• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

100% Proof that Russia is supporting terrorisim!!!

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vader said:
Again, the fact that you go a long way to call America a terrorist state, especially calling the actions of the coalition forces in Iraq "terrorism" even though those forces entered during a time of WAR, which means that THEY [coalition forces], BY DEFINITION, ARE NOT PRACTICING TERRORISM, BUT ARE OCCUPYING A COUNTY DURING THE PROCCESS OF AN ARMED CONFLICT, is absoulute foolishness. The fact that you think this is a terrorist action tells me you're a terrorist or at best a terrorist supporter.

I realize you and your islamic buddies are mad at the coaltion, because the presence of coalition forces in Iraq keeps Iran's terrorist asses from invading and implementing their criminal facist islamic nazism.

As to my mentality, I must confess that I am passionate about this subject so naturally, like any other patriot, I get upset when the supporters of islamic theocracy and terrorism have the sheer, unmittigated gaul to call my homeland a "terrorist" country.

I am sorry to have to tell you this, Mustafa, but it's perfectly clear that you are a supporter of islamic fundemantilism; or as it's better known "TERRORISM."

Could you be so kind do give your defenition of terrorism?
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Vader said:
Dave,

1.) What happened in 1944 is IRRELEVENT. Had we known what the weapon was capable of it would not have been used. Also, Japan started that war and then got their ass handed to them. If you don't like it TOUGH ****.

2. The coalition forces DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN FALUJAH. The fact that you believe this utter nonsense is proof that you're brainwashed. He's a clue: STOP WATCHING AL JAZEERA!

3. The U.S. does not support dictatorships. During the course of world events, the U.S. has put people into power WHO BECAME DICTATORS.

4. The U.S. DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ. If you believe this, you're an imbecile.

As regards 1944 america knew full well the effect the bomb would have as they tested smaller bombs a number of times. Did you read the link i provided about the chemical weapons? It wasnt from Al Jazzera [sadly I dont yet speak any arabic so i dont watch it] do you mean to say the writer made up the story about the chemical weapons? If so i imagine he would have a small army of republican lawyers on his tail.

As regards Carlos Castillo Armas
and General Pinochet the US knew full well that these people would set up a militarty junta. These people did not "become dictators" they where dictators as soon as they came to power through illegitimate means. If there where no chemical weapons used in iraq why is it all over the press [see link provided in previous post] are all these people lying?
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Vader said:
Again, the fact that you go a long way to call America a terrorist state, especially calling the actions of the coalition forces in Iraq "terrorism" even though those forces entered during a time of WAR, which means that THEY [coalition forces], BY DEFINITION, ARE NOT PRACTICING TERRORISM, BUT ARE OCCUPYING A COUNTY DURING THE PROCCESS OF AN ARMED CONFLICT, is absoulute foolishness. The fact that you think this is a terrorist action tells me you're a terrorist or at best a terrorist supporter.

I realize you and your islamic buddies are mad at the coaltion, because the presence of coalition forces in Iraq keeps Iran's terrorist asses from invading and implementing their criminal facist islamic nazism.

As to my mentality, I must confess that I am passionate about this subject so naturally, like any other patriot, I get upset when the supporters of islamic theocracy and terrorism have the sheer, unmittigated gaul to call my homeland a "terrorist" country.

I am sorry to have to tell you this, Mustafa, but it's perfectly clear that you are a supporter of islamic fundemantilism; or as it's better known "TERRORISM."


America is not a terrorist nation, but your foreign policy can be extremely hypocritical.

Remember the millitary juntas in Argentina and Brazil, General Pinochet in Chile. America never put any pressure on those regimes, even though they were authoritarian.

I suppose that the many Chileans that dissapeared under Pinochet's regime, were worth the price to make sure that Chile didn't become communist?

I suppose that the support of Saddam Hussein, during the 80's worth it because he was killing those nasty Iranians. And I suppose the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people, was worth it, because of strategic interests.

Maybe supporting those muhjadeen fighters in Afghanistan was worth it. They defeated the Soviet Union didn't they? Who cares if those rebels are crazy Muslim fundementalists? Win at all costs right?

Were was American democracy during the 1970's and 80's. Were was the American public and politicians interest in the human rights abuses by the dictators of S. America.

Where was the neo-cons's sense of justice, when Saddam was executing his political rivals? Where was the belief in democracy then?

America foreign policy has turned a blind eye to any dictorship, or theocracy that complies with American stragtegic interests. As long as the country is not communist, and is willing to do business, everything is hunky dorey. Who cares about human rights, only left wing nuts that support Amnesty International believe in human rights, why should the rights of the individual interfere with U.S national interests eh?:ranton:
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yahoo knows something US and UN intelligence doesn't?

Hmm. The bullshit is strong with this one.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As regards 1944 america knew full well the effect the bomb

Yes, we did. And the bombs were used anyway. And they were used not serendipitously, but after careful consideration of the tradeoff between Japanese lives lost from the bombs versus American lives lost if we had to invade the Japanese homeland (which it was felt that we would have to do to end the war). After the first bomb was dropped, an ultimatum was given to the Japanese, warning that a second bomb would be dropped if they did not surrender. They did not. So the second bomb was dropped. They got the message and surrendered. The second bomb would have never been used had the Japanese not been as fanatical as they were at that point in time.

The point is: A lot of comments about this, that and the other from years ago are being thrown around here, most with at best only cursory examination of the history and facts surrounding the various events. From this wonderful vantage point called hindsight, especially with our tendency to revise history so that it fits our particular perceptions, which go right along with our selective memories.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Yes, we did. And the bombs were used anyway. And they were used not serendipitously, but after careful consideration of the tradeoff between Japanese lives lost from the bombs versus American lives lost if we had to invade the Japanese homeland (which it was felt that we would have to do to end the war). After the first bomb was dropped, an ultimatum was given to the Japanese, warning that a second bomb would be dropped if they did not surrender. They did not. So the second bomb was dropped. They got the message and surrendered. The second bomb would have never been used had the Japanese not been as fanatical as they were at that point in time.

The point is: A lot of comments about this, that and the other from years ago are being thrown around here, most with at best only cursory examination of the history and facts surrounding the various events. From this wonderful vantage point called hindsight, especially with our tendency to revise history so that it fits our particular perceptions, which go right along with our selective memories.

Strangely enough, if anyone remembers back to my definition of terrorism, the dropping of the bombs is a perfect example of a terrorist act. Civilians should never be targeted. Never.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
kelzie said:
Strangely enough, if anyone remembers back to my definition of terrorism, the dropping of the bombs is a perfect example of a terrorist act. Civilians should never be targeted. Never.

Totally agree. But it has happened in the past and it will no doubt happen again in the future.

Even as a military tactic, the results of bombing largely civilian areas often backfires. In the past, in the conflicts between nation-states, it was all too common for the belligerents to attack areas with high civilian populations. In some cases in modern history, like the Nazi fire bombings of London (merely stiffened resolve and gave Brits the chance to rebuild factories), the allies bombing of Dresden (questionable), the nukes used against Japan (did induce Japanese surrender), Nazi bombardment of Russian cities (merely stiffened resolve), US 'Christmas bombings' in North Vietnam (N. Vietnamese returned to peace conference and quickly agreed to terms), there was an effort to convince the populace of the futility of their cause in hopes that there would pressure from the populace to end the war. Such efforts often fail and result in increased resolve from those being subjected to such.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Totally agree. But it has happened in the past and it will no doubt happen again in the future.

Even as a military tactic, the results of bombing largely civilian areas often backfires. In the past, in the conflicts between nation-states, it was all too common for the belligerents to attack areas with high civilian populations. In some cases in modern history, like the Nazi fire bombings of London (merely stiffened resolve and gave Brits the chance to rebuild factories), the allies bombing of Dresden (questionable), the nukes used against Japan (did induce Japanese surrender), Nazi bombardment of Russian cities (merely stiffened resolve), US 'Christmas bombings' in North Vietnam (N. Vietnamese returned to peace conference and quickly agreed to terms), there was an effort to convince the populace of the futility of their cause in hopes that there would pressure from the populace to end the war. Such efforts often fail and result in increased resolve from those being subjected to such.


Not to mention it is completely against modern war ethics. Jus in bello and all that.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
kelzie said:
modern war ethics

An oxymoron?

Did you read Condi Rice's article in yesterday's WP? Link to it and a couple of my thoughts on it are here. Would be interested in your impressions...
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Red_Dave said:
As regards 1944 america knew full well the effect the bomb would have as they tested smaller bombs a number of times. Did you read the link i provided about the chemical weapons? It wasnt from Al Jazzera [sadly I dont yet speak any arabic so i dont watch it] do you mean to say the writer made up the story about the chemical weapons? If so i imagine he would have a small army of republican lawyers on his tail.

As regards Carlos Castillo Armas
and General Pinochet the US knew full well that these people would set up a militarty junta. These people did not "become dictators" they where dictators as soon as they came to power through illegitimate means. If there where no chemical weapons used in iraq why is it all over the press [see link provided in previous post] are all these people lying?


Stop living in the past, Dave. WWII is NOT an accurate gauge with which to judge terrorism. You are digging up excuses to provid cover for people like Russia that have no problem selling missiles to terrorists.

As to the alleged "PRESS" stating the use of chemical weapons in Iraq; I can tell that you are an avid Al Jezerra viewer. Al Jazerra is a STATE OWNED ARAB PROPAGANDA SPREADING MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE. I suggest you realize that and come to terms with the fact that Al Jazeera is terrorist TV.

Throughout the history of this country we have never sold arms capable of carrying a nuclear payload to a terrorist country. Russia has done exactly that.

You really need to stop supporting terrorism and stop using WWII as an example of the only country to ever have used a nuke. This is a misnomer anyway because the bombs used in WWII are not nearly as powerful as those being constructed by Iran.

Shame on you.
 
Last edited:

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Herophant said:
Could you be so kind do give your defenition of terrorism?

ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

war
n.
    1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations or states.
By the definitions above, the actions of the coaltion ARE NOT TERRORISM.
As such, people like Mustafa, a known terrorist, are WRONG.
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
oldreliable67 said:
Totally agree. But it has happened in the past and it will no doubt happen again in the future.

Even as a military tactic, the results of bombing largely civilian areas often backfires. In the past, in the conflicts between nation-states, it was all too common for the belligerents to attack areas with high civilian populations. In some cases in modern history, like the Nazi fire bombings of London (merely stiffened resolve and gave Brits the chance to rebuild factories), the allies bombing of Dresden (questionable), the nukes used against Japan (did induce Japanese surrender), Nazi bombardment of Russian cities (merely stiffened resolve), US 'Christmas bombings' in North Vietnam (N. Vietnamese returned to peace conference and quickly agreed to terms), there was an effort to convince the populace of the futility of their cause in hopes that there would pressure from the populace to end the war. Such efforts often fail and result in increased resolve from those being subjected to such.

Kelsie, you are wrong, dropping bombs on another nation during a time of war, IS NOT TERRORISM. It is an act of warfare.

There is a difference between terrorism and war and you need to understand that difference.

war
  1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states,
ter·ror·ism n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.Warfare is an AUTHORIZED ACTION, which ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES IT FROM BEING TERRORISM.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Vader said:
Kelsie, you are wrong, dropping bombs on another nation during a time of war, IS NOT TERRORISM. It is an act of warfare.

There is a difference between terrorism and war and you need to understand that difference.

war
  1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states,
ter·ror·ism n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.Warfare is an AUTHORIZED ACTION, which ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES IT FROM BEING TERRORISM.

My defintion is much better. Dictionaries are good for some words. Not ones as broad as terrorism. Here you go:

The principle purpose of terrorism is not the actual destruction produced but its dramatic and psychological effects on populations and governments. Brian Jenkins has said that "terrorism is theatre." The objectives of terrorism are to frighten target audiences through the use of dramatic and shocking acts, which include bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and taking of hostages and hijacking. Although guerrilla groups sometimes employ such tactics, terrorism is not the same is guerrilla warfare. Terrorist acts are not typically directed toward enemy combatants; their targets are civilians, government workers, or noncombatant military personnel. Terrorism involves the systematic use of violence for political ends, an ongoing series of acts intended to produce fear that will change attitudes and behavior toward governments and their policies.

Much better definition, don't you think? No weird loop holes like "unlawful".

Targeting a civilian population with the sole purpose of frightening them into forcing the government to change a position is terrorism. No matter what way you twist it. I think the question we should be asking is if terrorism is sometimes justified.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Vader said:
Dave,

1.) America IS NOT a terrorist state. You've obviously never served your country and therefore your opinion is skewed.
2.) When was the last time you saw an American strap a bomb to a 10 year-old child and send them into a crowded place to kill a mass of people?

I think you need to wake up. While we've maid our mistakes, we are not a terrorist nation. We do not live in some bull***** theocracy run by psychotic islamic fundementalist idiots who aren't even following true Islam.

It is a grave insult to call my country a "terrorist country" and I would appriciate it greatly if you would think before you type.


I recall that an American used a truck full of explosive material to blow up a federal building... That an American detonated a explosive at the Olympics in Atlanta. If you think being American means you're above acting like a psycho or terrorist, you've got some growing up to do.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vader said:
ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

war
n.
    1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations or states.
By the definitions above, the actions of the coaltion ARE NOT TERRORISM.
As such, people like Mustafa, a known terrorist, are WRONG.

Haha by your definition of terrorism the US independence war was not a war but violence committed by private individuals or organized groups against the lawful government of the British. There were no American nation; the states now named USA were British territories: Hence British laws were in effect. Therefore American freedom fighters were terrorists as they were illegal and used violence to deter the lawful British rule. Example the destruction of property by the Boston Tea Party terrorists- by your definition.

Also how can there be a war on terrorism when the terrorists don’t have any state?

I’m starting to think you are actually an anti war individual impersonating as a jingoist, your just making it to easy. I bet your goal is to make the real war supporters look dumb. Funny, but kind of a low blow.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Vader said:
Stop living in the past, Dave. WWII is NOT an accurate gauge with which to judge terrorism. You are digging up excuses to provid cover for people like Russia that have no problem selling missiles to terrorists.

As to the alleged "PRESS" stating the use of chemical weapons in Iraq; I can tell that you are an avid Al Jezerra viewer. Al Jazerra is a STATE OWNED ARAB PROPAGANDA SPREADING MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE. I suggest you realize that and come to terms with the fact that Al Jazeera is terrorist TV.

Throughout the history of this country we have never sold arms capable of carrying a nuclear payload to a terrorist country. Russia has done exactly that.

You really need to stop supporting terrorism and stop using WWII as an example of the only country to ever have used a nuke. This is a misnomer anyway because the bombs used in WWII are not nearly as powerful as those being constructed by Iran.

Shame on you.

No it wasnt the al jazerra it was the guaridan newpaper . Read the link you silly person. Always amazes me how countrys with oil are the best at produceing wmds [not to mention hideing them and not useing them when we invade] sheer genius. Did u look up those u.s suporrted terroists that i mentioned? you may not have sold nukes but you have one hell of alot of suporrt to pinochet before and after the coup.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Kelzie said:
That's fine. My pedantics trumps your pedantics. :mrgreen: I dislike dictionary definitions for something as complex as terrorism. Here's what my International Affairs textbook says:



A coup is not intended to produce fear. A coup is done with a specific purpose, which is to overthrow the government. Citizens are rarely targeted, because the goal is not to produce fear, it is to change who is in power. If civilians are indeed killed, it is not because they want to frighten the rest and create a specific attitude in the population. I stand by my belief that a coup is not terrorism.

I disagree with the definition a little as its defing what terroists are by what many of them do, it seams to be useing the republican new-speak definition rather than the traditional one, though maybe the traditional definition is different on your side of the atlantic. Even if one follows that definition the coups could be counted as terroism because civilisations died as the junta's where being established and junta are obviously not legitimate governments.Plus the artocities commited over the juntas took power could be called "state terroism" which is ironically a word thrown around alot by neo-cons
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vader u are the good guys i see, and the rest of us is the bad guys how do
u make that out,i dont think so,u want to rule the planet whitch u will never
do.Just like the wars u have lost. Go back to sleep.

mikeey
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Red_Dave said:
I disagree with the definition a little as its defing what terroists are by what many of them do, it seams to be useing the republican new-speak definition rather than the traditional one, though maybe the traditional definition is different on your side of the atlantic. Even if one follows that definition the coups could be counted as terroism because civilisations died as the junta's where being established and junta are obviously not legitimate governments.Plus the artocities commited over the juntas took power could be called "state terroism" which is ironically a word thrown around alot by neo-cons

As to your first point, that it defines terrorist by what they do, how else would you define it? What they look like? Where they're from? Terroism is an action, terrorists are people that carry out that action.

And a coup specifically removes a government from power. Even if civilians are killed during the process, the point of the coup is not to cause terror. It has a different goal which makes it not a terrorist action. Which is not to say it's always justified, it's just not terrorist. Now, if the people wanting a change in government bombed the civilians in the hope that the civilians got so scared they'd kick their own government out, that would be terrorism.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I disagree with the definition a little as its defing what terroists are by what many of them do, it seams to be useing the republican new-speak definition rather than the traditional one, though maybe the traditional definition is different on your side of the atlantic. Even if one follows that definition the coups could be counted as terroism because civilisations died as the junta's where being established and junta are obviously not legitimate governments.Plus the artocities commited over the juntas took power could be called "state terroism" which is ironically a word thrown around alot by neo-cons
There may very well be a "republican new-speak" definition of terrorism, and it may more specific, but the definition of terrorism as an act inspiring terror is definitely not the "republican new-speak" definition, its an obviously acceptable definition (hence "terror"-ism, people from both sides of the Atlantic should learn the properties of -ism words, eh?).

Your definition is an attempt to discredit all war, which may or may not be justified, that's not the point. The point is that your definition has a political agenda, while Kelzie's does not.
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
scottyz said:
I recall that an American used a truck full of explosive material to blow up a federal building... That an American detonated a explosive at the Olympics in Atlanta. If you think being American means you're above acting like a psycho or terrorist, you've got some growing up to do.

So?

That's two Americans compared to the 20,000 arabs who have blown themselves up because some religious zealot told them too.
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kelzie said:
My defintion is much better. Dictionaries are good for some words. Not ones as broad as terrorism. Here you go:



Much better definition, don't you think? No weird loop holes like "unlawful".

Targeting a civilian population with the sole purpose of frightening them into forcing the government to change a position is terrorism. No matter what way you twist it. I think the question we should be asking is if terrorism is sometimes justified.


Kelsie,

Let us not forget that Japan started that war. I'll grant you that war is a terrible thing and that civilians should never be targeted; however, in the case of Japan you should read about the atrocities they commited in Manchuria. I think your sympathy for them would dwendle.

Also, after spending some of my formative years in Hawaii being discriminated against by japanese people who hate America, because we kicked their butts in WWII; I will never have an ounce of sympathy for them.

I am sorry for those who died and I hope that there is never a loss of life of that magnatude again; however, I do not believe that Japan deserves any sympathy. Japan started that war and Japan is responsible for the conflicts and battles of WWII.

Japan is a sore loser and that is the truth. :p

:2razz:
 

Chris

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think the bottom line is that Russia is just out to make a few bucks wherever it can. With rampant crime, corruption, economic stagnation, loss of foreign influence, the Chechen fiasco, etc people are willing to disregard ethics just to feed themselves and their families. The times they are not good.

I'm not condoning Russia's sale of weapons/expertise to rogue nations, all I'm saying is that as long as most of Russia is **** poor people will continue to sell to the highest bidder. If you want to change that the world should make a greater effort to help secure weapons and pull Russia out of it's economic slump.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Vader said:
Kelsie,

Let us not forget that Japan started that war. I'll grant you that war is a terrible thing and that civilians should never be targeted; however, in the case of Japan you should read about the atrocities they commited in Manchuria. I think your sympathy for them would dwendle.

Also, after spending some of my formative years in Hawaii being discriminated against by japanese people who hate America, because we kicked their butts in WWII; I will never have an ounce of sympathy for them.

I am sorry for those who died and I hope that there is never a loss of life of that magnatude again; however, I do not believe that Japan deserves any sympathy. Japan started that war and Japan is responsible for the conflicts and battles of WWII.

Japan is a sore loser and that is the truth. :p

:2razz:

checked out the article yet?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Vader said:
So?

That's two Americans compared to the 20,000 arabs who have blown themselves up because some religious zealot told them too.

20, 000? That's way too many. What's your source?
 
Top Bottom