'The War Is Not Over'

[Out There]

bill smith: Let us suppose that George W. Bush himself was photographed flying the first plane into the North Tower. Let us suppose that Bush gets on national TV and admits all sorts of crimes.

Are the EU paratroopers going to bring some justice to America? I think not. I am sick and tired of hearing about problems without solutions.

Surely, there are some smart EU guys who could 'take' an American submarine, and gain the 'power of the sun.' Surely, if the Dutch paratroopers are so upset about things, they could 'take' the American airborne base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

To complain without offering solutions is, well, it is boring. Offer solutions. Ask the Americans to set up quiet but productive links with the Russians. See if the Russians will provide ordnance to American freedom-fighters. See if there are any American freedom-fighters who are willing to fire up Russian ordnance.

If you don't offer solutions, then quit complaining. If you want Bush on trial in the Hague, figure out how the Americans will be buffaloed into turning over one of their ex-Presidents for trial overseas.

[Out There]

Revolution is an ugly thing. I have a photo in my pocket of George Washington, a revolutionary. He killed British policemen (redcoats, "duly constituted law enforcement authority in the American colonies, right?").

bill, give me an alternative. Figure out how to execute a revolution. Do you try to take the airbases first, or the sub bases? Just how do Americans create a modern-day Continental Army?

Will the Dutch help, like the French did the last American revolution? If no one will help, then how will it get done? If you have no ideas, then just accept the world as it is and become a tulip or windmill or dike expert. How about those horribly uncomfortable wooden shoes?

[ListenUp]

Muslim burn church, saying it was too close to mosque
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php...
Four Muslims kill elderly Christian woman "because they believed Pakistan’s legal system would not prosecute them for murdering Christians
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php...
The United American Committee proudly launches a syndicated AM radio show to awaken the nation to the jihadist threats, promote American ideals, and to take a stab at political correctness!

UAC RADIO JIHAD
Because jihad works BOTH WAYS!

Orlando:
WEUS 810 AM
From 2:30-3:00PM every Friday
Listen live at: www.810weus.com

Detroit:
WDRJ 1440
From 2:00-2:30PM every Friday
Listen live at: www.1440wdrj.com

Tell your friends to tune in!

[Shrugs]

Atlas Shrugs Vlogs Islam, Bush Doctrine, New Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Here is a different perspective on these issues. It is quite interesting.

[GeoP]

George S Patton speech-he lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Homer DeHorseman]

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Dagnamit. We keep going thru these same stories at least once a month here, and I'm going to have to pull rank again. My ancestors were here 500 years before Columbus and 200 years before the Mexica split from the Aztecs in Aztlan (Jalisco) and migrated to what is now Mexico City. They'll have water rights up the Mississippi to South Dakota and maybe rights to the Great Hudson Bay, and parts of Minnesota, plus Newfoundland.
We're looking at having to give land back to them even though they already gave the land back, or left it empty. But then we would have to go back 2000 years to the Puebla, and eventually give everything back to the Mongolians who emigrated over the Bering Straits.
The Euros are going to have to give it back to the Africans who went North.
This could take a while to sort out.
Frankie said he would start with giving back his house.

I often wonder how things would have turned out had ol' Equus stayed on this continent instead of migrating in the opposite direction.

[crusty]

Homer DeHorseman wrote:

<quoted text>I often wonder how things would have turned out had ol' Equus stayed on this continent instead of migrating in the opposite direction.

wouldn't have had topix robbing posts...that's for sure ...taking all the valuable crusty inputs, and losin em....oh well p'rhaps twill return..

On another note...
any congrats for bush on the dip lomacy front?...he's got condi huggin with that moamar(strange looking dude eh, and I mean moamar not condi)...now is this going to be considered diplomacy or yet another in a long line of cases of the great satan only supporting evil murderous regimes....can't be that tho, bcause surely all u lefty libs would be congratulating the president on his yrs and yrs of ignoring moamar.....what got moamar to cough up his wmd plans?..in 2003?....surely must of been bush......diplomacy

[Token]

Out There wrote:

<quoted text>
How about the Americans giving back the American Indians all of the land they stole from them through abrogation of lawful treaties? Where is the UN in helping the American native Indians obtain justice for broken treaties, stolen land, and massacres? Sounds to me like there is a lot of justice that needs to be handed out, all around.

This is somewhat a valid point you have mentioned, and even though it makes a good amount of sense i believe the time for such action has past. Native Americans who are the rightfull owners of most land in the United States were not heard when the genocide against their people occured. The brutality against these people occured before any such international organisations as the UN or League of Nations existed.

I feel unable to answer this question, but the correct course of action should probably be one which returns a much more significant amount of power and land to the Native Americans than the Reservations they currently have now. Allowing them to practice their own laws and exist as a seperate state or nation would perhaps make a difference. But many Native Americans are assimilated into white American culture, which could possibly mean such a proposal would be unworkable. Preferably it should be a choice for them to make and not for the United States to make for them.

Australia has similar issues with the Aboriginal peoples except the situation has become much worse. The Australian Aboriginals are living in 3rd world conditions leading the Australian government to send in army task forces to sort out the situation. The levels of poverty and degredation have become so bad that crime and child abuse in particular have become a serious problem in Aboriginal controlled lands.

[crusty]

Token wrote:

<quoted text>
This is somewhat a valid point you have mentioned, and even though it makes a good amount of sense i believe the time for such action has past. Native Americans who are the rightfull owners of most land in the United States were not heard when the genocide against their people occured. The brutality against these people occured before any such international organisations as the UN or League of Nations existed.
I feel unable to answer this question, but the correct course of action should probably be one which returns a much more significant amount of power and land to the Native Americans than the Reservations they currently have now. Allowing them to practice their own laws and exist as a seperate state or nation would perhaps make a difference. But many Native Americans are assimilated into white American culture, which could possibly mean such a proposal would be unworkable. Preferably it should be a choice for them to make and not for the United States to make for them.
Australia has similar issues with the Aboriginal peoples except the situation has become much worse. The Australian Aboriginals are living in 3rd world conditions leading the Australian government to send in army task forces to sort out the situation. The levels of poverty and degredation have become so bad that crime and child abuse in particular have become a serious problem in Aboriginal controlled lands.

maybe it's their way and who r the aussies to send in the army and try to change them?

[crusty]

...I think I saw this guy runnin the tilt a whirl at the the Blue Hill Fair...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/0...

....carny for all the people of Pakistan! What would be life expectancy for him, Bhutto's mate. any guesses?

[Frankie]

Token wrote:

I believe the war in Iraq was very wrong and occured through corruption and disregard for criminal procedure. 9/11 was not an act of war or a declaration of war against the United States by another country. 9/11 was a crime scene, which wasnt investigated properly or dealt with as a crime scene should be. The Afghanistan Taliban government was recognised as the representative government of that nation by the United States and Britain. Afghanistan as much as i am able to remember, declared they needed evidence or proof of Osama Bin Ladens guilt. George Bush gave none but instead put forward a demand that the culprit be handed over with hesitation. If Afghanistan was given the evidence they requested after a detailed investigation by the United States, Osama Bin Laden may have been handed over to US authorities. I believe the mistake was to treat 9/11 as an act of war and not the criminal atrocity it was. Prior to 9/11 and shortly before the blame was placed on Bin Laden who was currently resident in Afghanistan, the United States were in the process of negotiating a gas pipeline running through the country in which Taliban delegates were invited to Washington to discuss the matter. So there is no reason to believe the Taliban would not have been co-operative if given evidence of Osama Bin Ladens Involvement. Importantly, Bin Laden was regarded as a saviour in Afghanistan due to his efforts to push back the invading Soviet Union, which the United States also opposed.
Iraq as we knew were innocent of any involvement with international terrorism, so the invasion to remove Saddam was unjust. US deals with Saudi Arabia are often used to excuse the invasion of 2003. George Bush committed a criminal act by conducting this invasion, which surely means the nation of Iraq innocent and fallen victim to United States aggression should be entitle to some sort of compensation. Why dont the United Nations push for the countries involved in Iraqs invasion to provide this compensation.

Not entirely true lest one ignores Saddam’s (1991) igniting more than 600 oil wells and pools of spilled oil in Kuwait. The ignition of oil well fires also created a serious threat to environmental and human health in the Persian Gulf region. The Kuwait oil fires burned for more than eight months, consuming an estimated five to six million barrels of crude oil and 70 to 100 million cubic meters of natural gas per day.

[Frankie]

Out There wrote:

<quoted text>
How about the Americans giving back the American Indians all of the land they stole from them through abrogation of lawful treaties? Where is the UN in helping the American native Indians obtain justice for broken treaties, stolen land, and massacres? Sounds to me like there is a lot of justice that needs to be handed out, all around.

It is, perhaps, not so much about giving land back, the story of peoples being conquered by other and stronger peoples is by and large the story of human history. What has always bothered me about it is simply the claim by most Americans that we are somehow special and better then the rest of the world. We are clearly no better or worse then the rest of humanity and have committed and perpetrated the same atrocities when forcing our will on all of nature’s creatures without blinking an eye. Perhaps we are (indeed) special in that we had the chance to be better as a nation and set an example to the rest of the world and God knows some of us have tried, but sadly we squandered it. We now have a number of dubious records such as having dropped ‘the bomb’ or having the largest most efficient military power – we have become the bully of the world.

[Native]

Token wrote:

<quoted text>
This is somewhat a valid point you have mentioned, and even though it makes a good amount of sense i believe the time for such action has past. Native Americans who are the rightfull owners of most land in the United States were not heard when the genocide against their people occured. The brutality against these people occured before any such international organisations as the UN or League of Nations existed.
I feel unable to answer this question, but the correct course of action should probably be one which returns a much more significant amount of power and land to the Native Americans than the Reservations they currently have now. Allowing them to practice their own laws and exist as a seperate state or nation would perhaps make a difference. But many Native Americans are assimilated into white American culture, which could possibly mean such a proposal would be unworkable. Preferably it should be a choice for them to make and not for the United States to make for them.
Australia has similar issues with the Aboriginal peoples except the situation has become much worse. The Australian Aboriginals are living in 3rd world conditions leading the Australian government to send in army task forces to sort out the situation. The levels of poverty and degredation have become so bad that crime and child abuse in particular have become a serious problem in Aboriginal controlled lands.

It’s been done already.

Native American Affairs
http://www.washlaw.edu/doclaw/subject/nativ5m...
http://www.doi.gov/bia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_gaming

Native Australians
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/indigenous_land_...

You did leave out Canada. I'll let you research that one.

This does not only apply to western countries. There should be no question that the Jews belong to Israel-problem solved there. Egypt…the Coptic’s are the indigenous people but they live horribly and their land/laws were stolen from them. Need to fix that problem. Northern Africa…it belongs to the BLACK Africans…not the Arabs. I’ll stop there for now.

[WomanPower]

Sarah Palin Kuwait 2007 Rifle Training
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Token]

crusty wrote:

<quoted text>maybe it's their way and who r the aussies to send in the army and try to change them?

The Aboriginals often reside in popular tourist destinations such as Uluru, where they come into contact and sight of visitors nearly every day. The Australian government has a difficult decision to make, either they can allow the Aborigines to live on their own in what is now a developed nation, or step in to help rid the problems of child abuse, crime and disease that also affect the dominant white populations. The complaint is that Aboriginal children from these areas are being taken from their families when no real evidence of abuse is taking place. The abuse that is known to be real should obviously be sorted otherwise the Aboriginals could face extinction.

Allowing Aborigines and Native Americans to reside in Reservations with little interference may not be entirely to their likeing. That land you live on is by right their land. Creating a seperate state for these peoples may be a good consideration. Access to ancestoral lands accross the United States as Indian territory under Indian law may be what it needed. Israel was returned to the Jews after 2 thousand years, so it can be argued if this happens in one place then other countries should grant a return of the nations to the original inhabitants.

[DaveC]

Token wrote:

I believe the war in Iraq was very wrong and occured through corruption and disregard for criminal procedure. 9/11 was not an act of war or a declaration of war against the United States by another country. 9/11 was a crime scene, which wasnt investigated properly or dealt with as a crime scene should be. The Afghanistan Taliban government was recognised as the representative government of that nation by the United States and Britain. Afghanistan as much as i am able to remember, declared they needed evidence or proof of Osama Bin Ladens guilt. George Bush gave none but instead put forward a demand that the culprit be handed over with hesitation. If Afghanistan was given the evidence they requested after a detailed investigation by the United States, Osama Bin Laden may have been handed over to US authorities. I believe the mistake was to treat 9/11 as an act of war and not the criminal atrocity it was. Prior to 9/11 and shortly before the blame was placed on Bin Laden who was currently resident in Afghanistan, the United States were in the process of negotiating a gas pipeline running through the country in which Taliban delegates were invited to Washington to discuss the matter. So there is no reason to believe the Taliban would not have been co-operative if given evidence of Osama Bin Ladens Involvement. Importantly, Bin Laden was regarded as a saviour in Afghanistan due to his efforts to push back the invading Soviet Union, which the United States also opposed.
Iraq as we knew were innocent of any involvement with international terrorism, so the invasion to remove Saddam was unjust. US deals with Saudi Arabia are often used to excuse the invasion of 2003. George Bush committed a criminal act by conducting this invasion, which surely means the nation of Iraq innocent and fallen victim to United States aggression should be entitle to some sort of compensation. Why dont the United Nations push for the countries involved in Iraqs invasion to provide this compensation.

Maybe this will refresh your memory of 9/11.
http://breakingnews.augustachronicle.com/terr...

It was weeks before we were able to determine the whole extent of the damage and even though it wasn’t quite as bad as we first thought, it was still the greatest attack against America in our history. The shear scope of the death and destruction took it from a simple criminal act to an act of war. Al-Qaeda had attacked us twice before and we had treated those attacks as you suggested and the end result was 9/11. You also need to read Osama’s 1998 fatwa where he declared war on the US. After you read it, you will understand the even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, 9/11 had a lot to do with Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/interna...
The Taliban was closely aligned with al-Qaeda and used them in suicide bombings against the Northern Alliance. The Taliban may not have known of the specifics of 9/11, but they were fully aware of al-Qaeda’s war against the US and still gave them sanctuary. The fact that Osama confessed to the attack in 2004 and al-Zawahiri has since reaffirmed al-Qaeda’s responsibility for 9/11 I’m sure was no surprise to Mullah Omar or the rest of the Taliban.
As far as Iraq was concerned. Saddam had 12 years to comply with the terms of the ceasefire and when Bush gave him 45 more days, he still refused. Saddam admitted he didn’t want Iran or any of his enemies to know he no longer had WMDs. So if Saddam wouldn’t comply with the terms of the ceasefire then there was absolutely nothing illegal about ending the ceasefire.

[Token]

Frankie wrote:

<quoted text>
Not entirely true lest one ignores Saddam’s (1991) igniting more than 600 oil wells and pools of spilled oil in Kuwait. The ignition of oil well fires also created a serious threat to environmental and human health in the Persian Gulf region. The Kuwait oil fires burned for more than eight months, consuming an estimated five to six million barrels of crude oil and 70 to 100 million cubic meters of natural gas per day.

The fires were set before the Gulf War came to an end. Had they been lit after peace was declared then what you say would be very true indeed. The issue is 2003 invasion under false pretenses that have left Iraq in ruin. So far no benefit has been reaped from the plentifull oil reserves. The nation is also often with out electrical power, and since the invasion crime, murder and kidnap is higher in Iraq than any other country in the world. Also considering the homes of innocent civilans being lost and the large death toll, it would seem the Iraqi nation is entitle to compensation would it not.

[Water]

Some parts of the UK are flooding really bad-in homes. Residents asked how could this happen again? The government said, you better get use to it.

wow

[DaveC]

Token wrote:

<quoted text>
This is somewhat a valid point you have mentioned, and even though it makes a good amount of sense i believe the time for such action has past. Native Americans who are the rightfull owners of most land in the United States were not heard when the genocide against their people occured. The brutality against these people occured before any such international organisations as the UN or League of Nations existed.
I feel unable to answer this question, but the correct course of action should probably be one which returns a much more significant amount of power and land to the Native Americans than the Reservations they currently have now. Allowing them to practice their own laws and exist as a seperate state or nation would perhaps make a difference. But many Native Americans are assimilated into white American culture, which could possibly mean such a proposal would be unworkable. Preferably it should be a choice for them to make and not for the United States to make for them.
Australia has similar issues with the Aboriginal peoples except the situation has become much worse. The Australian Aboriginals are living in 3rd world conditions leading the Australian government to send in army task forces to sort out the situation. The levels of poverty and degredation have become so bad that crime and child abuse in particular have become a serious problem in Aboriginal controlled lands.

Who should we compensate in Iraq? Either the Iraqis supported Saddam or they were oppressed by Saddam. If they supported Saddam then they suffered because of their support for a tyrant. If they were oppressed by Saddam, then we have liberated them from that oppression.

[Idea]

Islam akin to other faiths," from The Scotsman

Humza Yousaf of the Scottish-Islamic Foundation (Letters, 4 September) does not believe in freedom of expression as he wishes to exempt Islam from critical analysis by claiming that to do so may cause offence to sacred beliefs.
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Islam-akin-t...

We are firmly of the view that Islam, like every other religion which has existed throughout human history, is not divine or sacred in origin, but is instead a man-made ideology.

We support the ideals of the 18th-century Scottish Enlightenment and the views of people such as David Hume and Adam Ferguson, who subjected religion to intense and critical scrutiny. If the Scottish-Islamic Foundation finds such scrutiny offensive to its sacred beliefs, we make no apology for this.

For the record, we have received not a single penny of taxpayers' money, unlike the Scottish-Islamic Foundation, which has received £400,000 from the SNP government. This is money which could have been used to help pay the fuel bills of poor Scots of all religions and none.

IAN STEWART
Convener, Atheist Scotland
Park Avenue
Dundee

...if person X does not believe in religion Y, there is no logic in him kowtowing to it -- irrespective of who gets offended.