ErricoMalatesta

I haven't seen this film but I assume it goes something like this... ...Universal healthcare has no political support but is however supported by roughly 3/4 or more of the US population so it can safely be ignored and rarely gets brought up at election time... ...Its pretty much a paragraph of text stretched out into loud sounds, moving pictures and a visit to Cuba right?

There are only four types of people in this world who think Israel have a leg to stand on Israelis, Americans, Jews, and fucking idiots.

suprise suprise ACAB in effect

Israel intentionally targeted many civilian settlements with anti personnel bomblets in the closing stages of the recent Lebanon fun and games. Are you talking about the settlements where enemy forces were thought to be hiding? Or were the Israelis indiscriminately targeting civilians? After about three(?) months of being here it’s fair to say your knowledge of the world and history is at best a joke at worst so grossly naive and childish that its funny. “The media are all left wing American haters” “Israel never do any wrong! Arabs start all the fights” “Iran are trying to destroy everyone just like Iraq was”

hahahahahaha sounds you are suffering nefarious dreams about the role of your country.

Its a shame MI6 didn't stop the government from doing the same thing through the 20th century

Wrong, the US needed to flex muscle on the international stage and picked just about the only repressive Islamic country that it didn’t (recently) give million in weapons to. They offered several times to try him in court and also delegates of the Taliban were willing to negotiate through Pakistan, negotiate as in provide evidence and all that other crazy diplomatic stuff that can happen when you don’t bomb a country in under 30 days. Remind us all you like Osama isn’t Afghanistan. I haven’t even mentioned the “enemy” and that is obviously one of the problems you have with discussion, reading what people say. In fact I do believe I have mentioned that there is a small section of Jihadists that target the west but the Taliban, the rulers of Afghanistan, were not concerned with that. Do you absorb propaganda through an IV straight from the fox network? None of them have the power to install Islamic theocracies across the world, this isn’t Nazi Germany you need to relax. But innocent people, well so far Osama is at about 3000+ an African embassy or two and meanwhile the US is what? tipping half a million? Yea case pretty much closed on the innocent life debate. I doubt you have ever looked passed a television with your lack of understanding about Islamic western aimed jihad and in particular the ridiculous amount of power you attribute to it.

Yes There are reasons why HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE turn up to these events in protest. What has that got to do with preventing actis of violence, that some might classify as terrorism, befre they happen? No one is talking about rounding up hundreds of thousands of people just because they plan on showing up and protesting. What the authorities ARE talking about is finding the people who have been violent before and/or have clearly stated that they plan on bringing violence to the demonstration. THOSE are the people who the dogs are after, and who face going to jail during the summit. Or does someone here think there are hundreds of thousands of german police dogs out there keeping tabs on every possible protester? Although arguably as ineffective as "peaceful" protest property destruction is not violence or terrorism.

Ineffective backpedal -- your previous post implied exactly that. In the mind of US policy space is rightfully theirs because the alternative is sharing it with China or Russia. I will backpedal to the extent ""said" it is rightfully ours" should probably be ""has the attitude" it is rightfully ours" Those are just two off unreliable wiki. It has been said over and over and the attitude is clear and represented in both words and deeds.

That all pretty much amounts to nothing as far as why you attacked Afghanistan. They STILL asked for evidence, the majority of the world STILL asked the US to take a diplomatic route and the US still bombed the country in under 30 days. I am not denying Omar refused to hand him over or that they also denied directly speaking to the US at all. I’m only denying that it hasn’t the slightest thing do with the reasons for attacking the country. Not only is this ridiculously irrelevant it also completely fails to answer the question. Who are the “some people” you are referring to? You haven’t clearly indicated whether It is all Muslims, the Taliban or terrorists in general. Further more, as what I was speaking about was based around the discussion of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have NOTHING to do with exporting jihad against the west. The ideology of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda groups are different and from what you have been saying you don’t even seem to know that much about Islamic jihad. Spawned by the religion of Islam? There are clear reasons for why Islamic jihad is carried out against the US and its mostly because the US “spawn” terror actions in the first place through ruthless foreign policy. Some people clearly know nothing about this subject Yeah they might like to do that but that isn’t the reason for jihad against the west. “the terrorists hate our freedom” are you speaking on a time phone from 2001?

But if you'd rather forget you wrote that shit, I don't really blame you. Belongs to them? Certainly, and it is reflected in their process of trying to militarize it. By their thinking it is also rightfully theirs, that is by the right of being the most powerful and most technologically advanced. Clinton or Bush may not have held a press conference and said "space is rightfully ours!" but this attitude is clearly reflected in policies and action.

Very rarely do the UN not do what the US want it will be interesting to see if this is one of those times

Bwahahahah. "All your base are belong to us." You're getting funnier by the post. It's been stated publicly by several US administrations why is that funny Their wording didn't exactly correspond to your version. Yeah because power structures like the US government use the same language. No clearly they will mask it with perfume but essentially when you analyze the wording and plans of action in national security documents militarization is the obvious goal. The Clinton years were about the militarization of space and when Bush arrived it was extended further to control of space for military purposes. The military domination of space by the US government? They have already and openly stated this is an objective. Meaning, as they have said, the possibility of instant engagement anywhere, with highly lethal offensive weapons, which can strike anywhere on earth without warning. The US are not trying to build magical-last resort “missile defense” systems, their policies in space reflect their “defense” policies on the ground, “missile defense” systems are first strike weapons and that is understood by everyone including US analysts and potential targets like China. Its why when Europe and much of the rest of the world want a strong reaffirmation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which bans militarization of space the US continuously try to derail the process.

Now you have to tackle understanding a ten word sentence

Ignorant gets you a warning, what does this get billvon?

Go ahead and dig them up they were probably ridiculous the first time around but sure give me a second laugh. I might as well also point out the elephant in the room… A very simple way to test your theory is if they had been given evidence and then rejected it and still not handed him over. It didn’t even get that far and nor was it given time to, the US had a goal and that goal was immediate retaliation at a defenseless target. Yea, I'm just winging it off of the top of my head. What are their laws concerning women in general? How about women who have sex outside of marriage? Do they sit them down and have a nice little talk with them? How do they treat someone carrying a Bible instead of a Quran? It is a religion that does not know the meaning of tolerance. You ask several questions regarding a fundamentalist group (which you gave millions of dollars in weapons to and left to brutally repress the people of Afghanistan) but then you end with the statement that the religion as a whole, not just the fundamentalist groups like the Taliban, doesn’t know tolerance. So are you talking about the Taliban or are you talking about Muslims? Because it’s becoming very clear you don’t know yourself. And you don’t seem to be able to define even for yourself who these “some people” are… This analogy makes no sense at all. Uhoh it’s the magical “some people” again! When you figure out or can properly define the “some people” clan maybe you can come back and let us all know about them and just exactly what or who they are Yes and you have also missed something in your definitions

Yes There are reasons why HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE turn up to these events in protest.

Bwahahahah. "All your base are belong to us." You're getting funnier by the post. It's been stated publicly by several US administrations why is that funny

This sums up the secret http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q__fc7NKwlY

I don't know about the relevance of moon bases but the US government has openly stated that they wish to control space and that space belongs to them and is rightfully theirs.

I voted for no - at no stage, clearly. The reason being it was the usual US imperial aggression that has been around for a long time and it was clear to almost everyone.

You can believe that all you want but as I have clearly shown it isn't. No they didn't and Afghanistan had attacked no one.

To an extent drug laws are a form of state mandated racism, given that the poor are usually minorities, but in theory it is a more a form of state mandated classism. Are you saying that only minorities are drug users, that's pretty "interesting" point of view you have there, pal. (It's good to know that there's always one person with a social axe to grind to take any statement out of context and use it to bash any non-approved social structure. It's funny how those desiring more government are those that are the most knee jerk about anything related to government.) To an extent drug laws are a form of state mandated racism, given that the poor are usually minorities, but in theory it is a more a form of state mandated classism. I thought most of the the poor people in this country (which is what I thought we were talking about), were white. Also, I thought most drug users were not poor. I'm confused. After reading that Rehmwa(sp?) was just making a friendly jab, the direction of this thread is that much funnier. I don't want to take it off track... we can start a new thread on the theories behind drug prohabition if you like but essentially one of them is that it is an effective means of dealing with the "non-productive" part of the population who don't contribute economically.

Ok ignorant is out, thanks for clearing that up.

Why would you do that? It's clearly a desire to insult him instead of just discussing the information you have that you believe he doesn't. I thought only people from West Virginia did that. Well there are something’s that really aren't worth discussing, but if that is the road I should take then sure I can do that and it will further demonstrate why I didn’t bother and used the language I did in the first place Where did I say this? How is that not a snide personal attack towards me? Diplomatic avenues are a general term but you can research the boundaries of them within documents dealing with international law. If anything it only shows his “lack of understanding” about current events by thinking there is a war with Islam or that Afghanistan in particular want to export Islamic law to the rest of the world. I guess contrary to his “lack of understanding” would be the 1000 Islamic Afghanistan academics, scholars and religious representatives that were invited to a discussion on how the US should handle Afghanistan (after they had bombed the shit out of it and invaded) and I believe the words they used were the US were “beating the donkey instead of the rider” and naturally they were completely ignored. How about a look at history and his “lack of understanding”? Bowing down to Islamic law? You mean like the US made the people of Afghanistan do when they gave millions of dollars in aid and weapons to a fundamentalist group and then simply left them to rule the country once the Russians had gone? How about current events and his “lack of understanding”? Bowing down to Islamic law? Like the US essentially make the people of Saudi Arabia do when they give millions of dollars in aid and weapons to the Saudi Royal family to help with things like internal Islamic law and the suppression of democracy? Whoops my fucking bad, living under the thumb of Islamic law is only bad if you are American. So here is the second part… Some people? Who are some people? Afghanis? Arabs? People that live in the Middle East? If so that is some pretty strong racism because it is either that or the people you gave about a million swords too, who subsequently understand more than the sword because they asked for words to justify US demands. If Cuba knocks on the US’s door and demands the US hands over people that they suspect of bombing Cuba do you think the US would ask for evidence? And this is clearly a hypothetical if you know anything about extradition of people the US have and don’t want to give to others. So in an equal world… Cuba – Please hand over this guy we think he is bombing us and also let our military into your country to ensure the closing of his training camps US – Please provide some evidence for this Cuba – well we gave you 20 days, its clear you only understand the sword Whoops I guess I should have just wasted 10 minutes of my day and typed all of that instead of the “personal attack”, so I guess an apology is in order, sorry.