PDA

View Full Version : AC-130 Gunship gun camera footage!



GT98
14th November 2002, 10:37
Check out this gun camera footage from a AC-130H Gunship...these people think that running is gonna help when they get out of their truck :D

http://www.templeofblood.com/~ncc386/movies/runForest.MPG


heres another gun camera footage but I haven't checked it out yet since its 150mb DL and my internet connection at work is sucking right now.

http://www.templeofblood.com/~ncc386/movies/gunship_video.mpg

ZokesPro
14th November 2002, 10:44
I'm currently downloading them both, i'll tell you if it's worth it. :)

Edit: Impressions of first video: :eek:

Edit: Second video: ...downloading still...53%...Hey wow, look it's done. And what a wicked video it is too!


Man I love the Hercules Gunship! :up:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/stillserving/newspics/887_gunship.jpg

gt40
14th November 2002, 11:22
Hey ! quit d/l it, yer slowing mine down! :D

Jon P. Inghram
14th November 2002, 11:25
Cool, D/L'ing at over 350 kB/s on the second one.

Dr Mordrid
14th November 2002, 11:27
BOOM....BOOM-BOOM-BOOM

'twas a lousy day for the bad guys :D

Dr. Mordrid

thop
14th November 2002, 11:36
saw the first, looks like a video game to me.

Jon P. Inghram
14th November 2002, 11:46
The second one = :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: ... WOW

gt40
14th November 2002, 11:53
Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram
The second one = :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: ... WOW

Un f'n beleiveable! :eek:
One amazing piece of video!

Corran Horn
14th November 2002, 12:07
Unbelieveable. We've got some great technology and personnel at our disposal.

Guru
14th November 2002, 13:37
159MB to see some lousy ir fotage and hearing a guy scream boom bang! :rolleyes:

gt40
14th November 2002, 13:41
Originally posted by Guru
159MB to see some lousy ir fotage and hearing a guy scream boom bang! :rolleyes:
Do you even realize what you just saw?

Guru
14th November 2002, 13:42
Originally posted by gtforty

Do you even realize what you just saw?

USA bombing people with handguns! :rolleyes: A wery difficult task indeed! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Guru
14th November 2002, 13:43
BTW Like that "silly walk" avatar! :D

GT98
14th November 2002, 13:50
Originally posted by Guru


USA bombing people with handguns! :rolleyes: A wery difficult task indeed! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Um they wheren't bombing them....they used one of these things on them:

http://www.greendevils.com.pl/militaria/sailor_lot/Hercules/Ac130/actitsmall.jpg

And its called being smart....use your advangetages to kill them...you dont reduce yourself to their level so they have a chance to kill you...

ZokesPro
14th November 2002, 13:53
Hercs are awesome, they can fly through hurricanes! Amazingly cool aircraft! :up: (my dad works one one for a living, loud as hell though!)

Rags
14th November 2002, 14:07
Oh come on guys, don't you know that if you just sent Guru down there to give them a dozen rozes, they would have surrendered for a fair trial? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Rags

RedRed
14th November 2002, 14:29
are we going to see the footage of the afghan wedding shot up by the herc (then bombed, then attacked with appaches)? What was it 70 acknoweleged (USAF) civs blown apart? Hmmmmm Cool toy.

:rolleyes: RedRed

Novdid
14th November 2002, 14:37
I don't like this arrogant attitude against anyone whoo disagrees with your pro-war views. Everybody has a right to have their own opinions, remember.

War toys aren't "cool" they are used to KILL people, when the hell did that get "cool".:rolleyes:

RedRed
14th November 2002, 14:41
appologies Novdid - i was being sarchastic about this jerk off to killing....
RedRed

Novdid
14th November 2002, 14:49
It wasn't directed to you Red...

Sorry for being unclear.

Guru
14th November 2002, 14:59
Originally posted by Novdid
I don't like this arrogant attitude against anyone whoo disagrees with your pro-war views. Everybody has a right to have their own opinions, remember.

War toys aren't "cool" they are used to KILL people, when the hell did that get "cool".:rolleyes:

Rags
14th November 2002, 15:11
You know, I don't like killing anymore than you bleeding hearts in here do. But I don't see anyone claiming killing is cool, or war is cool in here.

You jump to conclusions because you have this pre concieved notion about us already that is blurred by your own prejudice.

20-30 years ago, this selective targetting wasn't available. It's a GOOD thing that the weapons being used now are more selective towards their targets. Sure, accidents and mishaps occur. We are all human, therfore we err.

Rags

gt40
14th November 2002, 15:11
It's always unsettling to see ppl get killed. I was just commenting on the effectiveness of this weapon.

ZokesPro
14th November 2002, 15:34
Originally posted by Novdid
It wasn't directed to you Red...

Sorry for being unclear.

So it's directed to me I take it?

thop
14th November 2002, 15:37
RedRed: :up:

GNEP
14th November 2002, 15:40
Zokes - I think that Novdid was directing his comment at everyone who disassociated "cool" hardware (and from an engineering perspective, yes, it is v. impressive) from the fact that these things are designed with one purpose in mind. To kill people as efficiently as possible.

(By efficient, I mean that they allow soldiers to go into battle in the way that they want - only when the odds are stacked in their favour).

NB. I do not mean to piss others off with this comment, only to state my own individual point of view.

Gnep

ZokesPro
14th November 2002, 15:58
Well, I like weapons, not because they kill, but because they peak my interest. I don't know why I like them but I just do. (I much prefer medieval weapons than guns though, and by far!)

I haven't killed anybody and don't plan to for as long as I live. I don't condone killing and my dad doesn't either. He works on a C-130 but only does peace-keeping missions, which I find to be very honorable.

And as far as the AC-130 Gunship goes well, I saw the plane in a demostration on TLC or what is The discovery channel? Anyways, they were shooting tracer shots in the dark of night and it lit up the sky. I thought that was cool. They weren't killing anybody but they were still using the same plane and it looked cool with all the guns on it.

And as far as those video's go? They are impressive! I will admit to that. The explosion and such are very cool. The killing is not.

I'm not pro-war either. My dad is in the military and each and everyday I hope he comes back home alive.

I hope that clears things up.

Rags
14th November 2002, 16:00
Anyone who doesn't sit in horror and disgust is pro war it seems....I disagree, but that seems to be the way it is for a few here...

Rags

Dr Mordrid
14th November 2002, 16:07
Actually I think the *few* are those who think like RR and Thop.

Definitely in the minority on this side of the pond....

Dr. Mordrid

KvHagedorn
14th November 2002, 16:21
A good dose of war and feminism will kill any society.. just look at ours.

Rags
14th November 2002, 16:29
Don't you know? The big US war machine is killing innocent children.

Forget about the fact that 115 people every day are killed because of this cool machine: The automobile.

Forget about the fact that 48 of those are due to people being intoxicated while driving them.

Oh, that's America's problem. I forgot. How about the famine that has been going on in Afghanistan? It was previously thought to be quite less of a problem than what reality has shown it to be. More than ten times as many children will die from famine in Afganistan EVERY DAY than were accidently killed in Red Red's high example of what is wrong. It's not a good place to be, and the Taliban didn't make things better. http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/afghan/hellfreezes.html

The famine that goes on in third world countries is not isolated to the Afghans. It is across the world, and much of it is due not only to ecological conditions but also governmental*cough*dictatorship*cough* conditions.

Chew on that.

Rags

RedRed
14th November 2002, 16:33
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
A good dose of war and feminism will kill any society.. just look at ours.

:)

Dr M
I am not a bleeding heart- whatever that is. I have seen - quite close up - the effects of blowing people up. I dont care what people think, I wouldnt want that to happen to a dog, never mind a HUMAN. My political views are pretty clear, they have been atacked here before, that just makes me stronger.

:rolleyes: sorry for having an opinion, and being willing to express it! :rolleyes:

The number of times I have been PM'ed by people - many you wouldnt expect - who cant be bothered to respond to this sort of stuff would surprise you. Dont assume that because you shout loudly and often you are the majority...

RedRed

GNEP
14th November 2002, 16:40
Disapproval of the *apparent* lack of association between "cool" army gear and humankind's willingness to wage war, and the actions of dictators etc. around the world are not linked.

Hell - I am a democratic* capitalist pragmatist who values human (ANY human) life quite highly. Is that really so wierd? I like to think that at least if I try to see all sides of an argument it's better than not trying. Unfortunately it means that the conclusion "there is no right answer" is more common than I would like, but I am happy that way. And I accept that many of you don't think along the same lines.

(*NB democratic as in pro-democracy not as in the US party)

RedRed
14th November 2002, 16:45
Rags - please dont start.

Fact #1
More people were killed in candahar during the american offensive than had been killd in that city during the WHOLE russian occupation.

Fact#2
The Talhiban had made it a capital offense to produce Heroin - since the end of the war and the reinstatement of the 'northern alliance' warlords supply into europe has gone up by 50% the price of Heroin has almost halved in a year!


It's not a good place to be, and the Taliban didn't make things better.
We have yet to see if replacing one corrupt govt with another (albeit US supported) will improve things in the long term for the Afghans.... The jury is still out.

Fact #3
The Talibhan would never have been thrown out, if they had meat with US demands for bin Laden. Bush said so publicly. They were fools for not handing him over trussed up like a chicken. The american invasion was for two pruposes only - to destroy OBL and his organisation, and to prevent him being able to reestablish.


Corruption in third world countries should be fought where ever its found - it desnt require a gunship to do it though. you chew on that!

RedRed

KvHagedorn
14th November 2002, 16:49
Originally posted by GNEP

Hell - I am a democratic capitalist pragmatist who values human (ANY human) life quite highly. Is that really so wierd?

I value human life in the proportion to which it deserves value.. that is, the life of one innocent child of my people is worth more to me than the lives of every hateful Islamic foreigner who wants to come to Europe and America and kill us, hoping to supplant our whole population when feminism and shortsighted selfish materialism causes us all to die out.

RedRed
14th November 2002, 16:52
who are you people, really KV?

Dr Mordrid
14th November 2002, 16:53
Originally posted by RedRed


:)

Dr M
I am not a bleeding heart- whatever that is. I have seen - quite close up - the effects of blowing people up. I dont care what people think, I wouldnt want that to happen to a dog, never mind a HUMAN. My political views are pretty clear, they have been atacked here before, that just makes me stronger.
I've seen the actual effects of such things too...even caused a bit of it myself in a firefight....so I do know it up close and personal. Where we may disagree is that I understand that quite often it's necessary or even justice.

Still; after losing 3 friends in the WTC pardon me if I get a bit of a good feeling when the terrorists sympathizers and associates get hammered in things like these videos or the Predator attack last week.

Good riddance.....

Dr. Mordrid

GNEP
14th November 2002, 16:57
edit: That's better Doc! :)

Rags
14th November 2002, 16:57
Rags - please dont start.
Why not? You already started and I am started, so let's discuss.



Fact #1
More people were killed in candahar during the american offensive than had been killd in that city during the WHOLE russian occupation.
That fact is meaningless, it doesn't take into account that situations are different and doesn't accurately reflect civilian casualties and the circumstances.



Fact#2
The Talhiban had made it a capital offense to produce Heroin - since the end of the war and the reinstatement of the 'northern alliance' warlords supply into europe has gone up by 50% the price of Heroin has almost halved in a year!
Prohibition is never an answer IMHO. That is my personal opinion, so you can take it however you want. Drug use and sales are more of a reflection of the deterioration of a society and its social climate than it is of what corrupt government where is supplying or not supplying it.



We have yet to see if replacing one corrupt govt with another (albeit US supported) will improve things in the long term for the Afghans.... The jury is still out.
Agreed, but this means nothing at this point and has no bearing on the discussion at hand.



Fact #3
The Talibhan would never have been thrown out, if they had meat with US demands for bin Laden. Bush said so publicly. They were fools for not handing him over trussed up like a chicken. The american invasion was for two pruposes only - to destroy OBL and his organisation, and to prevent him being able to reestablish.
You are correct, but the difference is that the US and UN would have approached the humanitarian problem in an entirely different manner. This so called leadership happened to open itself up to attack because of their widespread stepping over boundaries.




Corruption in third world countries should be fought where ever its found - it desnt require a gunship to do it though. you chew on that!

RedRed
Predictable as always, and you fell right in to exactly where I wanted you to dive your argument to. The US government spent over 176 million in aid to the Afghans alone in 2000, and were in talks about adding an additional 76 million in aid. There were government agencies and public charity organizations both present in that region to help. They were pulled soon after the 9/11 attacks. Currently the US is giving more aid in manpower and dollars to famined countries than all other countries combined worldwide. But all we have is a big stick.

Chew on that.

Rags

Joel
14th November 2002, 16:57
Would you guys cut it out. Y'all are starting to make my job around here harder than it should be.

I don't thnk that anyone around is truly pro-war but as they say sometimes shit happens and when it does 99.999% of the time the rest of the world expects the US to clean it up and we only do the best we can.

Did you notice how many times they said to not fire on the retangular building, which was supposedly a Mosgue, even though that was probably where most of the bad guys were hiding out? We did see one run in there didn't we?

Joel

Dr Mordrid
14th November 2002, 16:58
Right you are Joel. Unfortunately we have some of the "blame America first" crowd in here. Now....if only we could get rid of their sympathizers in the left hand aisle of Congress :rolleyes:



Originally posted by GNEP


I know what you're saying Doc M, but you might just want to edit and rephrase there... :)

Already did it before you posted. You caught it in a 15 second window betwen the two versions :D

Dr. Mordrid

Rags
14th November 2002, 17:01
Originally posted by Joel
Would you guys cut it out. Y'all are starting to make my job around here harder than it should be.

I don't thnk that anyone around is truly pro-war but as they say sometimes shit happens and when it does 99.999% of the time the rest of the world expects the US to clean it up and we only do the best we can.

Did you notice how many times they said to not fire on the retangular building, which was supposedly a Mosgue, even though that was probably where most of the bad guys were hiding out? We did see one run in there didn't we?

Joel
Joel, I see a good discussion here. So far no personal attacks, no bigot remarks...just a good old debate. :D

Rags

KvHagedorn
14th November 2002, 17:04
Originally posted by RedRed
who are you people, really KV?

As much as it might distress you to know.. you're one of them.

GNEP
14th November 2002, 17:05
I enjoy this sort of debate... I have no problems with the people here, just like to stick my oar in, and occasionally play devil's advocate.

Anyway - I'm off to bed. You in the US will of course get the last word in due to time zones and stuff! :)

KvHagedorn
14th November 2002, 17:13
Prohibition is never an answer IMHO. That is my personal opinion, so you can take it however you want. Drug use and sales are more of a reflection of the deterioration of a society and its social climate than it is of what corrupt government where is supplying or not supplying it.

Well, prohibition did not work in the instance of alcohol in the 30s U.S. It might work under other circumstances, using other methods.. and against other drugs.

Personally, I think that gunship would be well used to napalm opium fields anywhere, without any red tape to stop them. If we catch any druglords in the crossfire, too bad for them.

Rags
14th November 2002, 17:19
Originally posted by KvHagedorn


Well, prohibition did not work in the instance of alcohol in the 30s U.S. It might work under other circumstances, using other methods.. and against other drugs.

Personally, I think that gunship would be well used to napalm opium fields anywhere, without any red tape to stop them. If we catch any druglords in the crossfire, too bad for them.
Prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of drugs is very similar.

History has proven that governments cannot regulate morality and the will of a person in regards to what they do to themselves. Drug use will always be present, social climates have more effects on use and sale than laws do.

Rags

RedRed
14th November 2002, 17:23
Despite RedRed's communist views causing confusion, he is not a communist

Nice one Rags! :D

Dr M
I am NOT 'blame america first' - I am against war especially if it falls outside the definition of a 'just war'.


Rags
I do have to disagree with your over optimistic definaition with regards to Class A drugs - the recient flooding of the market with cheap heroin is not good for any society.

also:

The US government spent over 176 million in aid to the Afghans alone in 2000, and were in talks about adding an additional 76 million in aid. More than that was spent on your arms industry PER DAY during the war in Afghanistan. Its not very much when you have to rebuild a country almost completely leveled in a couple of months, is it?


KV
The opium fields belong to the men put in power in Afghanistan....
Honestly - it was the major revenue stream for the 'northern alliance'


Its 1:30 (am) here, I gotta get to bed....

night all[

Joel
14th November 2002, 17:30
Its not very much when you have to rebuild a country almost completely leveled in a couple of months, is it?

Kind of like what we did for Europe right after WWII??? :)

Joel

KvHagedorn
14th November 2002, 17:43
I remember saying something to the effect that I had reservations about the Northern Alliance way back when. I harbor no illusions that they are any better in some ways than the Taliban were.

Wombat
14th November 2002, 17:45
The opium made a lot of money for just about every power in Afghanistan, Reddy.


Fact#2
The Talhiban had made it a capital offense to produce Heroin - since the end of the war and the reinstatement of the 'northern alliance' warlords supply into europe has gone up by 50% the price of Heroin has almost halved in a year! This is incomplete and deceptive. The Taliban had nothing against opium. They did NOT oppose its sale. It was so plentiful that they weren't making much money off of it, but were pressured by the world to stop production. So, they hoarded. Once the fields were gone, prices went up, which is as the Taliban planned, and they sold their stockpiles at a nice profit. If you read up, you'll see that even though the fields were gone, <I>somehow</I> Afghanistan was still exporting a large amount of opium/heroin. It bears an uncanny resemblance to House Harkonnen's actions in <I>Dune</I>.

KvHagedorn
14th November 2002, 18:11
Originally posted by Rags

Prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of drugs is very similar.

History has proven that governments cannot regulate morality and the will of a person in regards to what they do to themselves. Drug use will always be present, social climates have more effects on use and sale than laws do.

Rags

Governments must take a more complete approach to fighting drug usage than they do. Where there is failure, it is a failure of will. It is a lack of wisdom, a lack of conviction. Keep heroin illegal, deal the death penalty to dealers (preferably in a very direct way), napalm the fields, do not tolerate usage.. (restrain the user and evict their enablers) Most importantly, and you are right on this point.. assist in creating a social climate in which abusing hard drugs is simply unacceptable. When a one dimensional approach is used, everything gets warped. You cannot just interdict shipments, you cannot just have some weepy "get in touch with our feelings" group to help "understand" abusers.. all of this crap (and most of liberal thought) is a direct result of a firm misunderstanding of the way people think, of the way they behave in groups, and the unwillingness to take firm and decisive action.

GT98
14th November 2002, 18:12
I am NOT 'blame america first' - I am against war especially if it falls outside the definition of a 'just war'.

Define what a "just war" is....War isn't just and its sure as hell fair either. Its an ugly orginisim that eats up everything and spits them out and lets the chips fall where they may.

thop
14th November 2002, 18:33
not so fast people, i heard my name although i didn't say anything about this yet :)

Dr Mordrid
14th November 2002, 19:59
Dr M
I am NOT 'blame america first' - I am against war especially if it falls outside the definition of a 'just war'. And please tell me what in hell is un-just about going to war with an organization, and its terrorist-state supporters, that have killed over 3,000 of your citizens....more than were killed at Pearl Harbor?

Make no mistake: their goal is a world-wide Wahabist caliphate. Russias President Putin was 100% correct on that one. They may not have the capability now, but ignore their intent and they might just get it. That kind of attitude got Neville Chamberlain quite a hallowed place in history :rolleyes:

If not now, when?

If not us, who?

If we don't, what size kufi would you like?

Dr. Mordrid

thop
15th November 2002, 05:31
Make no mistake:where have i heard that before :rolleyes: :p
and about that idea that radical muslims will conquer the world some day, my english skills are not good enough to put in a better way than this: it's bullshit :)

Joel
15th November 2002, 06:00
and about that idea that radical muslims will conquer the world some day, my english skills are not good enough to put in a better way than this: it's bullshit

That's what some said about Hilter during WWII and he damn nearly did conquer all of Europe, or at least was trying too, until he was stopped. What we are saying is that just like Hilter these people must be stopped.

Joel

GNEP
15th November 2002, 06:04
No Joel, there are very few similarities between the 1930s and now. Don't want to go into long winded details, but the global political landscape was completely different, and Hitler was doing very different things in very different ways.

Gnep

thop
15th November 2002, 06:16
i really wonder where this paranoia comes from. propaganda?

GT98
15th November 2002, 06:49
Originally posted by thop
i really wonder where this paranoia comes from. propaganda?

Just look at Doc's Post and you'll see why people from the US feel like this...You can go on living your life they way you want because you feel that you dont have to worry about it...thats all fine and good till it comes and bites you in the ass. Thats how people felt in this country on 9/10/2001 and it all changed the next day. Thats what pisses me off about people...they are so ****ing blind that they can't even be bothered to look outside of there own little world they live in :mad:

GT98
15th November 2002, 06:52
Originally posted by GNEP
No Joel, there are very few similarities between the 1930s and now. Don't want to go into long winded details, but the global political landscape was completely different, and Hitler was doing very different things in very different ways.

Gnep

Well I think Joel wasn't equating Al-Qeida with the Nazi's per say...just saying that the existance of these groups overall are a bad thing for the world in general and that something needs to be done before more people die unnessarlery if rest of the world gets its head out the sand. Just ask all those people from Australia that lost family in Bali...they didnt think they where going to be effected by Al-qeida, now they have to bury their loved ones because of them.

GNEP
15th November 2002, 06:56
No arguments with that interpretation GT :)

thop
15th November 2002, 07:30
i can certainly understand this, GT, everyone was shocked on 9/11. maybe you've seen the footage of people laying down flowers in front of US ambassadies all over the world, for days. i myself was in shock for days, and thank god i didn't had to work the next day, because i really would've not been able to.

but (yes here comes the but :)) that is no reason to stomp your feet (read: bomb) all over the place where some terrorist or a dog that belongs to a friend of a cousin of a terrorist might be hiding. also i don't like that attitude towards muslims in general, it sounds like all muslims are terrorists. and quite frankly, i believe some people here even believe so. you can't seriously believe that all 1.1 bio muslims (~6mio. in the US) are terrorists?

Dr Mordrid
15th November 2002, 07:40
What attitude towards "muslims in general"? Where I live we have huge muslim and middle eastern populations, many of whom I call "friend". You may be suprised to know that I've even done some volunteer work getting the computers set up for a nearby mosque.

My problem is, as I have noted many times, the radical Wahabists and their ilk who actively preach the destruction of western civilization, along with the more moderate forms of Islam who are not "pure" enough for them.

That this malignant "theology" is spreading like wildfire throughout the younger muslim populations is something the civilized world should worry about, and deal with, now instead of waiting for this particular bud to come into full bloom. If radical Wahabism ever does come to full fruition, and they end up with weapons of mass destruction, things will deteriorate rapidly to a state of anarchy given their preferred tactics.

Where we can accomplish this peacably, fine. Where we cannot, may God have mercy on their souls.

As far as the USA citizenry is concerned, and this was well documented by the results of our recent national elections, we have had it up to there and will not stand for it anymore. If some in the world don't have the intestinal fortitude for this then that's their problem.

Dr. Mordrid

thop
15th November 2002, 08:17
i agree with almost everything you said. this is a growing problem. one way is of course to bomb them all to hell, and eventually it might erase most of them or at least their most vocal leaders.
sooner or later this way will backlash though as it only adds fuel to those muslims who are easily influenced. and there seem to be many of them, especially younger ones, who can be easily convinced that the US are the big satan.

so lets sum up: throwing bombs makes the situation better and worse at the same time. not doing anything certainly doesn't make the sitaution better. so what to to? i say lets throw books :)
the moderate muslims have to deal with the radical ones themselves. but many of them in the poorer countries have no access to education, and hence fall very easy for the radicals propaganda. educate them and the problem will eventually go away itself.

Dr Mordrid
15th November 2002, 08:27
How very PC of you....give them books and they'll love us :rolleyes:

Problem is they'd most likely throw the teachers/peace corps or whoever we send into the same fire they use to burn the books.

Problem #2 is that the moderate muslims haven't shown a lot of fortitude in handling this situation either, and haven't in the 80+ years since Wahabism started down this path.

Face it: we are in one of those situations where none of the options most likely to be effective are peaceful, so the best course of action ends up being action and lots of it.

Dr. Mordrid

thop
15th November 2002, 08:41
How very PC of you....give them books and they'll love us i don't see how this has anything to do with PC. and throwing books wasn't meant literally of course :)

Joel
15th November 2002, 09:15
Problem is they'd most likely throw the teachers/peace corps or whoever we send into the same fire they use to burn the books.

This is a very true statement because one of the very first things the Taliban did when they took over in Afghan was to destory anything that was not of Islamic origin or approved of by the religious authorities.

Any books we try to give them will be just viewed as being written by the devil.

And as Doc says even moderate Muslims are considered enemies to the radicals.

Joel

KRSESQ
16th November 2002, 22:13
The latest from al Qaida:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20021117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/attacks_al_qaida

""the statement called on Americans to stop supporting Israel and other governments that "oppress" Muslims or face more attacks. The statement also called on Americans to convert to Islam""

Kevin

KvHagedorn
16th November 2002, 22:25
I call on all muslims to get their camel riding asses back to their own countries and end the desecration of our sacred land with their evil presence.

Wombat
17th November 2002, 00:13
That's funny KvH, there's some Navajo at your door, and they want you to get the **** out.

KvHagedorn
17th November 2002, 02:16
And we are doomed to exactly their fate if we placidly stand by and allow ourselves to be overrun. The more shamefully so, because we are not outgunned and outnumbered.. perhaps only outwilled.

thop
17th November 2002, 07:07
also i don't like that attitude towards muslims in general, it sounds like all muslims are terrorists. and quite frankly, i believe some people here even believe so.

What attitude towards "muslims in general"?

KvHagedorn
17th November 2002, 10:30
All muslims are not terrorists. The mass are sheep among whom wolves hide, and who do nothing but follow these wolves' lead. Their presence is an excuse for radicals among them to seek to overthrow us and create "islamic states" for them to live in. Leaving aside the United States for awhile, let's look at Europe. In England there were mobs who took to the streets burning churches and forcing people to praise osama bin laden with threats of violence. Nobody would do anything against them. Are we so pacified that we have nothing to say when these people invade our homeland, accost us with violence, and establish their own traditions which directly oppose us within the small confines of our ancient lands? Germany had no idea about the threats within its own borders. mohammed atta and others of his cell lived in Hamburg plotting ruin for the West as the German police were busy opressing right wing factions there that wanted the arabs out! If you cannot see this as a wrongheaded and treasonous attitude, there is really no hope for you.

It's time we noticed that liberal attitudes toward this question mean castrating ourselves and destroying our childrens' futures. Whose country is it, anyway?

Wombat
17th November 2002, 11:02
Whose country is it, anyway?Whoever wants it. "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor." It's not like your ancestors were exactly invited here either.

thop
17th November 2002, 11:21
i'm really amazed where the fear of those invading culture-destroying homeland-taking muslims comes from. what is kinda ironic is that actually the muslims should be more worried that their old culture will be soon replaced by the US culture that spreads all over the world.

and speaking of irony, some people from the US complain that the US is painted as the Evil Satan by those muslims when the same can also be said the other way around.

KvHagedorn
17th November 2002, 12:00
Originally posted by Wombat
Whoever wants it. "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor." It's not like your ancestors were exactly invited here either.

Why is it that some poem written by an old bleedy heart woman which happened to get itself transcribed on a statue has assumed the role of holy writ?

By the way, I did say "leaving aside the United States."

Thop, it might surprise you to know that I have only disgust for U.S. "culture" if it is represented by McDonalds and Wal-Mart. Any real Western culture these places have probably came from Britain and other European colonial powers years ago.

RichL
18th November 2002, 05:15
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
In England there were mobs who took to the streets burning churches and forcing people to praise osama bin laden with threats of violence

I must've dozed off when this happened. When and where was this again?

GNEP
18th November 2002, 05:23
Me too... :rolleyes:

Dr Mordrid
18th November 2002, 06:16
It happened several times this summer.

Dr. Mordrid

GNEP
18th November 2002, 06:27
These happened before 9/11. It was more about local race-relations and pockets of poverty than anything else. Certainly nothing to do with Al Quaeda. Please do not confuse the issues :)

RichL
18th November 2002, 07:01
Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
It happened several times this summer.

Dr. Mordrid

Where?

GNEP
18th November 2002, 07:19
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,556797,00.html

It was quite the reverse actually - stupid people attacking people in hajibs as a "reaction".

BTW, a good friend of mine just married Shagufta. And yes, over the rest of the media it has been very hard for the moderate muslims in this country (in the majority) to be heard.

RedRed
18th November 2002, 16:44
Dr M there were NO riots this summer, sacking christian churches, except in Northern Ireland where a couple of Catholic churches were firebombed by Loyalists, and I am sure that the reverse was also true.

I had written a huge post, critising KV & Dr M for gross simplification of what really happend with the british race riots a couple of years ago.... You couldnt be further from the truth, BTW.

I had waxed lyrical about the utter deprivation that these people were living in, and about the rise Facist reactions in some of Britians inner cities. About the beatings (predominately by whites on asians) and intimidation that went on (its all well docmented).

Very few people had heard of OBL before 9/11 - there was no chanting his name in the streets.

Quite frankly I just couldnt be arsed pressing the SUBMIT.

You guys are just completely hung up on the Middle East now, there is no point arguing.


RedRed
:(

thop
18th November 2002, 18:27
i've just seen Hearts and Minds which is a documentary film about the Vietnam War from 1974, and it amazed me to see how many parallels there are when you compare this to the current conflict, especially concerning the behaviour of the administration.

GT98
18th November 2002, 18:49
Originally posted by thop
i've just seen Hearts and Minds which is a documentary film about the Vietnam War from 1974, and it amazed me to see how many parallels there are when you compare this to the current conflict, especially concerning the behaviour of the administration.

There's Absolutely no ****ing way to compair the Vietnam war to whats going on with the current war on "terrorism" Please remove your head from your ass before posting any more asine comments like this.

thop
19th November 2002, 01:41
see the movie, come back and comment. i was surprised myself.

Casey Jones
19th November 2002, 01:58
Originally posted by thop
see the movie, come back and comment. i was surprised myself.
Read the national review and see the how all democrats are like communists :rolleyes:

thop
19th November 2002, 01:59
what is the national review? i don't understand what you're trying to say :)

KvHagedorn
19th November 2002, 02:08
What he is saying is that you can be misled into an opinion by any literature which holds a strong bias, if you are so inclined to be misled.

thop
19th November 2002, 02:15
i agree. however as this is a documentary with only real footage nothing was made up or anything like that. but my point is really not about the war in vietnam, but that the same rhetorics were used back then as they are now.

RichL
19th November 2002, 04:05
I think I see where you're coming from Thop, but be careful - you're heading into the hPar_ zone there :D

thop
19th November 2002, 04:10
nah hpar_ is in his own zone :D

cjolley
19th November 2002, 04:20
Originally posted by thop
i agree. however as this is a documentary with only real footage nothing was made up or anything like that. but my point is really not about the war in vietnam, but that the same rhetorics were used back then as they are now.

The same rhetoric is used for all wars.
It's like any other advertising.
The product can be good, bad or indifferent.
The words are the same.
chuck

Admiral
19th November 2002, 09:04
The current war is (was) about Bush getting Osama dead or alive (and his gang).
I haven't seen him in court nor his body on television and it's been more than a year now.
Bush has done his best and succeeded to shift attention, that's why we got to Iraq now. Why not shoot three rabbits with one shot. Correct papa Bush's past blunders, have access to the Iraqi oil fields and give scapegoat, paranoid America a more tangible enemy.

cjolley
19th November 2002, 10:11
Originally posted by Admiral
... paranoid America....

Paranoid is when they aren't realy out to get you.
It would be rediculus to claim Osama and his gang* are not out to get us.
chuck

* And Sadam, for that matter.

GT98
19th November 2002, 11:04
Originally posted by Admiral
The current war is (was) about Bush getting Osama dead or alive (and his gang).
I haven't seen him in court nor his body on television and it's been more than a year now.
Bush has done his best and succeeded to shift attention, that's why we got to Iraq now. Why not shoot three rabbits with one shot. Correct papa Bush's past blunders, have access to the Iraqi oil fields and give scapegoat, paranoid America a more tangible enemy.


We'll think of it this way....if we got OBL back last year, the General public would have been "ok we won the war on Terriosim, lets go home now and stick our heads in the sand" The current war is much more then getting OBL, its about defeating Al-Quada and other groups. The American Press made a big deal about OBL just for ratings and the Adminstration was smart by not making any more comments just about OBL and made more general ones. Iraq is/or is going to be a bigger problem in the future if they aren't stopped now. I'm not conferable knowing that they can supply biological/chemical weapons to the highest bidder if they wanted too....either directly or indirectly. The "war" is going to be long and hard...and like said before...going to be nothing like what has happened in the past 200 years.

In retrospect George Sr did screw up after what everything happend in the past ten years, but at the time he fulfilled what the UN mandaded to happen in Kuwait. There wasn't anything about overthrowning the goverment in Iraq in 1991. We had the best chance to but we didnt do it.

Wombat
19th November 2002, 11:50
Except that all these "wars" (poorly named frauds, really) on concepts are unwinnable and useless, except as excuses for the government to do as it wishes.

War on Crime?
War on Drugs?
War on Terrorism?

R.Carter
19th November 2002, 13:31
I dunno if killing terrorists is going to work that well. After all, most of the terroist footsoliders are more than willing to kill themselves to further their cause.

Also, it is my understanding that they way the terrorists organizations are organized it makes it almost impossible to use conventional weapons and tactics effectively against them.

I think that one needs to try and figure out what makes people become so dissatisfied with their lives to turn to terrorism, and then try to address those issues. This will prevent more people from simply replacing the terrorists we do manage to deal with.

Sure the war on terrorism has just starting, but one year later and I don't know how many millions of dollars spent we find the world isn't a safer place from terrorism after all.

And even if we do deal a crippling blow to the leadership of one terrorist organization, there are many terrorist organizations around the world. So I fear that the war on terrorism is one that is going to take a very long time unless we deal with the root cause.

Something must be making people become terrorists. Sure you have the odd crazy person, but there must be something motivating these people. Find out and see how we can fix it and that will solve the problem in the long term.

Sure in the short term blow stuff up, but I don't think that is going to be the final answer or an appropriate solution to the problem of global terrorism.

GT98
19th November 2002, 13:43
R.Carter....I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think the problem is that theres no hard and fast answers for what you pose....why does it piss off OBL so much that US troops where in the Muslim Holy Land that he felt compelled to kill 3,000 people in NYC? I don't get it....

RedRed
19th November 2002, 14:02
Wombat, Admiral & R Carter have hit on what I have been trying to say for ages.

The war on Iraq (for there will be) is just tat to hide the mistakes of the operations in Afghanistan. OBL & AlQ were the enemy No1, and, after a year, there is still effectivelt no result. OBL is still very much alive, and the bombing in Bali proves that the AlQ is still at least partially operational. Mr Bush doesnt want us to think about that now. his tastes have moved to the rich oil fields that Daddy left without a pet owner. He wants someone in Iraq who can break OPEC monopolies, and control international oil prices. He is pushing through his homeland bil to screw citizens off their rights, and people are going to stand by, as it would be unpatriotic to do otherwise.

He is painting Saddam as enemy No1 now, because he hasnt a clue where OBL (still your real enemy) is.

One side effect of all this, of course, is that noone notices that all your pensions have gone down the toilet through the stock collapses, and that the face of corporate america stinks with the sores of endemic corruption.... The new Tsar (forgot his name) put in charge of fighting this is himself under investigation from his days on banking boards. But:alien: hey, we are winning the war on terrorism by blasting an effictively WW][ army to smithereens :alien:

Hell today Mr Chainey went on air to say that the Iraq's who launched a sam against US fighters in the no fly zone today had effectively breached the UN resolutions and could prompt a strike anyway, just not this time..... Bollocks. As every other country on the UN security council pointed out (except the UK, of course), the NO fly zone was established at the end of the gulf war, but the is NO PROVISION FOR US OR UK PLANES TO PATROL IT!.... This means, in effect that the Iraqis have every right to attack 'hostiles', I would suppose you cant blame them as its only 2 months since the last '100 bomber raid' by the US/UK on iraq in the northern zone....

RedRed:( :mad: :(

RedRed
19th November 2002, 14:06
why does it piss off OBL so much that US troops where in the Muslim Holy Land that he felt compelled to kill 3,000 people in NYC?

The reason that it pissed him off so, GT is that it expressly says in the koran that you dont let infadels (IE non muslims) live in Saudi. Period.

Even the average 'saudi in the street', isnt to enamoured with the idea, aparently....

RedRed

cjolley
19th November 2002, 14:32
Originally posted by RedRed
..it expressly says in the koran that you dont let infadels (IE non muslims) live in Saudi....
RedRed

I thought the English created Saudi Arabia.
chuck

thop
19th November 2002, 14:38
what strikes me as odd is that the FBI claims to have hard evidence (which of course can't be disclosed because of national security ...) that OBL is responsible for 9/11 yet they aren't after him for that, but only for attacks outside the US when you check http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

also 15 (see below though) of the 19 terrorists were from saudi arabia, not a single one from afghanistan or iraq, and yet you don't see GWB invading saudi arabia or even saying sth. that goes in that direction out loud. big conflict of interests here for the bush familiy. seems like oil/money is more important for them at this point.

on a related note: at least 6 of the supposed terrorists are still alive.

enter the hpar_ zone ;)

Joel
19th November 2002, 15:47
GT is that it expressly says in the koran that you dont let infadels (IE non muslims) live in Saudi.

So is this or is this not about religion? I thought Islam was a peaceful regilion.


In retrospect George Sr did screw up after what everything happend in the past ten years, but at the time he fulfilled what the UN mandaded to happen in Kuwait. There wasn't anything about overthrowning the goverment in Iraq in 1991. We had the best chance to but we didnt do it.

Of course you know what they always say. Hind sight is always 20/20. I'm sure if Bush Senior could have known then what we know today then he would have said to hell with the UN mandates and have taken care of the problem then and we wouldn't be worrying about it today. We were in the position too. What a wonderful institution that UN is.

And RedRed you are so full of it. It is amazing the chip you have on your shoulder and how it seems to get bigger everyday. Of course criticism of how someone is handling something usually comes pretty quickly from those who don't have a clue themselves of how to handle something.


and yet you don't see GWB invading saudi arabia or even saying sth. that goes in that direction out loud. big conflict of interests here for the bush familiy. seems like oil/money is more important for them at this point.

Of course another clueless statement from someone who seems to know nothing about the intricacies of foreign policy.

Joel

thop
19th November 2002, 17:17
enlighten me then please :)

efty
19th November 2002, 17:26
Of course another clueless statement from someone who seems to know nothing about the intricacies of foreign policy.

And you do? :rolleyes:

Saddam is a wacko but if he was a US allied wacko Bush would not have included him in the Axis of Evil. I don't care if the US decides to overthrow Sadam or any other idiot out there, even though I disagree with war on principle. What annoys me most is the hypocrisy of the American government trying to project an image of a savior, a dark angel.(maybe I am taking this too far, just making a point)

I know if I was an American and in charge of the nation I would do whatever it takes to ensure the longevity and supremacy of my country. This is what Bush it doing, even though I disagree with his methods.

RedRed
19th November 2002, 17:40
Joel -

I've got no chip on my shoulder. As to the intracies of a foreign policy, its the ebb and flow of american foreign policy we are talking about!

Saddam was encouraged for YEARS by the US.

OBL (in his days as Mujahadeen) was supported for years by the CIA against the Russians.


Pres Bush is smokescreening the american public. Period. His homeland bill is one way. He is systematically removing one arm of the structure of your country - your judicary. That could affect YOUR rights.

He has driven your country into the deepest of recessions

he has seriously damaged the credibility of the financial institutions of corporate america - damageing YOUR pension and possibly YOUR ability to work. He has not acted effectively to 'mind the farm', puting one of the biggest pyrannahs in charge of cleaning out the shop.

he is about to launch a war on Iraq, thereby capturing potentially one of the biggest oil producers in the world, for american intrests and destroying OPEC in the process.

He has consistantly played OBL and AlQ as enemy No 1, now that he cant blow any more of it up, he wants people to forget about it and focus on a target he can hit.

He has no
intricacies of foreign policy.
!!!
He believes that the best way is with the smart bomb and the stealth fighter

FOrmally your presidents worked along the lines of 'speak softly but carry a big stick'. Currently this administration could be described as 'run around bashing everyone who doesnt agree with us, and shout loudly while doing it'

GB Senior didnt go into Iraq proper for good reason - though I would bet it galled him. The gulf war had the BACKING of every state in the area - and most external to it - including the USSR & China. Noone wanted to see Kewaiti oil taken from the market - they were consistantly overproduing for years. Everyone supported the coalition. While physically the US was by far the dominant partner, politically everyone was on the same side. Invading Iraq would have diametrically changed that - it could well do that today. HE MADE THE RIGHT MOVE.



I thought Islam was a peaceful regilion.
broadly it is! Doesnt our old testament tell us to stone adultourers, and to chop the hands of those who masterbate? Would you call christianity a peaceful religion? Some people take from the book of their faith what they want. OBL pcked one bit. You have to remember that when the last part of the Koran were being written, medina was being attacked as was much of the rest of the then fledgeling muslim world. Of course its going to tell you drive out the infadel. Just as the bible demands the protections of Jerusalem, which enabled Europe to start 5 crusades to the holy lands. Other parts order the faithful to treat the unbeliever with all possible respect.....

RedRed

RedRed
19th November 2002, 17:45
doh! how did that happen!
RedRed
(edit:dual post!)

GT98
19th November 2002, 17:52
Basically I think everyone here is taking what they see and boiling down to what ever suits their needs. I personally have a a big problem with people saying all the time that going into Iraq is Just about the oil where it isn't...to a point. Its not like we are going to into Iraq, then turn the keys over to Exxon so they can getting all the cheap oil they can out of Iraq. The country does have/had Chemical and biological weapons and has used them before and has been playing games with the UN inspectors for the past couple years..been shooting at US and British airplanes since the end of the Gulf War and broke nearly every UN resolution that was enacted against it? Goes to show how effective and how much teeth the UN has when it boils down to the rubber meeting the road :rolleyes:

Thop...your comments about none of the terrorists coming from either Afghanstain or Iraqi...what are you trying to get at? Thats almost as bad as blaming Austria for Hitler, even though the German people where his followers and put him into power :rolleyes:....like I said before the "war" on Terrorism isnt the same as other conflicts in 200 years and can't be boiled down into something black or white. Theres 16 grades of Grey in there :D.

KvHagedorn
19th November 2002, 17:58
He has driven your country into the deepest of recessions

I suggest you delete this sentence, Red.. to suggest it completely discredits anything else you might want to say. The market was driven to an unsustainable peak which crumbled when? In 2000. Guess who was still president then? :p

Presidents have very little to do with the natural rise and fall of the economy. The only thing government can really do is make enough money available without causing inflation. There was a tax cut and the fed lowered interest rates to their lowest point in 40 years. What more would YOU have done?

RedRed
19th November 2002, 18:03
KV
Knocked that tax cut on the head - which cost the us more to administer than gave the population.... and spent it on something worthwile... reducing the national debt, if there was a surplus, if nothing else.... investing in infrastructure if the Republicans are so against social spending.... I wont make a list - its 2AM here - I am off to bed....
RedRed

KvHagedorn
19th November 2002, 18:14
That's neither here nor there.. it had nothing to do with the recession.

KvHagedorn
19th November 2002, 18:15
Here's some more fun for you Brits..

http://english.pravda.ru/columnists/2002/11/19/39654.html

thop
19th November 2002, 18:16
on Terrorism isnt the same as other conflicts in 200 years and can't be boiled down into something black or white. Theres 16 grades of Grey in there
thats exactly the point! try to tell GWB about it though. either your with us or you're against us. he could've atleast said: or you're a little against us or a little with us, that makes already 4 shades (grades?) ;)

with the saudi arabia thing i was just saying that most of the terrorists came from saudi arabia, were funded by them and still are. and i don't see the US doing anything about it on their crusade against terrorism. not very consequent, makes you question a few things. luckily those questions will soon be answered by joel :)

anyway that UN inspectors thing is just a show for the press and the man on the street. if that was their primary interest clinton wouldn't have pulled them out in 1998. GWB just waits till saddam slips, so he can find a reason for an attack.

GT98
19th November 2002, 18:16
Originally posted by KvHagedorn


I suggest you delete this sentence, Red.. to suggest it completely discredits anything else you might want to say. The market was driven to an unsustainable peak which crumbled when? In 2000. Guess who was still president then? :p



Hmm I was about to say the same thing...same thing that goes with the Corprate America and our Lovely CEOs ****ing up...that happened all in the late 90's :rolleyes:

Oh in reguards to Homeland bill...well at least the guy thats in charge of it was smart enough to notice that setting up a domistic Spy Agency like the Brits MI5 would have volitated the US Consitiution....at least they still respect that...for now.

Joel
19th November 2002, 18:28
with the saudi arabia thing i was just saying that most of the terrorists came from saudi arabia, were funded by them and still are. and i don't see the US doing anything about it on their crusade against terrorism. not very consequent, makes you question a few things. luckily those questions will soon be answered by joel


he is about to launch a war on Iraq, thereby capturing potentially one of the biggest oil producers in the world, for american intrests and destroying OPEC in the process.

What better way to hurt them than in the back pocket. Sounds like a winner to me. Just because you haven't heard Bush say anything publicly about Saudi doesn't mean that they are not on the agenda. We know they are back stabbers just like the rest of them over there. One step at a time, baby, one step at a time.

Joel

ZokesPro
19th November 2002, 19:59
Originally posted by Joel

We know they are back stabbers just like the rest of them over there. One step at a time, baby, one step at a time.

Joel
Isn't that a little harsh?

Wombat
20th November 2002, 01:05
Not really. You see, they're Muslims, so to Joel, they're automatically bad guys.

The PIT
20th November 2002, 02:26
Sheik: 'It's OK to kill non-Muslims.
Now to me thats a good case for deportation. We don't want to waste money keeping him in Jail so chuck him a jet and parchute him into a country like Iraq or Iran.
Unfortunatley some Muslims will listen to him (Not all Wombat). We shouldn't harbour such People.

RichL
20th November 2002, 02:28
I must also disagree that GWB was responsible for the current economic crisis.
The stock market had been bullish for a long time, fuelled by technology stocks and the dotcom boom. When the bubble burst it hit a large number of ordinary people as well because of the recent trends for employees to have stock options and pension funds investing in the stock market.
You cant really blame the government for the likes of Enron or Worldcom falsifying their accounts, although I suppose if Doc Mordid had thought about it he'd proclaim it as an Al-Qaeda plot ;)

Otherwise I tend to agree with much of RedReds statement.

BTW -

FOrmally your presidents worked along the lines of 'speak softly but carry a big stick'. Currently this administration could be described as 'run around bashing everyone who doesnt agree with us, and shout loudly while doing it'

Dont forget that Dubya is from Texas, the same state that gave the world Kyle of [H]ardOCP :D

RichL
20th November 2002, 02:33
Originally posted by The PIT
Sheik: 'It's OK to kill non-Muslims.
Now to me thats a good case for deportation. We don't want to waste money keeping him in Jail so chuck him a jet and parchute him into a country like Iraq or Iran.
Unfortunatley some Muslims will listen to him (Not all Wombat). We shouldn't harbour such People.

I've thought about this several times, and maybe I've been reading too many spy novels, but one thing occurs to me :

If we keep the scumbag here where he can raise trouble amongst impressionable, anti-West muslims, when the time comes the likes of MI5 and Special Branch will know exactly who to arrest and take away for a nice chat over a red hot poker and a rubber hosepipe, and clean out the militant muslims in one fell swoop.

If we deport him to some other country, its going to be harder to keep tabs on him and his supporters.

I think its a case of it being better the devil you know.

(Edit : missed out a 'Militant' which made this post rather racist :( )

The PIT
20th November 2002, 02:35
Originally posted by RichL


I must've dozed off when this happened. When and where was this again?

It certainly happened in places like Bradford and I think Halifax. I no longer have the press releases though.
Don't forget the white free zones in Oldam which still are not being addressed. These basis of these started forming in the early eighties but no politican dared address the issue becuase it would have politcal sucide. I can remember a late night program before one of the general elections where people from the area asked repeatly the panel for help. The politicans wouldn't answer dodging the questions their eyes going from side to side as they spoke.

The PIT
20th November 2002, 02:40
Originally posted by RichL


I've thought about this several times, and maybe I've been reading too many spy novels, but one thing occurs to me :

If we keep the scumbag here where he can raise trouble amongst impressionable, anti-West muslims, when the time comes the likes of MI5 and Special Branch will know exactly who to arrest and take away for a nice chat over a red hot poker and a rubber hosepipe, and clean out the muslims in one fell swoop.

If we deport him to some other country, its going to be harder to keep tabs on him and his supporters.

I think its a case of it being better the devil you know.

Now cleaning them out statement will upset Wombat. I presume you mean the evil racist ones and the Brain washed ones. However the pc crowd would make this very hard to achieve and it would be much easier just to remove one of them. Remember the pc crowd is making a come back.

The PIT
20th November 2002, 02:51
Anyone wondering about the state of race relations in this country ought to read this. Download the pdf.

http://www.bradford.gov.uk/homeframe.asp?windowtitle=Bradford_Race_Review&topframe=&sideframe=&mainframe=http://www.bradford2020.com/pride

The report is basically being ignored and squashed by the pc crowd. They can't disown it as author is non white so by there own beliefs they have think it's correct. However it critises both sides which they cannot belive is correct so basically they chose the action of noaction.

RichL
20th November 2002, 03:13
Originally posted by The PIT


Now cleaning them out statement will upset Wombat. I presume you mean the evil racist ones and the Brain washed ones. However the pc crowd would make this very hard to achieve and it would be much easier just to remove one of them. Remember the pc crowd is making a come back.

Yeah, sorry, I realised I'd wrote 'Muslims' instead of 'Militants' about 30 seconds after posting. Unfortunately you got the quote before I finsihed editing the original.

GNEP
20th November 2002, 03:18
Gosh this thread has moved along at a fair old rate since I was last active in it...

So I will address a few points:

1) The PIT: The objections we were having was someone here (Doc M I think) mentioned the race riots in the UK (which happened in May 2001) in relation to the war on terrorism - trying to say that these riots had something to do with Sept 11th (2001!) and were in support of OBL. My reation is as it was earlier in the thread - these problems here are not related in any grand sense to the whole "crusade against terrorism" stuff (I suspect that that is the word some around here would like to use...)

2) Sheik Abu Hamza - he is known about here, and is being kept a close eye on by security forces. Also, as far as I know he is viewed by all the muslims that I know personally much as the Real IRA are viewed by the Catholics I know.

3) Oil, OPEC, and Saudi - Some facts. Saudi controls about 25% of the world's oil reserves. Over the last 5 years or so (this is as far back as my DETAILED knowledge of the oil industry goes), production quotas within OPEC have been basically smoothed out by Saudi. The big dip in oil prices in 1998 was essentially Saudi Arabia getting pissed off with other OPEC/NOPEC countries over-producing, and so ramping up volumes to bring down the price and squeeze out marginal production. Well, that and a certain economic crisis in the Far East reducing demand. At the moment, OPEC is fairly strong and maintains prices within their designated band. Interestingly (as an aside) the crude market is one of the only markets that cannot be modelled to any degree of accuracy at all - essentially because on top of the supply/demand economics you have the behaviour of a very small number of people (the OPEC oil ministers) to model. And as every good Asimov reader knows, psycohistory can't cope with that :)

Where was I?

Oh yes. Oil and the US. As far as my limited knowledge can tell me about the drivers of Bush and Republican policy, they don't really want to bust OPEC in any way at all. Not even to threaten it. Firstly, in recent years (as mentioned) there has been a stabilising influence through OPEC, and secondly, any reduction of the oil price that would occur if Saudi (for eg) ramped up production again would really really hurt Big Oil (Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron Texaco, TFE etc) and hurt the oilfied services companies even more. Higher cost/lower political risk fields like the north sea, deepwater gulf of mexico and so on would not be viable for continued investment. Isn't the current US vice president a former Halliburton boss? (That last bit was more fuel-for-the-discussion-fire than a serious comment :))

Gnep

The PIT
20th November 2002, 03:41
GNEP they were riots and attacks in response to the War on terrorism. Most of these didn't make headline news but were found on the teletext under local news or hidden deap within local news papers. These riots were not on the same scale as the Bradford riots for example but are still unexcusable.
As for the Shiek Abu ****ole as I stated "some will listen". I did not say all. Since the person clearly doesn't want to live under the laws and traditions of this country why can't we help him on his way.
Now whether moving away from our depandance on oil would improve things or not is also another matter.

GNEP
20th November 2002, 03:51
Points taken TP - yes there were small demostrations in favour. But actually AFAIR in London attacks against mosques and innocent muslims by "stupid people" were more frequent folloing Sept 11th.

Re: oil - what will be the interesting one to watch is the natural gas market - Saudi is developing its large reserves of gas at the moment, but this time with the help of western oil companies - so the links are only getting closer. The energy market has been "decarbonising" from coal to oil to gas over the last century and this trend will continue.

Gnep

thop
20th November 2002, 03:56
We also have one of the likes of Sheik, Metin Kaplan, he is called the Kalif of Cologne.

Kaplan's associates are extremist, militant and totally uninterested in integration. The radical Islamist had stirred up hatred against Jews, declared a "holy war" against Turkey and grounded his own state with taxes and a secret police.

Anyway he currently sits in jail and turkey wants to have him back, and we all know what awaits him there.

RedRed
20th November 2002, 04:29
Mr Gnep-
Got any good tips then? :D
I think that the oil issue still stands tough. The US has no significant voice in the affairs of OPEC. Putting a puppet in Bagdad would give them that lever. Sure the Saudis are the biggest, however, if the Iraq situation were stabelised, then Iraq would also be a significant player in the council. Added to that that your exxons/Shells etc of this world would probably be the organisations put in place to exploit the reserves by any american administration, we have another reason why these organisations (and their Republican directors) would be keen on war.



Everyone else
I widthdraw the comment about GWB causing the decline in the US market - I wont remove it as to edit a post will break up the thread. I do think he could be doing more to soften the decline though....


Sounding a bit Hpar_ ish....

RedRed

The PIT
20th November 2002, 04:35
Originally posted by GNEP
Points taken TP - yes there were small demostrations in favour. But actually AFAIR in London attacks against mosques and innocent muslims by "stupid people" were more frequent folloing Sept 11th.

Re: oil - what will be the interesting one to watch is the natural gas market - Saudi is developing its large reserves of gas at the moment, but this time with the help of western oil companies - so the links are only getting closer. The energy market has been "decarbonising" from coal to oil to gas over the last century and this trend will continue.

Gnep
The Demonstrations were attacks on innocent non Muslim people and these were as just as bad as the attacks on Mosques and innocent Muslims. If they attack someone becuase they're white or precieved non Muslim they're no better than a national front members that they hate. In fact they've got a lot in common.

Joel
20th November 2002, 04:43
Now cleaning them out statement will upset Wombat.

Yeah you better be careful or you just might be labeled a racist.


The report is basically being ignored and squashed by the pc crowd. They can't disown it as author is non white so by there own beliefs they have think it's correct. However it critises both sides which they cannot belive is correct so basically they chose the action of noaction.

Yeah we have simular reports here even in the US showing that things like affirmative action, the slave reparations movement and alot of what the PC crowd has done over the years in the name of equality has actually caused more harm than good, but just like over there it is down played big time by the PC crowd. And even if a non white does write it they are immediatly accused of being a sell out and not caring about their own.

Joel

Joel
20th November 2002, 04:47
I do think he could be doing more to soften the decline though....

He will be able to now that the republicians control both the House and the Senate.

Joel

The PIT
20th November 2002, 04:49
By ignoring it however will make things more and more unstable in the uk. Can't comment for other countries. The Government intends to allow Muslim only schools which again will mainly reduce contact with other races and religions. No doubt extremists will use these schools as a way of spreading there poison.

GNEP
20th November 2002, 05:03
Just a small addition to underline the importance of Saudi Arabia in all of this:

OPEC proven oil reserves:

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Venezuela - all at or around the 100 bln bbls mark.

Saudi Arabia: over 260 bln bbls.

Total world proven reserves: just over 1000 bln bbls.

IE Opec has about 79% of the total world oil; Saudi 25% or so.

With nat gas it's a whole different story: OPEC only has about 50% (y/e 2001) with Qatar and Iran the big players this time around. Outside of OPEC, Russia and Eastern Europe are huge players for natural gas.

Gnep

Novdid
20th November 2002, 05:09
You forgot me, I'm a giant producer of natural gas!!!:p

Sorry for spamming, couldn't help myself...

GNEP
20th November 2002, 05:23
:D

thop
21st November 2002, 04:25
hey we cant let this thread die now can we :D

GNEP
21st November 2002, 04:41
It wasn't even acrimoneous (sp?) enough to get the death-by-a-bad-joke treatment! :)