Muslim Flag-burners in London.

[monkee]

Going back to the article. It's an event that happened but it's no wonder there's some racial tension in this country if that's the tripe we read. Looking at it it paints a picture that 90% of Muslims are extremists or terrorists. That's just crazy, and very unlikely. 1 solitary comment from a Muslim denouncing it may give them a sense that they've said 'look, they're not all like that. We're not spreading racist propaganda', but just read it.

There's nothing wrong with burning a flag.

Where shall we deport those people in the demonstrations that were born in the UK? Aren't they as British as you or I? Or does the colour of your skin, you're religious beliefs, and your political stance make you more British? They're definately of arabic ancestory though, so why not fly them over the Middle East and push them out of the plane with a parachute, and see where they land?

You're all as loopy as the extremists!

If they can they should be tried for inciting racist violence, and maybe The Sun should also be brought up on a charge for the way that article could increase racial tension. We seem to be heading a bit BNP if the media have their way.

The other thing is that these terrorists are not resident in any 1 country, and it cannot be used to justify wars on country's for that very reason.

Oh, and that article ShiftyPowers, not bad but I feel he misses the point. Surely terrorists are those that actively target innocent civilians to get their message accross, and not just 'freedom fighters' or 'guerillas' who happen to catch a few innocent civilians as 'collateral damage' in aiming towards an otherwise justifiable goal?

I don't feel that the American action could be classed as terrorism in that definition. It's more a poorly though out tactic, and careless method that will never-ever achieve their goal. (unless they mean to wipe out everyone (or surpress their opinion through fear) that has an opinion that is different from theirs and is unwilling to co-operate with their plans - but isn't that genocide based on political thinking?)

Neither could America be class as 'freedom fighters', after all they're incursions seem to be leading to less freedoms for not only the residents of the country they 'go' into, but also for their own people.

I can't see how American's are willing to accept less freedom in the face of a hyped fear. Isn't that 'losing' the war against the terrorist. After all, 'They're just jealous of our freedom and success', aren't they?

 

[::shinji::]

"imagine there's no religion"

 

[monkee]

I don't think the problem is religion Shinji, religion's just the simplified excuse portrayed by the media.

 

[::shinji::]

Originally posted by monkee
I don't think the problem is religion Shinji, religion's just the simplified excuse portrayed by the media.

any room up there on Mars for me too?

 

[JTNY]

ShiftyPowers: I read the article, I liked it, Shifty.

USA Supporter: I did not condone the acts of 11/9. All I merely said was that the US "retalliation" was performed for alterior (sp?) motives and was the incorrect way to prevent further Al Qaeda attacks. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to act within its borders, so do many other countries.

The Afghan invasion has done nothing at all to inflict harm on Al Qaeda. Afghanistan is in worse turmoil, the terrorists groups roam just as freely - supported by local war lords. The Taliban never had total control. That attack was oppurtunism by the U.S. government or whoever is calling the shots.

You're right - Al Qaeda are thugs, that is all thugs. You do not catch thugs (who committed a heinous crime on a massive scale) by invading one of the nations they are based in. The prevention of terrorism would be best served on many levels which do not include invasion, war and death. War does not equal peace and liberation, but creates more scars and divsion.

The reason Al Qaeda exists is that there are some people in this world who feeling strongly enough against U.S. interests in the Middle East they see fit to inflict "terror" and death on civilians. This is unjustified, but the invasion of Afghanistan, only created greater hatred. Sure, the U.S had a right to prevent and capture those responsible for the attacks of 11/9, but it was not the correct way to invade Afghanistan. Besides it almost logistically impossible, U.S. forces and now "peacekeepers" from other nations will never have control of Afghanistan.

You say that the U.S had to retaliate against Al Qaeda via the incursion into Afghanistan... do you believe this was the only response available? If it were you making the decisions would you have done something different? Do you think that by invading Afghanistan now the U.S. has a responsibility in that nation, of restoration? Don't you think this would be difficult?

Those series of question I pose to you, I think can be summed up by this - Were there better alternatives than invading Afghanistan, but now that the U.S. has what is the future of the U.S. in Afghanistan?

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by JTNY
ShiftyPowers: I read the article, I liked it, Shifty.

USA Supporter: I did not condone the acts of 11/9. All I merely said was that the US "retalliation" was performed for alterior (sp?) motives and was the incorrect way to prevent further Al Qaeda attacks. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to act within its borders, so do many other countries.

Okay, the attack in Afghanistan after 9/11 was for one reason. To destroy al Qaeda and demolish the Taliban. There was no plan, no matter what you try to tell me otherwise, to attack the Taliban before 9/11.

The Afghan invasion has done nothing at all to inflict harm on Al Qaeda. Afghanistan is in worse turmoil, the terrorists groups roam just as freely - supported by local war lords. The Taliban never had total control. That attack was oppurtunism by the U.S. government or whoever is calling the shots.

Wrong. Al Qaeda has been decimated in Afghanistan. Most of the leadership is dead... there might be new leaders of course, but the ones who were around then are history. Afghanistan will take 20 years to become stable. I am not happy with my own country though in how it has handled the aftermath... however, is it the job of the US to rebuild the country? I think so in this case because we abandoned them once before and look what happened.

You're right - Al Qaeda are thugs, that is all thugs. You do not catch thugs (who committed a heinous crime on a massive scale) by invading one of the nations they are based in. The prevention of terrorism would be best served on many levels which do not include invasion, war and death. War does not equal peace and liberation, but creates more scars and divsion.

The Taliban would still be in power today if they just gave up bin Laden. But you are wrong in assuming that you don't invade the country the terrorists live in to destory them. You can't negotiate, and you can't just shoot missles like Clinton did. Negotiating with terrorists also does not equal peace, killing them does. it may cause division in the short term, but what is the alternative?

The reason Al Qaeda exists is that there are some people in this world who feeling strongly enough against U.S. interests in the Middle East they see fit to inflict "terror" and death on civilians. This is unjustified, but the invasion of Afghanistan, only created greater hatred. Sure, the U.S had a right to prevent and capture those responsible for the attacks of 11/9, but it was not the correct way to invade Afghanistan. Besides it almost logistically impossible, U.S. forces and now "peacekeepers" from other nations will never have control of Afghanistan.

The invasion of Afghanistan didn't create more hatred. I think it created fear in the fact that the US military completely destroyed the Taliban so quickly. And having those "peacekeepers" and whatever in there can only help in the long term. Think long term, not the way most of us in the west do.. that being "right now."

You say that the U.S had to retaliate against Al Qaeda via the incursion into Afghanistan... do you believe this was the only response available? If it were you making the decisions would you have done something different? Do you think that by invading Afghanistan now the U.S. has a responsibility in that nation, of restoration? Don't you think this would be difficult?

What is the other option? The other option was for the Taliban to give up bin Laden. They didn't, they lost power. You can't negotiate with terrorists....

Those series of question I pose to you, I think can be summed up by this - Were there better alternatives than invading Afghanistan, but now that the U.S. has what is the future of the U.S. in Afghanistan?

The future of Afghanistan is bright. At least it's a hell of alot better than what it was under the Taliban. There were no other alternatives, not in this case.

I mayhave my doubts about Iraq at the moment, but afghanistan not at all.

 

[JTNY]

Afghanistan are you joking?

Women are still treated like crap, Afghanistan is still the greatest heroin producer and war lords still control their local areas. The people are still just as poor.

I suppose it depends which news service and which documentary you watch on which day. I don't reckon we can debate, circumstances in Afghanistan without being there, all we hear is what is reported, and you hardly hear anything about Afghanistan anymore.

No alternatives? Okay, that is what you think. I want to hear from 'USA Supporter'.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by JTNY
Afghanistan are you joking?

Women are still treated like crap, Afghanistan is still the greatest heroin producer and war lords still control their local areas. The people are still just as poor.

I suppose it depends which news service and which documentary you watch on which day. I don't reckon we can debate, circumstances in Afghanistan without being there, all we hear is what is reported, and you hardly hear anything about Afghanistan anymore.

No alternatives? Okay, that is what you think. I want to hear from 'USA Supporter'.

Well, it's hard to get the "real story" about anything fromthe news these days. Sandwiched between which coed was kidnapped and which boy michael Carlos*son was fondling, you may hear a blurb about Afghanistan. MAYBE.

Women aren't going to go from being treated like crap by men one day to being treated like queens the next. It's part of the culture to treat women like crap there. That takes generations to overcome. You seem to want quick fix to the worlds problems. They don't exist.

Poverty isn't cured overnight either...

 

[ELA-England]

COUNTRY CALLING!

OK, so who's up for showing these mugs that we aren't going to stand for this?

Theres talk of a NF Demo, even if you dont agree with what the NF stand for, surely you can see that something has to be done, and we must show that we wont stand for this!

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/282102

I'll try and post the details on the above link, once I know.

Regards

 

[ELA-England]

OK, so who's up for showing these mugs that we aren't going to stand for this?

Theres talk of a NF Demo, even if you dont agree with what the NF stand for, surely you can see that something has to be done, and we must show that we wont stand for this!

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/282102

I'll try and post the details on the above link, once I know.

Regards

 

[shokz]

http://www.newswatch.co.uk/headlines.asp?ref=b3909f5051c31ecfd8

 

[ELA-England]

I just saw that, I think there will be another March though.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
I mayhave my doubts about Iraq at the moment, but afghanistan not at all.

I certainly have my doubts.

THe American forces that are there are only engaged in one activity, and that is trailing the Al Quida groups and trying to get Bin Laden. Basically that has been the focus of the mainstream media.

Alongside this, the troops from other nations are basically restricted to Kabul and surrounding environs. The central government headed by Karzai is similarly restricted to this area. The rest of the country is pretty much split along Warlord lines. Foreign troops and even the new Afghan army are hesitant, even unable, to go into these areas. Just a couple of days ago one of these Warlords decided to take control of a province at will http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=509558.

At the end of the day, this is Afhanistan. I just can't see any 'nation state' appearing out of this situation, it has pretty much gone straight back to the pre-Taliban days - like JTNY says, they are once again the biggest opium growers in the world. The country split into Warlord-controlled regions. And the billions of dollars promised to rebuild the country have not appeared - the war in Iraq has taken care of that.

And despite the West saying that it would not walk away this time (as they did after the Soviets pulled out, thereby sowing the seeds that allowed the Taliban to take over), that is precisely what they have done. THe fact is, the West cannot afford nation building in two economically underdeveloped states (Iraq and Afghanistan), and Afghanistan is the loser.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by ELA-England
I just saw that, I think there will be another March though.

Huh, the National Front chanting 'scum'.

Oh, the irony.

 

[USA Supporter]

Originally posted by JTNY
Afghanistan are you joking?

Women are still treated like crap, Afghanistan is still the greatest heroin producer and war lords still control their local areas. The people are still just as poor.

I suppose it depends which news service and which documentary you watch on which day. I don't reckon we can debate, circumstances in Afghanistan without being there, all we hear is what is reported, and you hardly hear anything about Afghanistan anymore.

No alternatives? Okay, that is what you think. I want to hear from 'USA Supporter'.

I pretty much agree with Elder. The USA's only options were getting bin Laden or not doing anything. The only way to get bin Laden was to attack Afghanistan since the Taliban would not give him up.

 

[hermolt]

Originally posted by USA Supporter
I pretty much agree with Elder. The USA's only options were getting bin Laden or not doing anything. The only way to get bin Laden was to attack Afghanistan since the Taliban would not give him up.

...which was a STUNNING success.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by hermolt
...which was a STUNNING success.

Minus getting bin Laden and his number 2 aide, it has been a stunning success.

You just don't hear about the rest of it because bin Laden hasn't been caught yet. The goal was for America not to be attacked again, so far, so good.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
The goal was for America not to be attacked again, so far, so good.

Remind me, how many years was it between the car bombing of the WTC, and its destruction by airplanes?

Anyway, I don't think that overall the entire Afghaistan mission has been overly successful. Guantanemo Bay (is ANYONE in there actually guilty of anything?), the opium production, warlord controlled territories - only Kabul can really be seen as 'successful', but even there, how many of the governing administration have been assassinated now? 6 or 7?

I acutally don't feel like I am missing out on news regarding Afghanistan, but then that has alot to do with my browsing and listening habits. BBC World Service regularly has coverage of events in Afghanistan.

 

[Moron]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Guantanemo Bay (is ANYONE in there actually guilty of anything?)

Yea I wrote 5 letters to Powell and Bush about the situation, but i guess their not paying attention.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Remind me, how many years was it between the car bombing of the WTC, and its destruction by airplanes?

Anyway, I don't think that overall the entire Afghaistan mission has been overly successful. Guantanemo Bay (is ANYONE in there actually guilty of anything?), the opium production, warlord controlled territories - only Kabul can really be seen as 'successful', but even there, how many of the governing administration have been assassinated now? 6 or 7?

I acutally don't feel like I am missing out on news regarding Afghanistan, but then that has alot to do with my browsing and listening habits. BBC World Service regularly has coverage of events in Afghanistan.

It was many years, but that's not the point. How many years was it between the embassy bombings, cole bombing, Saudi bombings, etc... It was all in between the first WTC bombing and 9/11. Sure you can argue that there have been bombing around the world since then, but not on American targets.

Officials in government get assassinated all the time, all over the world. kabul is a good start, nothing can be changed over night. We don't live in a movie world. Remind me, how many years was the US in Japan and germany after WW2? Right, many...