New orders for Volvo trucks sunk from 42.000 in de beginning of the year to now 115. (indeed 115)
Re: Saddam
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:16 pm
by jfko6
bl00k wrote:
jfko6 wrote:Stef/bl00k:
When the US invaded IRAQ the first thing the Marines encountered upon resistance were terrorist training camps. Saddam supported those camps. They were filled with mercenaries from all over the region. Its actually amazing to me; Everyone knows that terrorism exists in the middle east all the way down to Afghanistan and beyond those borders. But terrorism exists everywhere but Iraq. Yeah Right.
I didn't say there were no terrorists in Iraq, i'm sure there are. Depending on your definition of terrorist, they are pretty much in every country. They are right here in the Netherlands, does that mean the US has to invade us? There are many more terrorists in the other countries of the Middle East, so the US should invade every country and go door to door killing everyone who is a terrorist? Who is a terrorist anyway? Can you tell them apart from 'normal' people by something? No you can't, they look exactly the same as everyone else, most of the time these so called terrorists live a normal life by day, and another by night, so to speak.
9/11 was committed by a bunch of arabs. They're all dead. They apparently came from a group called Al Qaeda, 'the base'. This group apparently had found home in Afghanistan under taliban rule. I can see why America would try and invade Afghanistan. You can't completely justify it with reason, the hijackers of 9/11 were all dead, after all. If you're holding Bin Laden responsible for the deaths of 9/11, you can also hold Bush responsible for American soldiers who died in the Middle East. But anyway, invading Afghanistan is 'alright'. Invading Iraq, however, didnt have anything to do with so called 'terrorism', which by the way is the most overstated threat in the history of the world. How much people died through terrorism in the Western world? It's about the lowest possible threat to the random person. I've never had ANY fear for terrorism, it's irrational. And to think you can actually solve this "terrorism" by invading countries is even less rational. You create more terrorists this way. America must know by now that you can't win a guerilla war by conventional means. You'd have to kill each and every person in the enitre middle east to be sure. And even then you won't be sure cause there's bound to rise some other guy up somewhere in the world who says "fuck america", and he'd have a valid reason, too.
This 'war on terrorism' can't be won through force. It's Bush's way of instilling fear in the American people to make them do what he wants. Terrorists are the boogeymen, America is under attack, America is in danger, and Bush needs more and more power to fix it. It's all based on irrational fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of Islam, fear of Iran, fear of the men with big black beards. America will stay in Iraq till someone in the US decides to get them back. Nothing will be won. Thousands of Americans will be dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis will be dead. Billions will have been spent. And the world will NOT be a safer place unless each and everyone in the middle east is dead.
To me, it's obvious why Bush and his buddies decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. It's partly about oil, partly about the dollar as the world currency, partly about money and partly about saying 'fuck you' to Russia and China. All in all, it's about maintaning America's superpower status. Those are more valid reasons for invading iraq than to fight terrorism.
I'm not saying anything bad about the soldiers. All my criticism goes to the Bush administration/government. The soldiers do their job, make huge sacrifices. For their country, sure. But not for Iraqi freedom. All praise must go to soldiers who try to win without fighting. All blame has to go to anyone who voted for Bush's proposals.
I hope this shit turns out for the better. America needs God's blessing now more than ever.
bl00k
In the course of this struggle we're talking about Islamic extremists who kill in the name of Allah. So there's your definition. And these terrorist go by names and factions and many times carry flags in battle so yes they can be distinguished like the Mehdi Army. There are other methods for sniffing out Islamic radicals who try to murder the innocent. Many are in prison in our country just for that. They got caught. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States. So there's your "reason" defined.
You argue from a "do nothing" point of view and hope things turn out for the better. You can't reason with a terrorist. The only thing they know is the butt end of a rifle.
I know what you mean when you talk about the likely hood of an act of terror in ones neighborhood is rare and many times these fears are played up by the media. But at the same time if Al Qaeda's numbers only amount to 5000 radicals worldwide it only took nineteen to kill nearly three thousand men, women and unborn children (numbers uncounted) on nine-eleven. As far as these terrorist scum ability to kill the unborn I was a witness to that.
It only takes a few radicals to kill thousands or God forbid more. This is a new problem facing America. And every new President we elect must be on guard against it.
We new Bin Laden was responsible and therefore took the fight to the Taliban.
In the course of this struggle we're talking about Islamic extremists who kill in the name of Allah. So there's your definition. And these terrorist go by names and factions and many times carry flags in battle so yes they can be distinguished like the Mehdi Army. There are other methods for sniffing out Islamic radicals who try to murder the innocent. Many are in prison in our country just for that. They got caught. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States. So there's your "reason" defined.
You argue from a "do nothing" point of view and hope things turn out for the better. You can't reason with a terrorist. The only thing they know is the butt end of a rifle.
I'm not exactly suggesting to do nothing. There's a whole lot between doing nothing and invading a random Middle Eastern country which happens to be in poor shape and easily invadable (Iraq). Ofcourse the people who want to do us harm must be stopped. But the question is how and when. Do we want to stop them *before* they've done anything? Do we stop criminals at home before they act like criminals? No. You first have to commit a crime and THEN you'll be caught (hopefully) and prosecuted. Also, the criminal doesn't have to prove his innocence, but the prosecuter has to prove his guilt.
How does this apply to Afghanistan & Iraq? Well first of all the terrorists which are being fought against haven't really attacked the western world. They see other countries invading their countries so they pick up arms and start fighting. So these terrorists who fight the invading force are sometimes killed and sometimes caught. What happens with these caught terrorists? To Guantanamo Bay or other prisons. Has there been one case in which a supposed terrorist has been found guilty? Might there been innocent men between these caught so called terrorists? It's not unlikely.
So my problem here is the way the US & other NATO countries try to stop terrorists before they even think of attacking the US or other countries at home. And then the way these terrorists are punished. It's like going into the Bronx (or whatever bad neighbourhood in some American city) and going around shooting and capturing random people who meet the qualifications (African Americans are more likely criminal in this case). It's not an efficient way and it certainly doesnt help to reach the goal: stop terrorists (or criminals) from committing acts of terrorism (crime). Unless, ofcourse, you kill all of 'em. But thats not nice.
I know what you mean when you talk about the likely hood of an act of terror in ones neighborhood is rare and many times these fears are played up by the media. But at the same time if Al Qaeda's numbers only amount to 5000 radicals worldwide it only took nineteen to kill nearly three thousand men, women and unborn children (numbers uncounted) on nine-eleven. As far as these terrorist scum ability to kill the unborn I was a witness to that.
It only takes a few radicals to kill thousands or God forbid more. This is a new problem facing America. And every new President we elect must be on guard against it.
We new Bin Laden was responsible and therefore took the fight to the Taliban.
I have no doubt members of Al Qaeda are crazy in that they try to kill innocent people who they've never met and never will meet. But invading two countries to stop these radicals is like trying to kill an insect with a machine gun. Things like this lead me to think Bush and his friends don't give a crap about the freedom of the Afghani and Iraqi people, and don't give a crap about the American people, for that matter.
Now i realize this is a complex world and Bush probably has a lot more information than we do. But why does he have to lie over and over again? Why did they all lie in the run up to the war? He only has to lie because he has something to hide. Something less noble than Iraqi Freedom. It might be something necessary for the US, but why not tell the people? In not providing the people with all the information they make poor decisions, and i can't blame them. But because of this leaders can do what they want. I'd rather see the American people in charge again because i know they're decent people, maybe uninformed, but decent.
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:59 am
by aquarius
jfko6 wrote that the 9/11 terrorist declared war to the US. He's right, however it is even worse.
In my opinion they declared war to not only the US but the whole world by attaking the WORLD trade center. People from many nationalities were killed. Trust me jfko6, we won't forget.
jfko6 is also right that it is impossible to talk with those terrorist. Some of them indeed say nothing more then 'allah u akhbar'. It is not for these idiots I am trying to differentiate. It is for the many 'supporters' who feel the idea of attack the western world is very appealing. Many times they can be brought to reason with discussions. And they also can influence the realy bad guys.
We have to try to find differnt ways to cope with the problem! Throwing bombs should be only a small part of the solution.
I even have a different idea about the 9/11 attacks. These bad guys flew with one of the biggest commercial airplanes available for them. The planes were heavy, loaded with fuel and passengers. They hit the towers at a rather high point of impact. I believe they were trying to let the towers tumble upon other buildings. (As they tried in the 1993 bomb attack).
If that would have succeeded there would have been tens of thousand victims.
About the conspiracy theories that say Building 7 and maybe the Twin Towers itself, were brought down by demolition/explosives.
That is TOTAL BS!
It is impossible to place hughe amounts of explosives into these buildings without being noticed. You had to drill hundreds of holes to place the explosives in (in the case of concrete buildings), connect all loads together in the right sequence (delaying blasting caps had to be used), hide the kilometers of wiring and guard the placed explosives. If it was a steel girder building than you had to place numerous cutting explo's deep down into the structure. Also certain places had to be reinforced and others weakenend. If you use commercial explo's, there is a very short time in which they can be used, because most detoriate within weeks. If C4 or alike was being used, it would certainly would have sound an alarm because of the large amount. And what about planning the operation? You need all the technical drawings of a building. It will take you weeks/month to read it all. And you have to inspect the building's interrior and do some testing explosions.
It is possible to take these buildings down with explo's, but impossible to do it unnoticed. So far for this part of the conspiracy theories.
The War on Terror
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:07 pm
by jfko6
bl00k:
Quoting from your recent post:
How does this apply to Afghanistan & Iraq? Well first of all the terrorists which are being fought against haven't really attacked the western world.
The rest of your post follows with similar untruths. That was a real bogus post.
On the other hand maybe the jihadist propaganda machine has effectively convinced some other NATO countries that Al Qaeda and many factions have nothing to do with acts of terrorism on The United States. Many have been processed through our judicial system including the nine eleven hijacker who did not make it onto the plane. We're prosecuting a group as we speak for an attempted attack on a US Army base in New Jersey.
The President we elect will have a huge mission to prevent future attacks on the United States. Since Beirut to present we lost many soldiers to terrorism. This evil must be stopped before they kill more innocent American people
Nine Eleven Suicide Bombers [They need to be stopped FIRST]
Re: The War on Terror
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:08 pm
by bl00k
jfko6 wrote:bl00k:
Quoting from your recent post:
How does this apply to Afghanistan & Iraq? Well first of all the terrorists which are being fought against haven't really attacked the western world.
The rest of your post follows with similar untruths. That was a real bogus post.
Okay, let me rephrase that. The terrorists which are right now being fought against in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't attack the WTC, or London or Madrid. Why? Because those terrorists (which flew planes in the WTC, blew up a trainstation in Madrid and buses in London) blew themselves up and are dead. These so called terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't attack the US, maybe they were part of a group which those other guys belonged to. Fact remains is that they didn't attack the West (except for the ones who helped prepare the actual terrorists which came to NYC).
On the other hand maybe the jihadist propaganda machine has effectively convinced some other NATO countries that Al Qaeda and many factions have nothing to do with acts of terrorism on The United States. Many have been processed through our judicial system including the nine eleven hijacker who did not make it onto the plane. We're prosecuting a group as we speak for an attempted attack on a US Army base in New Jersey.
Okay so a group is being prosecuted, now what? Nothing has changed, everything is the same. Fighting terrorism this way is fighting symptoms of a problem, not fighting the problem.
The President we elect will have a huge mission to prevent future attacks on the United States. Since Beirut to present we lost many soldiers to terrorism. This evil must be stopped before they kill more innocent American people
The President elect doesnt have to give a rats ass about terrorism. Real problems are energy or economy-related. The way Bush is fighting terrorism is nothing more than sacrificing young Americans to create more people who hate the US and will do everything to kill even more Americans, how is that making the world safer? it's not.
You wanna end terrorism? Give them no reason to fight America. If the US bombed the shit out of my country, killing my family i'll join whatever group wants to pay it back. What would you do? Sit back, relax and let some big country kill everything you hold dear? Get a grip man, try to see what THEY see. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are pissed off, they weren't born this way, the US made them pissed off with it's foreign policy over the last few decades.
Luckily there are loads of Americans who don't feel the need to kill, kill, kill. Maybe the new President will find a way to attack the real problem and not create more problems. America needs to be educated about everyday things. Things like driving a car, eating a hamburger, drinking a beer or going shopping. America needs to be educated about the Middle East and about Islam. America needs to be educated about media, propaganda and about the new laws that have been passed the past 8 years. Only then will Americans know the real issues, and not just the minor issues they've been told.
And yes, the same can be said for pretty much all European countries.
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm
by aquarius
The anti-US forces in the world (including many arabs) say a lot of people (civilians) lost their lives due to the agression and agressive policies of the US and many western countries. They say they have no tanks, no fighter planes, no artillery, no what-so-ever to fight against the US (and Israel). They only have their lives, a lot of faith and explosives. That's -in short- why they fight the way they fight (i.e. with IED's).
From their point of view they have a point. And it is not all BS what they htink of us.
I am not defending them, only try to see things their way, so to have a little understanding (not appriciation) of what drives these people.
If we could change their point of view just a little bit, maybe just by understanding them, we could save a lot of lives.
I agree that many of them are so called mono-cultures. Mono-cultures are cultural societies that do not except living together with other cultures. They have no toleration towards others. These people can be found in every culture, being Christian, Sunni, Budist or Communist.
They are hard to fight, and we should not tolerate them in our tolerant society.
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:57 pm
by aquarius
jfko6 wrote: "We're prosecuting a group as we speak for an attempted attack on a US Army base in New Jersey."
Yes, that good news!
Most groups and individuals are not prosecuted, but stay detained for years without any trial in Guantanamo Bay. Justice the Bush-American way. Great job, and oh so convincing to the rest of the world.
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:33 pm
by dirtbag
Well, I guess we could give them one-way tickets to the Netherlands, They can live on the dole while they plot to kill YOU!
Problem solved !
Re: The War on Terror
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:53 pm
by jfko6
bl00k wrote:
jfko6 wrote:bl00k:
Quoting from your recent post:
How does this apply to Afghanistan & Iraq? Well first of all the terrorists which are being fought against haven't really attacked the western world.
The rest of your post follows with similar untruths. That was a real bogus post.
Okay, let me rephrase that. The terrorists which are right now being fought against in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't attack the WTC, or London or Madrid. Why? Because those terrorists (which flew planes in the WTC, blew up a trainstation in Madrid and buses in London) blew themselves up and are dead. These so called terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't attack the US, maybe they were part of a group which those other guys belonged to. Fact remains is that they didn't attack the West (except for the ones who helped prepare the actual terrorists which came to NYC).
On the other hand maybe the jihadist propaganda machine has effectively convinced some other NATO countries that Al Qaeda and many factions have nothing to do with acts of terrorism on The United States. Many have been processed through our judicial system including the nine eleven hijacker who did not make it onto the plane. We're prosecuting a group as we speak for an attempted attack on a US Army base in New Jersey.
Okay so a group is being prosecuted, now what? Nothing has changed, everything is the same. Fighting terrorism this way is fighting symptoms of a problem, not fighting the problem.
The President we elect will have a huge mission to prevent future attacks on the United States. Since Beirut to present we lost many soldiers to terrorism. This evil must be stopped before they kill more innocent American people
The President elect doesnt have to give a rats ass about terrorism. Real problems are energy or economy-related. The way Bush is fighting terrorism is nothing more than sacrificing young Americans to create more people who hate the US and will do everything to kill even more Americans, how is that making the world safer? it's not.
You wanna end terrorism? Give them no reason to fight America. If the US bombed the shit out of my country, killing my family i'll join whatever group wants to pay it back. What would you do? Sit back, relax and let some big country kill everything you hold dear? Get a grip man, try to see what THEY see. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are pissed off, they weren't born this way, the US made them pissed off with it's foreign policy over the last few decades.
Luckily there are loads of Americans who don't feel the need to kill, kill, kill. Maybe the new President will find a way to attack the real problem and not create more problems. America needs to be educated about everyday things. Things like driving a car, eating a hamburger, drinking a beer or going shopping. America needs to be educated about the Middle East and about Islam. America needs to be educated about media, propaganda and about the new laws that have been passed the past 8 years. Only then will Americans know the real issues, and not just the minor issues they've been told.
And yes, the same can be said for pretty much all European countries.
Tomorrow the United States will elect a new President. Our current President Bush did not create jihadism. It existed before he became president. It existed before his father became President. The United States will not cease to fight Islamic radicalism. Liberating Nazism, Communism, Totalitarianism and now jihadism has seem to become a full time job for the United States. Because many countries can't seem to see the writing on the wall. And once the door has been opened for freedom democracy will flourish. It's either fight terrorism and pursue peace. Or, see a mushroom cloud rise over some city in the world. WAKE UP!!!
Book The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad
