You'd have more credibility if you would address the facts rather than show us all that you know how to put pics into posts ... (my 6yo can do that). Is that a pic of you by the way?
It was not destroyed by US foregin policy. And the Palestinians are helping destroy themselves by continuing to promote attacks against Israel.
and yet, if someone came along and gave your country to someone else i'm sure you would be the first to fight... and continue fighting wouldn't you? If it were my country I would, and would continue to do so until I couldn't fight any more.
Oh, you mean "groups" like Israel? Or those who may be fighting the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein? I think you have the term "radical" confused here, ADG.
No actually, I meant the Taliban but I think you missed the point that they were armed & trained by the CIA. Feel free to include Isreal in that also ....
Maybe not on the level that countries like the US, Russia, China, Britian and France do, but they do it, nevertherless.
Sure .. but it increases with the paranoia level. Can't say i'm that fussed about spying, as I believe honesty is one thing we should all practice so I have nothing to hide and therefore do not need to be spied upon.
Such covert action is necessary in a world rife with strife, simply to help protect oneselves.
I do agree, but do wonder if it might be wise to (concurrently) look at the reasons why the world is in strife. It is one thing to take action after the fact, and quite another to try and move towards a permanent solution to problems and that involves looking at their cause as well as their effect.
I would submit to you that if the CIA had had less domestic restraints put on it before 9-11 that maybe, just maybe, 6000 people might be alive today.
Actually, to get serious for a minute, that is an issue that does surprise me. Given the height of paranoia in the USA and the measures taken by the government to watch the rest of the world, I was very surprised to see the attacks happen.
But again, you live in a world far removed from reality, so I see where you stand on that point.
because you are simplistic and you work in a world of black & white without the ability to see shades of grey. To understand why bad things occur you need to look at *all* the aspects not the simple finger pointing at everyone but yourselves.
As for the Taliban, I think you are the one confused here.
We all know that Bin Laden is not part of the Taliban;
Do we? Then you are not reading the rantings of some of your countrymen.
most people in the world know that. But what we do know is that The Taliban protect, support and help to fund his murderous ways.
Hmmm... they protect, support and fund him? Now I think there is an issue there that either you or I don't understand so in order to ensure that I understand you, perhaps you might like to point out to me how they do that other than offering him a country to live in. It was my understanding that HE protected, supported and funded the Taliban which is why, in addition to requiring proof of his guilt, they would be unlikely to hand him over.
They were given ample warning to turn over this monster, whom you barely ever condemn, or else they would face severe consequences.
Is that what this issue is? You are upset because I don't condemn him enough? I should only have to say it once and it should become an accepted fact that I condemn ANYONE who takes deliberate action to take away the life of another. Certainly what was done to the WTC (etc) is not something I would ever condone or applaud. Does that make you happy?
Yes, and whilst I am unsure whether I actually believe the excuses they used, I do believe they were fully within their rights to demand to see proof of his guilt. As i've said before and it has been ignored on every occasion
, if a country were to approach the USA for extradition of an alleged criminal, the USA DEMANDS proof of their guilt, a court hearing needs to occur. They asked for no less than what your civilised country demands by law. They were never given that proof.
They are facing such consequences now.
Unfortunately though, like most military action, those who suffer aren't the ones you are after. When I say that, I am not saying that the action should not occur, rather that I feel sympathy for the innocents that have to lose their lives because a situation cannot be resolved diplomatically. The simplistic amongst us would say that I then support the Taliban, but that's just idiocy.
Most people here just dont' get it. You can feel sympathy for the innocents in Afghanistan and America at the same time. Well, I can anyway.
I don't see how this is a "you are for us or against us stand", as you say.
Geez, do you really need it spelt out. In the war, thousands were being killed, in battle and in other more heinous ways. The Americans sat back and took the diplomatic stance until the Japanese attacked them. During *that* war, America was neither for or against either side .. so now, when it's focussed at America, other countries are not allowed to take the neutral stance (ie, it's OK for America but not for the rest of the world). That's what I was trying to say.
Very few countries sat on the fence for that one.
That was my point. Switzerland and AMERICA (until they were attacked).
It's the same today-you either support the fight against these thugs, or you don't.
But why can't a country choose neutrality?
If you're a fence-sitter, then you could get run over from either direction.
If a country choose to sit on the fence, then America as a country who has done just that in the past, should respect that. That was my point.
And in that last sentence, I finally figured you out. You're a fence-sitter. You don't want to HAVE to take a stand on anything.
I have taken a stand on this, you just dont' get it. I'm not a fence sitter. I support the decisions made by my government, however that does not mean that I have to relish the loss of life in any country. I can UNDERSTAND the requirement to take action whilst also believeing that it isn't the best solution, it is merely the only suitable solution given the personality types of both sides.
You'd rather see others fight and die and suffer so you can keep your free way of life, without having to take a moral stand against these monsters!! That's it. That makes you one thing-a coward.
hahahahaha, I do so love these simplistic comments ....
but by the way .... how many years did *you* spend in the military? Offering to fight and die and suffer so that I could keep my free way of life?
I understand the concepts I have tried to protray may be beyond you, but give it a try anyway eh? Perhaps if you tried to see the points of view taken by others and tried to extend yourself into the 'grey area' of understanding we might get on more.