|
|
| Author |
Message |
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
 Posted: 07/14/05 - 18:03 Post subject: War on Terror making a difference?
|
|
|
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap07-14-050513.asp?t=apnew&vts=71420051405
| Quote: | Support for bin Laden, suicide bombers falling in some heavily Muslim countries
By WILL LESTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, July 14 — People in several heavily Muslim countries have lost some of their enthusiasm for Osama bin Laden and for violent acts like suicide bombings, especially in countries where there have been recent terrorist acts, international polling found.
Surveys conducted for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press looked at attitudes of people living in Indonesia, Jordan Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, all countries with Muslim majorities, as part of an international survey of 17 countries done this spring.
In Lebanon, the number of people who think the use of suicide bombing and other forms of violence is justified in defense of Islam has dropped from 73 percent in the summer of 2002 to 39 percent now. A decrease in this number also was seen in Morocco, which fell from 40 percent a year ago to 13 percent now, and in Pakistan and Indonesia. In Jordan, the number of people who feel such violence is justified has grown slightly; the number in Turkey remains very low.
Since March 2004, the sentiment for suicide bombing against Americans and their allies in Iraq dropped from 70 percent to 49 percent in Jordan, which neighbors Iraq, and dropped by smaller margins in Pakistan, Turkey, and Morocco.
The polling was done before the terrorist bombings in London last week.
Public confidence in bin Laden has dipped sharply since May 2003 in Indonesia, Morocco, Lebanon and Turkey — all countries that have experienced recent terrorist bombings. In Pakistan and Jordan, a majority of people continue to say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, the Saudi who leads al-Qaida.
''Support for Osama bin Laden is waning, but there are still people who admire him and view him as a hero,'' said Ulil Abshor Abdala, chairman of the Islamic Liberal Network, a non-governmental organization in Indonesia that supports religious moderation and interfaith harmony.
''For some youth Osama Bin Laden is like Che Guevera, it does not matter what you say, he is a hero to them. Our challenge is how to limit the extent of this heroic admiration among the youth,'' Abdala said.
The United States remains broadly unpopular in those heavily Muslim countries. Solid majorities of the people in Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan and Indonesia have an unfavorable view of the United States, while Moroccans are split. Young people in Morocco, Lebanon, Pakistan and Turkey view America more favorably than the overall populations in those countries, the polling found.
Reasons for Islamic extremism varied from one majority-Muslim country to the next. Poverty and a lack of jobs were mentioned most often in some countries, while U.S. policies and influence were mentioned in others. Lack of education, immorality and lawlessness also were cited.
''The concern about the causes of extremism are varied,'' said Wendy Sherman, who was counselor for the State Department in the Clinton administration. ''When the U.S. government looks at our counterterrorism efforts, we clearly have to use a variety of approaches.''
The surveys found that public acceptance is growing in some majority-Muslim countries that democracy is not strictly a Western way of doing things but could work in their countries. In Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco and Indonesia, increasing numbers of people feel that democracy can work there.
The Pew survey found some conflicting feelings about Islam in majority-Muslim countries.
In all of those countries except Jordan, people were more likely to say Islam is playing a greater role in their countries than it did a few years ago. The increasing role of Islam was overwhelmingly seen as a positive development in all those countries except Turkey. Respondents said growing immorality, government corruption and concerns about Western influence were among their reasons for turning to Islam.
A majority of people in Morocco and Pakistan say Islamic extremism greatly threatens their country, and almost half in Indonesia and Turkey said it poses a great threat. Few people in Lebanon and Jordan felt that way.
Muslims in Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco say they think of themselves first as Muslims, then as citizens of their country. Muslims in Lebanon and Indonesia were divided on how they think of themselves first.
The polls were taken in various countries from late April to the end of May with samples of about 1,000 in most countries and slightly fewer than 1,000 in the European countries. The margin of sampling error ranged from 2 percentage points to 4 percentage points, depending on the sample size.
On the Net:
Pew Global Attitudes Survey: http://pewglobal.org |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 07/14/05 - 18:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Well, when AQ targets Muslim children and kills the Egyptian Ambassador to Iraq...how can you support him (as a Muslim)?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Celestra
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6929
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 03:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
I think the war of terror should mean cutting off moneysupply to terrorist groups, infiltration of those groups (so key-people can be arrested and taken out of the commandline) and minimizing support among the people they rely on for shelter. I think that's the only way to achieve some succes.
I don't really think attacking a country that's supposedly 'hiding' them, will help. It's too indiscriminate. That'll only antagonise more people and they'll want to help the terrorists more, if not be one. More people will become prepared to do whatever, even kill themselves, to strike back at the west.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 03:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Celestra wrote: | I think the war of terror should mean cutting off moneysupply to terrorist groups, infiltration of those groups (so key-people can be arrested and taken out of the commandline) and minimizing support among the people they rely on for shelter. I think that's the only way to achieve some succes.
I don't really think attacking a country that's supposedly 'hiding' them, will help. It's too indiscriminate. That'll only antagonise more people and they'll want to help the terrorists more, if not be one. More people will become prepared to do whatever, even kill themselves, to strike back at the west. |
Idiot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Desaitar
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Posts: 2641
Location: whore island
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 05:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | Celestra wrote: | I think the war of terror should mean cutting off moneysupply to terrorist groups, infiltration of those groups (so key-people can be arrested and taken out of the commandline) and minimizing support among the people they rely on for shelter. I think that's the only way to achieve some succes.
I don't really think attacking a country that's supposedly 'hiding' them, will help. It's too indiscriminate. That'll only antagonise more people and they'll want to help the terrorists more, if not be one. More people will become prepared to do whatever, even kill themselves, to strike back at the west. |
Idiot. |
Seriously.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
Guest
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 06:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Celestra wrote: | I think the war of terror should mean cutting off moneysupply to terrorist groups, infiltration of those groups (so key-people can be arrested and taken out of the commandline) and minimizing support among the people they rely on for shelter. I think that's the only way to achieve some succes.
I don't really think attacking a country that's supposedly 'hiding' them, will help. It's too indiscriminate. That'll only antagonise more people and they'll want to help the terrorists more, if not be one. More people will become prepared to do whatever, even kill themselves, to strike back at the west. |
I was with you till you said you think we should allow countries to give terrorists safe haven within their borders.
That defeats the entire purpose of doing anything to begin with, because that's how terrorists operate.
You either go all out and stop at nothing, or you surrender to the terrorists and do nothing at all. Antagonizing them just a little really will make matters much worse, because there really will be more attacks, only you're doing nothing to stop them.
Things are worse now than they were before, but that's part of not standing still and allowing them to do what they please.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 06:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
Brainwashed lil children. Do you really think your bombs are going to get rid of terrorism? If so, you lack something on a fundamental level, when it comes to logical thinking. (f**k you kbarr, mensa, bleh bleh. show us your scores?  )
I've said it all along. They hate you more now than ever. Do you think they are scared of your bombs? You'll see no white flag from them you f*****g idiots.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Celestra
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6929
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 06:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| khrath wrote: | | Celestra wrote: | I think the war of terror should mean cutting off moneysupply to terrorist groups, infiltration of those groups (so key-people can be arrested and taken out of the commandline) and minimizing support among the people they rely on for shelter. I think that's the only way to achieve some succes.
I don't really think attacking a country that's supposedly 'hiding' them, will help. It's too indiscriminate. That'll only antagonise more people and they'll want to help the terrorists more, if not be one. More people will become prepared to do whatever, even kill themselves, to strike back at the west. |
I was with you till you said you think we should allow countries to give terrorists safe haven within their borders.
|
But see, that's not what I said.
I just said that attacking an entire country is too indiscriminate. Theres like 10.000 people who have nothing to do with terrorist cells for every 1 terrorist in that country. Thus for every terrorist you kill, 10 more get recruited. That's why I said I don't think waging war on entire countries (ie geographical units) instead of striking more specifically will really help.
*Edit: actually nm that analogy. It doesn't get the job done. It only costs.
Also: I'm not saying do nothing.
Last edited by Celestra on 07/15/05 - 06:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 06:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Celestra wrote: | | khrath wrote: | | Celestra wrote: | I think the war of terror should mean cutting off moneysupply to terrorist groups, infiltration of those groups (so key-people can be arrested and taken out of the commandline) and minimizing support among the people they rely on for shelter. I think that's the only way to achieve some succes.
I don't really think attacking a country that's supposedly 'hiding' them, will help. It's too indiscriminate. That'll only antagonise more people and they'll want to help the terrorists more, if not be one. More people will become prepared to do whatever, even kill themselves, to strike back at the west. |
I was with you till you said you think we should allow countries to give terrorists safe haven within their borders.
|
It's like trying to kill a really annoying bug with a bulldozer, it gets the job done, but at what cost? |
Edit* You are correct, it doesnt even get the job done.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 07:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| scrotum wrote: | | Celestra wrote: | | khrath wrote: | | Celestra wrote: | I think the war of terror should mean cutting off moneysupply to terrorist groups, infiltration of those groups (so key-people can be arrested and taken out of the commandline) and minimizing support among the people they rely on for shelter. I think that's the only way to achieve some succes.
I don't really think attacking a country that's supposedly 'hiding' them, will help. It's too indiscriminate. That'll only antagonise more people and they'll want to help the terrorists more, if not be one. More people will become prepared to do whatever, even kill themselves, to strike back at the west. |
I was with you till you said you think we should allow countries to give terrorists safe haven within their borders.
|
It's like trying to kill a really annoying bug with a bulldozer, it gets the job done, but at what cost? |
Edit* You are correct, it doesnt even get the job done. |
what would you know about 'getting the job done?'
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 07:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
You still can't understand it.
If we kill EVERY person that would support them then it will effectivly be stopped.
I'll be just fine with us killing a billion people if we need to.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fattguyy
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 9911
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 07:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scrabler wrote: | You still can't understand it.
If we kill EVERY person that would support them then it will effectivly be stopped.
I'll be just fine with us killing a billion people if we need to. |
Every person, yes that would work, but I don't thin it is possible to kill EVERY person.
Not with out blowing the world up with nukes anyway.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 07:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scrabler wrote: | You still can't understand it.
If we kill EVERY person that would support them then it will effectivly be stopped.
I'll be just fine with us killing a billion people if we need to. |
You can't kill every person, because the more people you kill, the more terrorists you create. Arresting or killing hardcore terrorists isn't going to generate much ill will, but you can't find every single terrorist without killing a lot of innocent or relatively innocent people. And the more of them you kill the more genuine terrorists you create.
London may very well turn out to be a perfect example. For 9/11, Al'Q had to train teams of terrorists and send them here. In London, it's looking like those were British citizens who'd lived there there whole lives, and were quite possibly marginalized by our heavy handed war. It would be a stretch to say that we caused 9/11, but much less of a stretch to say that we caused London.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Celestra
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6929
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 07:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Fattguyy wrote: | | Scrabler wrote: | You still can't understand it.
If we kill EVERY person that would support them then it will effectivly be stopped.
I'll be just fine with us killing a billion people if we need to. |
Every person, yes that would work, but I don't thin it is possible to kill EVERY person.
Not with out blowing the world up with nukes anyway. |
Unless you're ready to nuke our entire planet, including yourself, you cannot kill an idea. What you *can* do is diminish the resources of people who want to act on a certain idea and inflict violence on others because of it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 08:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
You just need to kill off many/most of the muslims and maybe a few liberal types. It doesn't take too long before you get down to people who don't give a shit about the others you killed.
If you killed everyone in Asia you wouldn't be starting a fight with me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 08:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I love the "we're invincible" attitude.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 08:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | I love the "we're invincible" attitude. |
It would take quit a few countries together to beat us, and in that case we would have a few world power allies still. So yes, we are invincible right now.
We won't be losing a war to any country during my lifetime that's for sure. Hopefully the day we do lose one we take everyone else down with us.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 08:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
scrabler stop dumbing down my thread
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 08:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frax wrote: | | scrabler stop dumbing down my thread |
Aww come on I'm havin fun.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
Subject: Think about this...
The Muslim religion in the fastest growing religion per capita in the
United States, especially in the minority races!!!
Allah or Jesus? by Rick Mathes
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for
maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training
session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the
Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of
their belief systems.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say and
the Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with
a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and
answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked:
"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and
clerics of Islam have declared a Holy Jihad (Holy War) against the
infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a
command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's
the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?" There was no
disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he
replied, "Non-believers!"
I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers
of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith
so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?" The expression on his face
changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who
had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly
replied, "Yes."
I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine
Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or
Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to
Heaven!"
The Imam was speechless. I continued, "I also have problem with being
your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers
to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah
who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells
me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with
me?"
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.
Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the
'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of
dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's
beliefs. I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but
with the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is
no way this will be widely publicized. Please pass this on to all your
e-mail contacts. This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a
well known leader in prison ministry
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scrabler wrote: | | It would take quit a few countries together to beat us, and in that case we would have a few world power allies still. So yes, we are invincible right now. |
Wrong, and the more you speak on the subject the more incorrect you become.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | Scrabler wrote: | | It would take quit a few countries together to beat us, and in that case we would have a few world power allies still. So yes, we are invincible right now. |
Wrong, and the more you speak on the subject the more incorrect you become. |
Hah, you think any single country can beat us?
Even if enough countries got together we still have world power allies that would join us in that kinda of war. We won't be going anywhere for a long time to come.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scrabler wrote: | | motherface wrote: | | Scrabler wrote: | | It would take quit a few countries together to beat us, and in that case we would have a few world power allies still. So yes, we are invincible right now. |
Wrong, and the more you speak on the subject the more incorrect you become. |
Hah, you think any single country can beat us?
Even if enough countries got together we still have world power allies that would join us in that kinda of war. We won't be going anywhere for a long time to come. |
No, I don't think we have allies who would stick with us against world opinion. Countries are just as pragmatic as people. If the wind were blowing against the US, they would all pile on the other side. We have a lot of good qualities, a lot of good intentions and we do a lot of good. But we're also a bully, transparently hypocritical and we always insist on special privileges. And the main way we use our power is in attempting to solidify our status as being above everyone else and unaccountable to anyone. How can you think other countries don't deeply resent that?
The ONLY thing that keeps us where we are is a gradually diminishing perception that we do more good than harm. If that perception were to change: if the world became convinced that we were hurting more than helping (e.g. by doing exactly the sort of things you're proposing), we would not have a single ally left, nor would we deserve one.
Going out on a limb, I'd say at some point in the next 50 years China is going to break out as the next superpower. Deciding to help Europe against the threat of oppressive US domination is one way that could happen.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | China
Age structure
0-14 years: 21.4% (male 148,134,928/female 131,045,415)
15-64 years: 71% (male 477,182,072/female 450,664,933)
65 years and over: 7.6% (male 47,400,282/female 51,886,182) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 32.26 years
male: 31.87 years
female: 32.67 years (2005 est.)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service; 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 342,956,265 (2005 est.)
|
| Quote: |
United States
Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.6% (male 31,095,725/female 29,703,997)
15-64 years: 67% (male 98,914,382/female 99,324,126)
65 years and over: 12.4% (male 15,298,676/female 21,397,228) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 36.27 years
male: 34.94 years
female: 37.6 years (2005 est.)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 67,742,879 (2005 est.)
|
Note that their military is about 5 times the size of ours, to say nothing of the fact that they're courting India, which according to the CIA has a ~287 million man military. The only area in which the US comes out ahead is in military spending. Both China and India are nuclear powers.
As for allies, we had a hard time drumming up support for what should have been a piece of cake war. You think anybody besides England will step up to the plate if China and possibly India decide to attack the US? That's assuming they haven't taken Europe before they hit us.
Don't forget Russia isn't really an ally either!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Scrabler wrote: | | motherface wrote: | | Scrabler wrote: | | It would take quit a few countries together to beat us, and in that case we would have a few world power allies still. So yes, we are invincible right now. |
Wrong, and the more you speak on the subject the more incorrect you become. |
Hah, you think any single country can beat us?
Even if enough countries got together we still have world power allies that would join us in that kinda of war. We won't be going anywhere for a long time to come. |
No, I don't think we have allies who would stick with us against world opinion. Countries are just as pragmatic as people. If the wind were blowing against the US, they would all pile on the other side. We have a lot of good qualities, a lot of good intentions and we do a lot of good. But we're also a bully, transparently hypocritical and we always insist on special privileges. And the main way we use our power is in attempting to solidify our status as being above everyone else and unaccountable to anyone. How can you think other countries don't deeply resent that?
The ONLY thing that keeps us where we are is a gradually diminishing perception that we do more good than harm. If that perception were to change: if the world became convinced that we were hurting more than helping (e.g. by doing exactly the sort of things you're proposing), we would not have a single ally left, nor would we deserve one.
Going out on a limb, I'd say at some point in the next 50 years China is going to break out as the next superpower. Deciding to help Europe against the threat of oppressive US domination is one way that could happen. |
I'm not too worried about China. The situation with oil is actually going to help us out imo. We are almost to the point of switching to another source of energy while China is sucking up more oil all the time. Higher prices and less production is going to hurt them more. Besides that they still have issues with their style of government.
Anyway the point is I'm expecting them to collapse or at least take a step back in the next few years.
As for our military power..we have so much potential spending and production power that could be put into military funding it's unreal. Imagine what doubling our military budget and a draft could do when we get into a new WW.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Harkov
Luke Warm
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 229
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
I stay outa topics like this most the time but hey why not
My take on the all or nothing policy vs terrorists was adopted because it is meant to prevent terrorist acts. Not help deminish thier capacity for it. There's no way the US and allies can prevent anyone especially in muslim countries from aquiring what they need to what they think they have to. But they know beforehand regardless whatever stupid shit they end up doing, they know an extreme meassure will be taken against them. This prevents a lot of terrorism. The only problem is the ones who are willing to sacrifice themselves and every innocent person around them. This alone to me justifies iraq. I can't imagine say 5 years down the road when iraq could of made nuclear materials and just some "gets lost" for a shit load of money... Gets transported to some terrorists group someplace else. It scares the shit out of me still about russia, they don't even know how much they made in the first place haha.
Most countries are spinless to do thier own work, scared, inconvienant, corruption, whatever.. but they are smart enough they know if there are people inside thier borders that we want.. we will do all the work to eleminate them as long as they let us. If they don't, we still will. I'm just happy it's muslim crap, can you imagine if all of this was from say china? man heh
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | Quote: | China
Age structure
0-14 years: 21.4% (male 148,134,928/female 131,045,415)
15-64 years: 71% (male 477,182,072/female 450,664,933)
65 years and over: 7.6% (male 47,400,282/female 51,886,182) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 32.26 years
male: 31.87 years
female: 32.67 years (2005 est.)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service; 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 342,956,265 (2005 est.)
|
| Quote: |
United States
Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.6% (male 31,095,725/female 29,703,997)
15-64 years: 67% (male 98,914,382/female 99,324,126)
65 years and over: 12.4% (male 15,298,676/female 21,397,228) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 36.27 years
male: 34.94 years
female: 37.6 years (2005 est.)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 67,742,879 (2005 est.)
|
Note that their military is about 5 times the size of ours, to say nothing of the fact that they're courting India, which according to the CIA has a ~287 million man military. The only area in which the US comes out ahead is in military spending. Both China and India are nuclear powers.
As for allies, we had a hard time drumming up support for what should have been a piece of cake war. You think anybody besides England will step up to the plate if China and possibly India decide to attack the US? That's assuming they haven't taken Europe before they hit us.
Don't forget Russia isn't really an ally either! |
Their large numbers mean shit when we control the skies and seas.
I agree our support in Iraq/Afghan is pretty weak, but those aren't wars that could possibly cripple us. I'm talking about WWI/II style wars where everyone gets involved. We get much more support from liberals in country and foreign allies when someone comes and picks a fight with us.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scrabler wrote: | | I'm not too worried about China. |
So you choose to ignore the greatest threat to our country... Makes me feel good about the military of tomorrow!
| Scrabler wrote: | | We are almost to the point of switching to another source of energy |
Wrong, and lol.
| Scrabler wrote: | | Anyway the point is I'm expecting them to collapse or at least take a step back in the next few years. |
Have you never read any history? Ever? Why would China collapse?
Now more than ever you seem completely deluded. You choose to think that the United States is militarily superior to everyone, and when confronted with a gigantic foe who's almost diametrically opposed to US interests on almost every single issue, you choose to think they'll just "collapse." 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | Quote: | China
Age structure
0-14 years: 21.4% (male 148,134,928/female 131,045,415)
15-64 years: 71% (male 477,182,072/female 450,664,933)
65 years and over: 7.6% (male 47,400,282/female 51,886,182) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 32.26 years
male: 31.87 years
female: 32.67 years (2005 est.)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service; 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 342,956,265 (2005 est.)
|
| Quote: |
United States
Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.6% (male 31,095,725/female 29,703,997)
15-64 years: 67% (male 98,914,382/female 99,324,126)
65 years and over: 12.4% (male 15,298,676/female 21,397,228) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 36.27 years
male: 34.94 years
female: 37.6 years (2005 est.)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 67,742,879 (2005 est.)
|
Note that their military is about 5 times the size of ours, to say nothing of the fact that they're courting India, which according to the CIA has a ~287 million man military. The only area in which the US comes out ahead is in military spending. Both China and India are nuclear powers.
As for allies, we had a hard time drumming up support for what should have been a piece of cake war. You think anybody besides England will step up to the plate if China and possibly India decide to attack the US? That's assuming they haven't taken Europe before they hit us.
Don't forget Russia isn't really an ally either! |
Invading the US isn't like invading france or poland in 1939
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 07/15/05 - 09:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Harkov wrote: | I stay outa topics like this most the time but hey why not
My take on the all or nothing policy vs terrorists was adopted because it is meant to prevent terrorist acts. Not help deminish thier capacity for it. There's no way the US and allies can prevent anyone especially in muslim countries from aquiring what they need to what they think they have to. But they know beforehand regardless whatever stupid shit they end up doing, they know an extreme meassure will be taken against them. This prevents a lot of terrorism. The only problem is the ones who are willing to sacrifice themselves and every innocent person around them. This alone to me justifies iraq. I can't imagine say 5 years down the road when iraq could of made nuclear materials and just some "gets lost" for a shit load of money... Gets transported to some terrorists group someplace else. It scares the shit out of me still about russia, they don't even know how much they made in the first place haha.
Most countries are spinless to do thier own work, scared, inconvienant, corruption, whatever.. but they are smart enough they know if there are people inside thier borders that we want.. we will do all the work to eleminate them as long as they let us. If they don't, we still will. I'm just happy it's muslim crap, can you imagine if all of this was from say china? man heh |
From: RLRohrer@aol.com [mailto:RLRohrer@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 8:50 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters
WASHINGTON – As London recovers from the latest deadly al-Qaida attack that killed at least 50, top U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America – one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.
Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.
In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.
The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."
At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies.
But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.
According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.
"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."
According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.
However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack.
Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the smuggling and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S.
Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses.
The Bush administration's unwillingness to secure the U.S.-Mexico border has puzzled and dismayed a growing number of activists and ordinary citizens who see it as the No. 1 security threat to the nation. The Minuteman organization is planning a major mobilization of thousands of Americans this fall designed to shut down the entire 2,000-mile border as it did in April with a 23-mile stretch in Arizona.
According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.
Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.
There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range between a dozen and 70. The breathtaking news is that an undetermined number of these weapons, including suitcase bombs, mines and crude tactical nuclear weapons, have already been smuggled into the U.S. – at least some across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously in major cities throughout the country – including New York, Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.
In response to the G2 Bulletin revelations, Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen action group demanding the U.S. government take control of its borders, said an immediate military presence on the borders is now imperative "to stop the overwhelming influx of unidentified, potentially hostile and seditious persons coming across at an alarming rate."
"Terrorists have carte blanche to carry practically anything they want across our national line at this time," he said. "As ordinary citizens have warned this government for years, the only surprising part about the new information reported here is that nothing apocalyptic from Mexican-border weapons trafficking has yet happened. Terrorism has reared its ugly head in London again these past few days, and as we know all too well we are not immune in this country. At this point, the next attempt to attack America at home is just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' And our unsecured borders have surely contributed to this threat – yet our government officials continue to fiddle while our nation's margin of security and safety burns away. The president and Congress had better wake up before they have to answer for another devastating terrorist incursion on our own soil."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ Semper Fi
Bob
www.BobRohrer.com
_______________________
Source is kinda 50/50 on reliability but it's still a real possiblity.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
