@Taw,
Re-read your post and mine. Forgot to acknowledge that I share your forebodings.
Important MessageYou are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login. |
SADDAM HAS BEEN CAUGHT!!
This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.
52 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:25 am
Iraq abolished the death penalty, there's no way Bush is gonna let Saddaam ecape with a life sentence(s). Rember, he's from Texas. He wants to see him fry. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's what's going to happen. --- VH16
Locke gave natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Marx propose removing property, Castro liberty, and Bush life. Sorry for getting political, just my two cents
Whoever came up with "Mission Commision" should be lined up and shot
Locke gave natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Marx propose removing property, Castro liberty, and Bush life. Sorry for getting political, just my two cents
Whoever came up with "Mission Commision" should be lined up and shot
Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:03 am
@VH16 aka RR16
That is sterotypical conjecture. I remember seeing a comment by you in the thread Another Bargib Sighting.
Sounds like you would want George Bush fried. Or am I assuming too much, as you are?
Fear Factor already gave you a warning about your older post. Now stop with the comments on specific politics.
Sir Spectre
Edited by - Sir Spectre on 20-12-2003 02:17:04
Iraq abolished the death penalty, there's no way Bush is gonna let Saddaam ecape with a life sentence(s). Rember, he's from Texas. He wants to see him fry. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's what's going to happen. --- VH16
That is sterotypical conjecture. I remember seeing a comment by you in the thread Another Bargib Sighting.
It's like all my dreams have come true, except Bush dies in a firey wreck in the middle of space as opposed to him dying from me pouring liquid nitrogen all over his body and then breaking it off in chunks with a hammer. Did you get to hear him scream? --- RR16
Sounds like you would want George Bush fried. Or am I assuming too much, as you are?
Fear Factor already gave you a warning about your older post. Now stop with the comments on specific politics.
Sir Spectre
Edited by - Sir Spectre on 20-12-2003 02:17:04
Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:40 pm
it's interesting that Libya recently announced it was giving up WMD programmes (including some Western intelligence didn't know about) in a week that's seen Saddam captured and a strengthening of US hostility towards Syria. What's going on, I wonder?
the reality is of course that the Libyan announcement is more apparent than real, which doesn't mean to say it isn't sincere.
Gaddafi, like Saddam, like Assad etc, came to power as a result of a Soviet-backed military coup but as an Arab nationalist. Like other Arab dictators and rulers, while ostensibly a Muslim, in reality he heads a secular regime that pays only lip service to Islam. Despite all the pro-islamic sentiments and dressing up, to men such as these real Islamic fundamentalism is anathema. They were quite happy to sponsor it abroad for political reasons during the Cold War, but now it's counter-productive and dangerous.
Has Gaddafi made this admission because he doesn't want America to attack him? Some will say yes, and there may be a degree of truth in it, but Libya has been distancing itself from it's former activities for some years now. A man like Gaddafi can't be SEEN to be suddenly making a volte-face, so it's taken a long time, but this has been an ongoing process since the early 90s. Will it pay for the blood of the Lockerbie victims?
it is somewhat ironic that Libya, a country with a long and proven history of involvement in terrorist activities and a WMD programme, should be welcomed back into the international community despite having been America's bete-noir in the past, whilst Iraq, which was not directly involved with terrorist activities other than sponsorship of the Palestinians and who's WMD programme was moribund, should have felt the weight of American anger. Peculiar that, isn't it?
There was always more of a connection between bin Laden and Libya than there evver was with Iraq. Libya backs the Muslim Sudanese Govt against the Christian Rebels in the south of the country, and ObL actually lived in Khartoum and was a friend of the Sudanese Govt. hence why Clinton attacked the Sudan as well as Afghanistan. Al-Quaeda had little or no involvement with the Iraqis and ObL publicly vilified Saddam and called upon Iraqis to rise up against the Ba'athist regime.
So why exactly was Iraq attacked? no WMDs, no terrorists, except the one's that have turned up since the Americans invaded. Was it to save the Iraqi people from a nasty dictator? oddly enough there are plenty of nasty dictators around the world who don't get the US Army invading their countries. Is anyone anywhere any safer from suicidal Muslim terrorists because Saddam's been captured? I think not.
There is quite obviously another agenda at work; what we are being told and shown does not add up. There are many facts about the Afghanistan business we are not being told, where of course the "beaten" Taleban* are still fighting and there's yet another offensive taking place against them now.
*reality check - it isn't just the Taleban, of course. The most determined resistance to the American presence in Afghanistan and to the multi-national force and the Afghan Govt. comes from the West's former favourite Mujaheddin commander, Gulbeddin Hikmetyar, leader of Hizb-e-islami who took on the Soviet Army almost single handed. These are the same Mujaheddin who after kicking the Russians out, flattened Kabul, and who's brutality actually brought about the Taleban revolution. The Americans wouldn't let Hikmetyar be head of the post Taleban govt, they wanted Ahmed Shah, but he got killed so they went with his deputy Karzai; so Hikmetyar told them to f*** off, and carried on fighting. His rival warlords were quite happy to take the crumbs that fell from America's table and so u get Tajiki brutes like Rashid Dostum as Defence Minister; in reality these people are still evil warlords and haven't changed their behaviour one iota, and the West turns a blind eye to it. In reality Western writ in Afghanistan is limited to Kabul and its environs and the various bases scateered around the country. Hundreds of American soldiers wander around the hillsides in ridiculous manhunts for "terrorists," shoot up some villages, and go back to base. Just like the Russians used to do, and just like the British used to do, and the "terrorists" are just as capable of hiding from the US as they were from the Russkies and us.
to make the point clear: Until America includes Hikmetyar in the future of Afghanistan, and gives him what he wants, there will be no peace in Afghanistan. This man and his army of veterans are the real power and only the Taleban ever succeeeded in standing up to him. When u hear of attacks against US, International or Afghan targets in Afghanistand, and the media or Centcom blames al-Quaeda, don't believe it; it's Hizb-e-Islami almost everytime.
Hikmetyar has no love for Osama either, and it's doubtful whether there is any serious degree of collusion between them. Hikmetyar never really collaborated with anyone but himself unless they did what he said, and was acknowledged as No 1 Mujaheddin boss by pretty much everyone including other Mujaheddin, the CIA, and the Pakistani Intelligence Service who loved him. He's also of Iranian stock and has always been big m8s with them. They've always seen Osama and his boys as interlopers and foreigners and don't have very much to do with them, but were q happy to take ObL's cash and help against the Russkies, and now the Americans. Oh dear I see the Afghansistan thing dragging on for years too, will that poor country ever be left alone? No it won't and I know why, i won't tell you here, but look at a map of the region and the answer will become clear if u think hard enough about it.
(These aren't opinions, these are facts, unpalatable as they are)
(and yes, i do know a lot about Afghanistan and the Middle East)
bejasus I do ramble on. i promise not to say another word on this subject EVER)
Edited by - Tawakalna on 20-12-2003 22:57:45
the reality is of course that the Libyan announcement is more apparent than real, which doesn't mean to say it isn't sincere.
Gaddafi, like Saddam, like Assad etc, came to power as a result of a Soviet-backed military coup but as an Arab nationalist. Like other Arab dictators and rulers, while ostensibly a Muslim, in reality he heads a secular regime that pays only lip service to Islam. Despite all the pro-islamic sentiments and dressing up, to men such as these real Islamic fundamentalism is anathema. They were quite happy to sponsor it abroad for political reasons during the Cold War, but now it's counter-productive and dangerous.
Has Gaddafi made this admission because he doesn't want America to attack him? Some will say yes, and there may be a degree of truth in it, but Libya has been distancing itself from it's former activities for some years now. A man like Gaddafi can't be SEEN to be suddenly making a volte-face, so it's taken a long time, but this has been an ongoing process since the early 90s. Will it pay for the blood of the Lockerbie victims?
it is somewhat ironic that Libya, a country with a long and proven history of involvement in terrorist activities and a WMD programme, should be welcomed back into the international community despite having been America's bete-noir in the past, whilst Iraq, which was not directly involved with terrorist activities other than sponsorship of the Palestinians and who's WMD programme was moribund, should have felt the weight of American anger. Peculiar that, isn't it?
There was always more of a connection between bin Laden and Libya than there evver was with Iraq. Libya backs the Muslim Sudanese Govt against the Christian Rebels in the south of the country, and ObL actually lived in Khartoum and was a friend of the Sudanese Govt. hence why Clinton attacked the Sudan as well as Afghanistan. Al-Quaeda had little or no involvement with the Iraqis and ObL publicly vilified Saddam and called upon Iraqis to rise up against the Ba'athist regime.
So why exactly was Iraq attacked? no WMDs, no terrorists, except the one's that have turned up since the Americans invaded. Was it to save the Iraqi people from a nasty dictator? oddly enough there are plenty of nasty dictators around the world who don't get the US Army invading their countries. Is anyone anywhere any safer from suicidal Muslim terrorists because Saddam's been captured? I think not.
There is quite obviously another agenda at work; what we are being told and shown does not add up. There are many facts about the Afghanistan business we are not being told, where of course the "beaten" Taleban* are still fighting and there's yet another offensive taking place against them now.
*reality check - it isn't just the Taleban, of course. The most determined resistance to the American presence in Afghanistan and to the multi-national force and the Afghan Govt. comes from the West's former favourite Mujaheddin commander, Gulbeddin Hikmetyar, leader of Hizb-e-islami who took on the Soviet Army almost single handed. These are the same Mujaheddin who after kicking the Russians out, flattened Kabul, and who's brutality actually brought about the Taleban revolution. The Americans wouldn't let Hikmetyar be head of the post Taleban govt, they wanted Ahmed Shah, but he got killed so they went with his deputy Karzai; so Hikmetyar told them to f*** off, and carried on fighting. His rival warlords were quite happy to take the crumbs that fell from America's table and so u get Tajiki brutes like Rashid Dostum as Defence Minister; in reality these people are still evil warlords and haven't changed their behaviour one iota, and the West turns a blind eye to it. In reality Western writ in Afghanistan is limited to Kabul and its environs and the various bases scateered around the country. Hundreds of American soldiers wander around the hillsides in ridiculous manhunts for "terrorists," shoot up some villages, and go back to base. Just like the Russians used to do, and just like the British used to do, and the "terrorists" are just as capable of hiding from the US as they were from the Russkies and us.
to make the point clear: Until America includes Hikmetyar in the future of Afghanistan, and gives him what he wants, there will be no peace in Afghanistan. This man and his army of veterans are the real power and only the Taleban ever succeeeded in standing up to him. When u hear of attacks against US, International or Afghan targets in Afghanistand, and the media or Centcom blames al-Quaeda, don't believe it; it's Hizb-e-Islami almost everytime.
Hikmetyar has no love for Osama either, and it's doubtful whether there is any serious degree of collusion between them. Hikmetyar never really collaborated with anyone but himself unless they did what he said, and was acknowledged as No 1 Mujaheddin boss by pretty much everyone including other Mujaheddin, the CIA, and the Pakistani Intelligence Service who loved him. He's also of Iranian stock and has always been big m8s with them. They've always seen Osama and his boys as interlopers and foreigners and don't have very much to do with them, but were q happy to take ObL's cash and help against the Russkies, and now the Americans. Oh dear I see the Afghansistan thing dragging on for years too, will that poor country ever be left alone? No it won't and I know why, i won't tell you here, but look at a map of the region and the answer will become clear if u think hard enough about it.
(These aren't opinions, these are facts, unpalatable as they are)
(and yes, i do know a lot about Afghanistan and the Middle East)
bejasus I do ramble on. i promise not to say another word on this subject EVER)
Edited by - Tawakalna on 20-12-2003 22:57:45
Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:58 am
@Taw:
*peeks out from behind a hedge and checks the area for Mods*
Uh. Well. I would love to join in this latest discussion but.... uh. Don't know that we'd be allowed to go further with it if I did. But so as not to imply that you should be disappointed by hesitation, let me also say that I don't know that I could really disagree with you anyway.
Edited by - Indy11 on 21-12-2003 02:58:49
*peeks out from behind a hedge and checks the area for Mods*
Uh. Well. I would love to join in this latest discussion but.... uh. Don't know that we'd be allowed to go further with it if I did. But so as not to imply that you should be disappointed by hesitation, let me also say that I don't know that I could really disagree with you anyway.
Edited by - Indy11 on 21-12-2003 02:58:49
52 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4