 11 people. In response, many within his group breakaway and take him and Khieu Samphan prisoner.

Just in case you forgot. Here is an example of what happens when America doesn't fight with everything it has to WIN, when it fights a war using armchair generals in the Senate, then turns around and runs leaving the helpless behind to suffer the consequences.

 

[ThomasPaine]

As long as we can even intimate disagreement with "terrorism" we will have WAR. As long as we ignore the wishes of the population, we will have WAR. As long as we put aside the plights of the masses in order to enrich the views and wealth of the powers that be, WE WILL HAVE WAR.

The threats and damages of the powerful are well documented. Their lies, in the light of a free press, are as well. I listen to all of it. It's my right and your right. You may pick and choose. I try to get and understand a truly balanced and fair view of the way things are.

As a United States citizen, I abhor WAR. If disagreement in the face of WAR is prevalent in attitude, whether in general or political, then it is WAR that we will have.

I think of WAR as being rather juvenile and uncivilized. I presently think of WAR as being an extention of Imperialistic ideals.

The Viet Nam War was actually won. It was won by the people that lived there. We had a problem, at that time, with a fear of a spreading Communism. Capitalism ultimately won out but the American stylists were sent packing with their tails between their legs. Viet Nam was a state/country in transition as it still is. Was our interference necessary? I think not. We, Americans, were a hindrance to the evolution of Vietnamese growth and politics. And we were quite murderously a party to the prevention of natural human inclination. That inclination being Democracy.

The Vietnamese I see today are much happier than the Vietnamese I knew many years ago. The Vietnamese then were apprehensive, even afraid. The Vietnamese of today welcome the jobs as afforded by the Japanese, the Germans, the Swedish and even the Philipinos and yes the jobs that Americans offer them. Was our interference necessary? Were the wasted lives of 58,000 Americans necessary? Was it politics or prudence? You figure it out?

The liberals in Viet Nam embrace the changes that benefit the population. The conservatives reject anything that doesn't benefit them personally. The liberals there are winning and identify on the positive end of that equation. The conservatives mount an ever increasing amount of propaganda to retain their own power and throttle the increasing power of the little people, the liberals. Viet Nam goes on, as the United States of America will go on. I hope we don't invade them once again or invade any other sovereign people for some ideologically flawed purpose or political endearment. We are better than that.

Don't you agree?


Psychoblues

ALWAYS the problem with libs. Stupidity...

Oh yeah Vietnam is WAY better off. Of course except for the dead.. And those who want to be free. And those pesky folks that desire liberty, or representation, or human rights, or the right to worship, or the freedom to go where and when they please.

Sir, you are either trolling, or, to put it simply, you are an idiot.

 

[Annie]

ALWAYS the problem with libs. Stupidity...

Oh yeah Vietnam is WAY better off. Of course except for the dead.. And those who want to be free. And those pesky folks that desire liberty, or representation, or human rights, or the right to worship, or the freedom to go where and when they please.

Sir, you are either trolling, or, to put it simply, you are an idiot.

Could be both. Yeah. Probably.

 

[Psychoblues]

Could be both. Yeah. Probably.

So you think of me "probably" as an idiot or a troll, Kathianne?

I've shown you both deserved and undeserved respect in the past, Kathianne. You've revealed your attitude towards me. The "undeserved" part of respect is history. Let's continue on with facts and forget the fiction, how about it?

Psychoblues