• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

EU gives $143 MILLION to terrorists

Willoughby said:
has this happened?

You do not understand.

With every new “imagined” success that the terrorist have in so many different countries, they actually are creating enemies where before there were bystanders. Al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups separated because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity. Some fanatics will flock to the standard of terror, no matter what we do. But it’s far easier for Islamic societies to purge themselves of terrorists if the terrorists are on the losing end of the global struggle than if they’re allowed to become triumphant heroes to every jobless, unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond. The "Apocalyptic" terrorist always over reaches and destroys himself in the process of his mission.

9/11 placed Al-Queda in our sights. The London bombings further angered the West. The bombings in Madrid slapped the appeasing Spanish in the face. The Bali bombings made the Indonesian Government face their home grown and imported terrorists. The bombing in Jordan woke m any Muslims up that used to support Al-Queda. Their senseless slaughterings of fellow Muslims in Iraq proved to Iraqis (Sunni and Shi'ites alike) that they are truly just thugs hiding behind a religion.

Al-Queda is wrecked. Their network is destroyed and fractured. They no longer are an influence in Chad. They no longer hold any secrecy in Bosnia. Those that choose to obey their terror masters and travel to Iraq do so knowing that they march to their deaths. They no longer have any weight in Indonesia, thanks to the Bali bombings. In India, they are running for cover. In the Phillipines, they are little more than an annoyance.

For the human devils who planned the slaughters and carry out the attacks, these truly are suicide missions.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Our companies are free to do whatever they want. This is the freedom of enterprise and trades that allows the free world to flourish. Europe has companies who also do business with nations thyat are less than honorable. The "awakening" occurred a mere 4 years ago. What exactly are you expecting here?
Are you waiting for someone to flip a light switch? I think two nations from oppressive regimes and destroying a major terror organization (among innumerable smaller ones) is pretty good for just 4 years.

What many people around the globe fail to recognize is that our presence abroad benefits them too. Were America to pull out of every nation where we have allied ourselves to for free trade and commerce, many people in many different countries would feel it. It's not all just about American interests. For example: Were we to pull completely out of the Middle East and the Shi'ites and Sunni began destroying one another, the Persian theocracy were to spread as Khomeini wished it to before we stopped it, and the Saudi elite had to fend for their lives as the Saudi subjects rioted in the streets, how exactly would Europe and Asia deal with the loss of the oil stabilities that America provides? Nothing is as simple as blaming America for all that is wrong.

First I just abit trouble with american companies having freedom of enterprise there it is no freedom. Because you should only give companies freedom if there are a democratic goverement balancing that freedom.

Well you could atleast and see if you military precens in some part of the globe are creating a new middleeast. Also you have to find really clever methods to deal for example with saudarabia and egypt. Because remember that Khomeine came to power because he could raly the people against the corrupt shah that was supported by the USA. Also the oppresion in many USA allied countries like for example egypt have made people turn to the islamist.
 
GySgt said:
You do not understand.

9/11 placed Al-Queda in our sights. The London bombings further angered the West. The bombings in Madrid slapped the appeasing Spanish in the face.

London bombings didn't anger me, maybe because I was expecting them, every Brit was. But the British reaction was different than the American reaction, we just got on with life. The British were never taught to believe that they live in an invunerable bubble like Americans were. I have always said that America has a simplistic look on life, right and wrong, good and evil. I don't know why Europeans have a more complicated look on life, maybe it is because of our vast experience and history in warfare and terrorism.
Also the Madrid bombings happened before your so called Spanish "appeasement", before the election.

GySgt said:
Al-Queda is wrecked. Their network is destroyed and fractured. They no longer are an influence in Chad. They no longer hold any secrecy in Bosnia. Those that choose to obey their terror masters and travel to Iraq do so knowing that they march to their deaths. They no longer have any weight in Indonesia, thanks to the Bali bombings. In India, they are running for cover. In the Phillipines, they are little more than an annoyance.

The war on terror has had an unexpected result that the Bush admin did not see. Al-Queda is no longer a terrorist network, it is now an idea. Idea's are hard to kill.
Al-Queda did not do the London bombings or the Bali bombings. Al-Queda are now an inspiration to radical muslims all over the world.
Gunny we are losing.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Because remember that Khomeine came to power because he could raly the people against the corrupt shah that was supported by the USA. Also the oppresion in many USA allied countries like for example egypt have made people turn to the islamist.


This is always such a misconception. The Shah was not corrupt. America and BRITIAN built him up as a powerful ally for us in the Middle East. He was the "rightful" ruler of Iran. It wasn't us that made him neglect his people. Like so many of America's business partners for security, he did what he did based on his own failures.

Without America, these countries would still be full of Islamic theocracy, oppression and abuse. We are merely scapegoats for all the ignorance that festers upon the earth.
 
GarzaUK said:
London bombings didn't anger me, maybe because I was expecting them, every Brit was. But the British reaction was different than the American reaction, we just got on with life. The British were never taught to believe that they live in an invunerable bubble like Americans were. I have always said that America has a simplistic look on life, right and wrong, good and evil. I don't know why Europeans have a more complicated look on life, maybe it is because of our vast experience and history in warfare and terrorism.

It's because America is not prone to such attacks. Until 9/11, our largest terrorist attack would be an ill tempered white kid pissed off at the government for there events at Waco or the earlier attempt at the towers by Islamists that were passed off as mere criminal acts by our then appeasing and poll savvy President. Beyond that, our zealots are more content with commiting suicide rather than destroying their environment whenever an astronomical event occurs.

We also have made sure that our enemies have stayed on your part of the world where they come from by our less than honorable acts during the cold war.


GarzaUK said:
Also the Madrid bombings happened before your so called Spanish "appeasement", before the election.

The Spanish has as much appeasement towards Radical Islam as the French and the Italians. The only difference, is that they committed the bare minimum of troops and committed longer before they tucked their tales and ran. Hmmmmm....memories of Somalia are coming back.


GarzaUK said:
The war on terror has had an unexpected result that the Bush admin did not see. Al-Queda is no longer a terrorist network, it is now an idea. Idea's are hard to kill.
Al-Queda did not do the London bombings or the Bali bombings. Al-Queda are now an inspiration to radical muslims all over the world.
Gunny we are losing.

It was always an idea. (Study the history.) It was never an Al-Queda exclusive occurrence. Without Al-Queda, there were and are still dozens if not hundreds of other Islamic Radical organizations. We aren't losing anything. Put down the headlines and gauge it for yourself. You do not need the global intel. All we have seen, after the insurgency began to sleaze their way into Iraq, was the turning on of the lights. They were always there and now the cockroaches are running all over the place. To declare that "we are losing" is horribly inaccurate and irresponsible. Think about this sentiment during trench warfare in WWII. Think about that sentiment during the Nazi push past France. They probaly thought they were losing then too. It's a good thing they didn't give up, because present sentiments of impatience and frustration steered their course.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
We also have made sure that our enemies have stayed on your part of the world where they come from by our less than honorable acts during the cold war.
.

I cannot beleive, - I've just heard ashurbanipal's voice. What did he do to you to make you speak with his voice?
 
justone said:
I cannot beleive, - I've just heard ashurbanipal's voice. What did he do to you to make you speak with his voice?

I'm a student of history and reality. The difference between he and I is that he comdemns such acts and does not believe in the necessity, and I accept the acts and can see the necessity of them.
 
GySgt said:
I'm a student of history and reality. The difference between he and I is that he comdemns such acts and does not believe in the necessity, and I accept the acts and can see the necessity of them.

If it is so I would expect you not to say " less than honoroble acts", but something like " necessary acts". Or "necessary, even if not looking honorable, acts ". Which would show the difference between you and him.
 
GySgt said:
This is always such a misconception. The Shah was not corrupt. America and BRITIAN built him up as a powerful ally for us in the Middle East. He was the "rightful" ruler of Iran. It wasn't us that made him neglect his people. Like so many of America's business partners for security, he did what he did based on his own failures.

Without America, these countries would still be full of Islamic theocracy, oppression and abuse. We are merely scapegoats for all the ignorance that festers upon the earth.

At the same time you forget all the islamicdemocrats, socialist and nationalist in ME. That was taken out of the pictures by USA allieds and USA itself.

Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

But of course the rightful dictature the Shah was a much better ruler of Iran instead...

GySgt said:
The Spanish has as much appeasement towards Radical Islam as the French and the Italians. The only difference, is that they committed the bare minimum of troops and committed longer before they tucked their tales and ran. Hmmmmm....memories of Somalia are coming back.

This almost pisses me of. First Spain was a very close allied before the war. It was the spanish and the british primeminister that meet with Bush on the Azores before the war.

Second the spanish people didn't tucked there tales and ran. That they did was voting for the party that was against the war from the start instead of the pro war party. There the terrorist atack was the last straw in a close election. But of course it's better that you have temporary dictaturship during wartime. There the people can't vote away the pro war party...
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
This almost pisses me of.

Second the spanish people didn't tucked there tales and ran. That they did was voting for the party that was against the war from the start instead of the pro war party. There the terrorist atack was the last straw in a close election

This almost pisses me of.

The spanish people didn't just tucked there tales and ran, they did that by voting for the party that was against the war from the start instead of the pro war party. There the terrorist atack was the last straw which scared them.
 
justone said:
This almost pisses me of.

The spanish people didn't just tucked there tales and ran, they did that by voting for the party that was against the war from the start instead of the pro war party. There the terrorist atack was the last straw which scared them.

Well tha almost pisses me off:)
First I can understand your point if a mayority was for the war then it started. But instead a large mayority of people was against it from the start. So there leaders went against will of the people. Of course that is something that can happen in a representative democracy. But then the leaders should also remind themself that they can be punished for it in the next election. Also USA should remind themself of that if they allied don't have populare support for joining the war. Then they should calculate with losing them after the next election. Instead of getting suprised or pissed of then it happens.

Also it was not like 50 % of the Spaniards got scared and switched there vote. Because even before the terrorist atack around 45 or even more supported the non war party. Also probably many who switched did it because there pissed. Both from the fact that the pro war goverment tried to convince people that it was an ETA atack that didn't have anything to do with Iraq. Also many was probably also pissed because that there had become target of international terrorist because of a war they didn't belive. But if you know any of spains history you would know that they are not afraid of fighting and dieing for what they belive in.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
At the same time you forget all the islamicdemocrats, socialist and nationalist in ME. That was taken out of the pictures by USA allieds and USA itself.

Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

But of course the rightful dictature the Shah was a much better ruler of Iran instead...

I forgot nothing. You, however, in your thirst to **** all over America at every turn, purposefully neglect to include the circumstances behind the actions....

"Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears."

From your own link.

It is also of interest to note that the Ayatolla Khomeini slaughtered any liberal leaders in the Iranian military and government that also stood for freedom and democracy as he commenced to brutalize Islam into what it is today. 70 percent of the population is under thirty years old and disenchanted with their mullahs and theocratic government. They scream about self-inflicted wounds to the scapegoat that is the U.S. Only the ignorant listen. (Shhhh...let's just continue to spotlight America.)




Bergslagstroll said:
This almost pisses me of. First Spain was a very close allied before the war. It was the spanish and the british primeminister that meet with Bush on the Azores before the war.

Second the spanish people didn't tucked there tales and ran. That they did was voting for the party that was against the war from the start instead of the pro war party. There the terrorist atack was the last straw in a close election. But of course it's better that you have temporary dictaturship during wartime. There the people can't vote away the pro war party...

First: Like so many of our allies, they committed the bare minimum.

Second: They tucked their tales and ran. They informed the terrorists that they are in control and all that is needed to bend a free nation's will is to detonate a bomb. Our enemies know this about Spain now. They know the opposite about the U.S. and England. If Spain ever lifts their fist to strike back at Islamic terrorism again, they can expect another attack, because the terrorists knows what works. They will pay for appeasing tyrants.

Don't let it p*ss you off. Face the reality. America tucked their tails and ran in Somalia after everyone else did too.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
For Europeans, especially, Jewish lives count no more today than they did in 1944. Europe's reflexive anti-Semitism doesn't really matter much, since today's Europeans lack the power, will and courage to act upon their bigotry.

I'm a British citizen. How the hell can I be anti-Semetic?!

According to the article, the money is going towards "...energy and utility bills, health and education programs and the Palestinian Authority payroll."

Hamas suck. I hope they all blow themselves up (and only themselves) testing new explosives tomorrow. However, I don't see how making the ordinary Palestinians suffer is fair. Regarding the payroll, that's probably no more than paying the secretaries, the common workers who don't deserve to lose their jobs because of a vote they didn't single-handedly decide.

Besides, it's for before the Hamas is sworn in. I doubt they'll the pledging any more.
 
vergiss said:
I'm a British citizen. How the hell can I be anti-Semetic?!


I don't know. That would be a personal problem for you to figure out. However, try not to confuse your personal sentiments with the general sentiments that exists throughout Europe.

If you were to make the rightful claim that America is very naive to the world, should I rush to defend myself? I guarantee, I would not try to allow my personal sentiments define what is the very general truth.
 
GySgt said:
I forgot nothing. You, however, in your thirst to **** all over America at every turn, purposefully neglect to include the circumstances behind the actions....

"Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears."

From your own link.

It is also of interest to note that the Ayatolla Khomeini slaughtered any liberal leaders in the Iranian military and government that also stood for freedom and democracy as he commenced to brutalize Islam into what it is today. 70 percent of the population is under thirty years old and disenchanted with their mullahs and theocratic government. They scream about self-inflicted wounds to the scapegoat that is the U.S. Only the ignorant listen. (Shhhh...let's just continue to spotlight America.)

First: Like so many of our allies, they committed the bare minimum.

Second: They tucked their tales and ran. They informed the terrorists that they are in control and all that is needed to bend a free nation's will is to detonate a bomb. Our enemies know this about Spain now. They know the opposite about the U.S. and England. If Spain ever lifts their fist to strike back at Islamic terrorism again, they can expect another attack, because the terrorists knows what works. They will pay for appeasing tyrants.

Don't let it p*ss you off. Face the reality. America tucked their tails and ran in Somalia after everyone else did too.

Thank you for your good example: Americans allies describe a great threath. You act on that threath and there solution to solve it, the situation get messed up. Plus you later learn that the great threath was a lie. Not saying that USA allies are better or that there are no real threaths. Just that you as the most powerfull country should have been and should be abit smarter. That you more clearly should see the self interest of your allies and also get a better picture. Because you have the most resources to do that. A more recent example was that you put to most trust into Chalabi and the exil iraqies...

That you don't understand is that Somalia and Spain is good example of the danger of going against the will of the people. Well maybee it more a guess in Somalia but if I can recall correctly the american people was not thrilled over that conflict. But then it comes to the Iraq was most of the world was not thrilled over it. But some leaders like that one in Spain went against the will of the people. Then you can't blame the people to voting away that goverment. But at the same time you can make the worldcommunuties to joins fights like for example in Afganisthan and the other 20 UN missions.
 
The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism
If they were informed that then it doesn't give them the right to help overthrough an elected leader
 
Re: EU gives $143 million to Palestinian Authority

At the end of the week at a summit of 25 EU countries they want to decide about 500 million Euro per year, which is a little more than $ 600 million. There is a good chance it will be paid, but they wanted to wait until it's clear, who is member of the new Palestinian government. It is almost clear, it will be run by Hamas only and there will be one female member and one Christian member in the government.
 
Christian member in the government.
what has that got to do with it?

Number of Muslims in Congress: 0
Number of Muslim Governors: 0
 
Re: EU gives $143 million to Palestinian Authority

Willoughby said:
what has that got to do with it?

Number of Muslims in Congress: 0
Number of Muslim Governors: 0
Yes, there is a Christian minority in Palestinian territories, around 5 % of Palestinian population are Christians. Because Hamas is based on Islam, it can be seen as a sign of religious tolerance to have a Christian in the government.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Thank you for your good example: Americans allies describe a great threath. You act on that threath and there solution to solve it, the situation get messed up. Plus you later learn that the great threath was a lie. Not saying that USA allies are better or that there are no real threaths. Just that you as the most powerfull country should have been and should be abit smarter. That you more clearly should see the self interest of your allies and also get a better picture. Because you have the most resources to do that. A more recent example was that you put to most trust into Chalabi and the exil iraqies...


Yes, yes,....We have all heard it...America can always do things better and thus will always reveive the responsibility of every action globally. What is rarely heard from our European "allies" is how little they do at all.
Bergslagstroll said:
That you don't understand is that Somalia and Spain is good example of the danger of going against the will of the people. Well maybee it more a guess in Somalia but if I can recall correctly the american people was not thrilled over that conflict. But then it comes to the Iraq was most of the world was not thrilled over it. But some leaders like that one in Spain went against the will of the people. Then you can't blame the people to voting away that goverment. But at the same time you can make the worldcommunuties to joins fights like for example in Afganisthan and the other 20 UN missions.

Somalia was the very definition of the how much the "Global left" really cares about the vomit that comes forth from their mouths when seeking votes or seeking exonerations from action. Africa is also another example.

What you are neglecting to realize is that the "people" are rarely privy to real world documents and international workings between nations. Nor are they privy to spy sattelite photos, the intelligencia community, and the global spy network. Nor are they privy to what occurs globally that ensures that their loittle mundane lives are kept secure and snuggly safe.

The "people" often don't know what is good for them.
 
Willoughby said:
If they were informed that then it doesn't give them the right to help overthrough an elected leader


It did at the time and will be so again. When it comes to being us or them...it will always be us. Idealogues have no place in this world, unless they are creating poetry or songs.

During the Cold war, the threat of Soviet or communist expansion was the threat and our government did what it felt necessary to safe guard the greater good. Does whining about it make you feel better?

Tell me, Willoughby, how has your tiny little world been positivelyu affected by the actions of America through history? Chances are, you have no idea. I guarantee, that less than honorable acts have been conducted to secure economic securities and your government is very much in the know.
 
Re: EU gives $143 million to Palestinian Authority

Volker said:
Yes, there is a Christian minority in Palestinian territories, around 5 % of Palestinian population are Christians. Because Hamas is based on Islam, it can be seen as a sign of religious tolerance to have a Christian in the government.


There are Christians throughout the Middle East. Don't let it fool you. Don't succumb to the typical face of appeasements that the entire Middle East practices for the west. The freest areas in the region where Christians and Muslims are equals is in "Kurdistan", Israel, and Jordan. However, even in Jordan, religious toleration has its limits. In "Palestine," Christians and Jews are welcome to walk the streets and they frequently intermingle with Palestinians. The threat is the Radical element and Hamas is merely putting on a mask for financial gain. The sad irony is that, though they hate us, they want our money.
 
Re: EU gives $143 million to Palestinian Authority

GySgt said:
The threat is the Radical element and Hamas is merely putting on a mask for financial gain. The sad irony is that, though they hate us, they want our money.
They don't have much reasons to hate Europeans or the European Union as an organization.
 
Re: EU gives $143 million to Palestinian Authority

Volker said:
They have not much reasons to hate the European Union as an organization.
They have every perverted reason to hate Europe...The very same reasons they hate America...

The two things saving Europe from immediate consequences are 1)America is the larger targetm and easier on the PR campaign...2) Europe embraces(appeases) the immigration...

If the US fell off of the face tomorrow, Europe would see the Middle East lash out at them like never before...That's the one aspect that Europe never seems to understand...

They're next in line...The only thing I can see them understanding that is for them to think that the Big, Bad US will handle it for them...That will only work for so long...

In X years, when Londinistan becomes the Capital of Eurabia...now under Sharia Law...they'll probably still sit around and look for the US as a scapegoat..:shrug:
 
Re: EU gives $143 million to Palestinian Authority

cnredd said:
They have every perverted reason to hate Europe...The very same reasons they hate America...

The two things saving Europe from immediate consequences are 1)America is the larger targetm and easier on the PR campaign...2) Europe embraces(appeases) the immigration...
Ok, they attacked some European buildings and burned some European flags, but I don't see this as a sign of general rejection. As to immigration, this year was the first one in newer German history, when the number of inhabitants decreased. There is a trend. If this trend goes on, we will be fewer and fewer even with immigration. It would go faster without immigration.

cnredd said:
If the US fell off of the face tomorrow, Europe would see the Middle East lash out at them like never before...That's the one aspect that Europe never seems to understand...
There are ways for Arabians and Europeans to live with each other, there have always been ways in the history.

cnredd said:
In X years, when Londinistan becomes the Capital of Eurabia...now under Sharia Law...they'll probably still sit around and look for the US as a scapegoat..:shrug:
I'll sign a petition to government in Londonistan to not look for the US as a scapegoat then.
 
Back
Top Bottom