Bradley Manning ... U.S. Traitor.

Post by **jones jones** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:33 am

So army Pfc. Bradley Manning the former intelligence analyst who perpetrated the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history, has been acquitted of the most serious charge against him.

However, Manning was found guilty of other serious offenses including five charges of espionage which could jail him for over 100 years.

Let us hope that sanity prevails and that he indeed receives life imprisonment.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:20 pm

He got really lucky, in my opinion. Real people with real families were endangered by his actions. The amount of damage he caused still cannot be measured.

I get that he thought he had a duty to do what he did. Fine. But all behavior has consequences. You might feel that you have to rob a bank to feed your family...but be prepared to pay the price for it.

Post by **jones jones** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:24 pm

Saint_;1432667 wrote: He got really lucky, in my opinion. Real people with real families were endangered by his actions. The amount of damage he caused still cannot be measured.

I get that he thought he had a duty to do what he did. Fine. But all behavior has consequences. You might feel that you have to rob a bank to feed your family...but be prepared to pay the price for it.

Well put ...

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:40 pm

Saint_;1432667 wrote: He got really lucky, in my opinion. Real people with real families were endangered by his actions. The amount of damage he caused still cannot be measured.

I get that he thought he had a duty to do what he did. Fine. But all behavior has consequences. You might feel that you have to rob a bank to feed your family...but be prepared to pay the price for it.

I could have said it better, , ,

Uh maybe not :yh_hypno

:yh_giggle

:yh_worshp

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:24 pm

Might have been more interesting with an open trial and a jury of his peers. Quite possibly they would have refused to convict him if they thought it only right the government should not be able to cover up illegal activities. A closed trial with Some of the things he revealed have led to prosecution It does america little credit on the international scene though I don't suppose that matters to most americans.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:05 pm

It's not justice. All it does is show the hypocrisy and fraud that America has become.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:26 pm

What this does is create an atmosphere of fear amongst concerned people who see the government doing wrong. Open your mouth and you will swing from a rope. This amounts to a further loss of freedom that as of late is leaving us. Every journalist, every government watch dog out there is subject to the same persecution. That's not freedom of the press which is something we dearly need.

In Russia if a journalist says the wrong thing about a person they could get beaten on the street or worse, here we just do the same thing in a kangaroo court. So it looks better.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:31 pm

Washington (CNN) -- U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, suspected of leaking classified information to the WikiLeaks website, is being moved to the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Enjoy your stay in Kansas

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:07 pm

it's such a major miscarriage of Justice ..Manning is a hero.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:56 pm

Manning is a crybaby. Now he's whining he was bullied because he's gay. Some defense. He joined the military, no one forced him, he violated his oath of service that he willingly took.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:39 pm

If a person is in a position to know what's going on in any area of life (but especially in government agencies ) not only do they have a right to protect the citizens as his oath would have involved but they also have a responsibility.

If you are going to down every whistle blower then you deserve your drones and your stop and searches and indeed the anger of the world and their retaliation when a blatant murder has happened. Worst comment I've ever heard is the men in the choppers that day murdering those children that could be clearly seen and then laughing "shouldn't bring kids to a battle zone". those soldiers are coming back to you one day ...enjoy their presence.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:17 am

Yes, you are right Fuzz. My point is that you then should expect what's due for your bravery without whining about it or looking for a way out & expecting that to happen.

He joined the Military. That's not the Boy Scouts.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:01 am

Anne, some people do have a sense of morality.

Here's Crosstalk and some good discussion on this.

CrossTalk: War On [redacted] - YouTube

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:25 am

What the guy said was true, Bunny Greenhouse had her career destroyed because she blew the whistle. Because she dared to speak up, to do her job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse

Tude, Saint you can say Manning and Snowden are traitors. Go right ahead, you're flat out wrong. Go stick your heads in the sand.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:52 am

Honest Afghanis, who trusted us and helped us against the Taliban, were outed and named publicly by Manning. Now they have to flee for their lives, leaving their homes with deadly killers hot on their trails.

And Some misguided people call Mannings actions "heroic?"

What he did was thoughtless, shameful, illegal, and selfish. If he wanted to call attention to a problem, there are many ways to do that without endangering innocent lives.

A traitor is defined as someone who helps an enemy against his own country. Manning is the very definition of a traitor.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:35 pm

One mans patriot is another mans traitor wouldn't you say? Seems to me people like you don't understand that the US went to Afghanistan to IMPOSE a way of life on a people, to civilize them BY OUR STANDARDS. This was done in violation of almost all national norms and laws. Hell, there weren't even any Afghans that pulled the 9/11 attack on us.

You're wrong on so many levels it's not even worth going into, you know it already.

Post by **jones jones** » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:13 am

I know it isn't politically correct nowadays to like pre-judge any earthling simply on their looks/appearance/demeanour. But as my char tells me when she gets to work late ... "I was gonna be on time ... howevva ..."

So howevva ... having had a good look at both citizens Manning and Snowden in the gazillion or so images of them that are flitting/flirting about cyber land, I have come to the conclusion for better or worse, that both these silly billys would most likely have remained unnoticed in a crowd of three.

Which is probably why, as Andy Warhol said in 1968: “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes," they decided to do what they did.

Scrat says: … Seems to me people like you don’t understand that the US went to Afghanistan to IMPOSE a way of life on a people yada yada yada …” and “ … Hell, there weren’t even any Afghans that pulled the 9/11 attack on us.” Also … “You’re wrong on so many levels it’s not even worth going into, you know it already.”

Well of course you are fully entitled to your opinion and must have the right to express such opinion without fear or favour. However what you are saying is akin to me hiring a hit man to murder someone and then saying: ”I actually had nothing to do with the killing.”

It is common knowledge that Osama bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attack and he and his organization were based in Afghanistan at the same time that the attack took place. Bin Laden admitted in an interview recorded in Kandahar Afghanistan that he helped plan 9/11.

In addition all of the 9/11 killers were trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the same camps used to train Taliban terrorists as well as Al Qaeda killers who fought beside them. The Pakistan Lashkar-e-Taiba terror group is closely allied to Al Qaeda and their terrorists are trained in Afghanistan.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan which is allied to the Taliban in northern Afghanistan plotted Mumbai like attacks in Europe in 2010. The Taliban executed the failed Times Square bombing in New York on May 1 2010. The bomb failed to explode due to a problem with the detonator.

The Taliban refused to give up Al Qaeda’s top leaders after 9/11 and to this day refuse to denounce its support for these terrorists. And as recently as this year Taliban spokesmen have refused to denounce international terrorism.

And I haven’t even mentioned that 90% of the world’s heroin is grown in Afghanistan.

Impose US standards on them? Not a chance, but as long as they train, protect & aid terrorists and killers who use their country as a launch pad from which to murder innocent people, yes the US will take them out.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:11 pm

The Taliban executed the failed Times Square bombing in New York on May 1 2010. The bomb failed to explode due to a problem with the detonator.

Bullshit.

And I havenï¿½t even mentioned that 90% of the worldï¿½s heroin is grown in Afghanistan.

It's common knowledge that under the US occupation opium production has increased many times over compared to when the Taliban were in charge.

File:Afghanistan opium poppy cultivation 1994-2007b.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Impose US standards on them? Not a chance, but as long as they train, protect & aid terrorists and killers who use their country as a launch pad from which to murder innocent people, yes the US will take them out.

How many embassies were shut down throughout the ME this week? 21? Maybe we should take out the people supporting Al-Q for a change. Like the Saudis?

As for the rest of your post its not worth commenting on, too many shades of grey. Suffice to say that America has failed utterly in Afghanistan. You know it.

Post by **jones jones** » Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:35 am

Scrat;1433031 wrote: Bullshit.

It's common knowledge that under the US occupation opium production has increased many times over compared to when the Taliban were in charge.

File:Afghanistan opium poppy cultivation 1994-2007b.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many embassies were shut down throughout the ME this week? 21? Maybe we should take out the people supporting Al-Q for a change. Like the Saudis?

As for the rest of your post its not worth commenting on, too many shades of grey. Suffice to say that America has failed utterly in Afghanistan. You know it.

Gee I was quite prepared to reply to any post you might make citizen Scrat ... However words and phrases like this: “Bullshit … As for the rest of your post its not worth commenting on …” hardly encourage civilized debate.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:30 pm

jones jones;1433010 wrote: I know it isn't politically correct nowadays to like pre-judge any earthling simply on their looks/appearance/demeanour. But as my char tells me when she gets to work late ... "I was gonna be on time ... howevva ..."

So howevva ... having had a good look at both citizens Manning and Snowden in the gazillion or so images of them that are flitting/flirting about cyber land, I have come to the conclusion for better or worse, that both these silly billys would most likely have remained unnoticed in a crowd of three.

Which is probably why, as Andy Warhol said in 1968: ï¿½In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes," they decided to do what they did.

Scrat says: ï¿½ Seems to me people like you donï¿½t understand that the US went to Afghanistan to IMPOSE a way of life on a people yada yada yada ï¿½ï¿½ and ï¿½ ï¿½ Hell, there werenï¿½t even any Afghans that pulled the 9/11 attack on us.ï¿½ Also ï¿½ ï¿½Youï¿½re wrong on so many levels itï¿½s not even worth going into, you know it already.ï¿½

Well of course you are fully entitled to your opinion and must have the right to express such opinion without fear or favour. However what you are saying is akin to me hiring a hit man to murder someone and then saying: ï¿½I actually had nothing to do with the killing.ï¿½

It is common knowledge that Osama bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attack and he and his organization were based in Afghanistan at the same time that the attack took place. Bin Laden admitted in an interview recorded in Kandahar Afghanistan that he helped plan 9/11.

In addition all of the 9/11 killers were trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the same camps used to train Taliban terrorists as well as Al Qaeda killers who fought beside them. The Pakistan Lashkar-e-Taiba terror group is closely allied to Al Qaeda and their terrorists are trained in Afghanistan.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan which is allied to the Taliban in northern Afghanistan plotted Mumbai like attacks in Europe in 2010. The Taliban executed the failed Times Square bombing in New York on May 1 2010. The bomb failed to explode due to a problem with the detonator.

The Taliban refused to give up Al Qaedaï¿½s top leaders after 9/11 and to this day refuse to denounce its support for these terrorists. And as recently as this year Taliban spokesmen have refused to denounce international terrorism.

And I havenï¿½t even mentioned that 90% of the worldï¿½s heroin is grown in Afghanistan.

Impose US standards on them? Not a chance, but as long as they train, protect & aid terrorists and killers who use their country as a launch pad from which to murder innocent people, yes the US will take them out.

You do know it was america that helped out the Taliban in power in Afghanistan don't you and that the main sponsor of al queda is saudi arabia? Don't take my word for it if you didn't that's not some wild conspiracy theory but fact that can be checked out.

Why is the US supporting islamists in syria - where they are talking about arming them. That was a serious question because I can't find any logic in US middle eastern policy.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:56 pm

Gee I was quite prepared to reply to any post you might make citizen Scrat ... However words and phrases like this: ï¿½Bullshit ï¿½ As for the rest of your post its not worth commenting on ï¿½ï¿½ hardly encourage civilized debate.

Asininery tries my patience as of late. You are excused, I didn't want to play ball with you either. Buh Bye!!

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:30 am

gmc;1433161 wrote: You do know it was america that helped out the Taliban in power in Afghanistan don't you and that the main sponsor of al queda is saudi arabia? Don't take my word for it if you didn't that's not some wild conspiracy theory but fact that can be checked out.

Why is the US supporting islamists in syria - where they are talking about arming them. That was a serious question because I can't find any logic in US middle eastern policy.

Indeed gmc, I am aware that the USA assisted the Taliban in Afghanistan ... however in my opinion this assistance was necessary and should be looked at in the light of what the circumstances were back then.

At the time the Soviet Union was considered a greater threat than the Taliban ... and they were. Communism had spread across Eastern Europe and millions of people were enslaved. The Mujahidin caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces and made the war very costly for them. So in 1989 they withdrew from Afghanistan with a bloodied nose and a severe loss of face in the region. Mission accomplished!

I hear what you say about al-Quaeda gmc, but according to Michel Chossudovsky, author of the international bestseller America’s War on Terrorism, al-Quaeda is a United States sponsored intelligence asset. So what are we to believe then?

As for Syria ... well France & Britain are doing the same thing as the USA. As for the logic behind Middle Eastern policy, I do believe it's called "strategic interests" gmc, but personally if it helps keeps terrorists at bay then it works for me!

I am going to post a separate thread later about the invasion & occupation of countries around the world by major powers & look forward to reading your opinion of it.

Take care now and have an awesome day!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:50 am

I love happy endings :yh_clap

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:02 am

tude dog;1433209 wrote:

I love happy endings :yh_clap

You're not just whistling Dixie man! :guitarist

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:06 am

jones jones;1433208 wrote: Indeed gmc, I am aware that the USA assisted the Taliban in Afghanistan ... however in my opinion this assistance was necessary and should be looked at in the light of what the circumstances were back then.

At the time the Soviet Union was considered a greater threat than the Taliban ... and they were. Communism had spread across Eastern Europe and millions of people were enslaved. The Mujahidin caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces and made the war very costly for them. So in 1989 they withdrew from Afghanistan with a bloodied nose and a severe loss of face in the region. Mission accomplished!

I hear what you say about al-Quaeda gmc, but according to Michel Chossudovsky, author of the international bestseller Americaï¿½s War on Terrorism, al-Quaeda is a United States sponsored intelligence asset. So what are we to believe then?

As for Syria ... well France & Britain are doing the same thing as the USA. As for the logic behind Middle Eastern policy, I do believe it's called "strategic interests" gmc, but personally if it helps keeps terrorists at bay then it works for me!

I am going to post a separate thread later about the invasion & occupation of countries around the world by major powers & look forward to reading your opinion of it.

Take care now and have an awesome day!

I'd love for you to explain how arming the terrorists and paying them to bring down the established government of the country constitutes "keeping them at bay"!

I agree, it is in America's short term interest to destabilise the entire region but, in the longer term, we end up with a stronger terrorist force ranged against us and the region will reform as an Islamic power block - not good news.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:14 am

Bryn Mawr;1433243 wrote: I'd love for you to explain how arming the terrorists and paying them to bring down the established government of the country constitutes "keeping them at bay"!

I agree, it is in America's short term interest to destabilise the entire region but, in the longer term, we end up with a stronger terrorist force ranged against us and the region will reform as an Islamic power block - not good news.

Well somehow it must be working as since 9/11 a host of planned terrorist attacks appear have been thwarted.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:19 am

jones jones;1433247 wrote: Well somehow it must be working as since 9/11 a host of planned terrorist attacks appear have been thwarted.

That would be the result of intelligence work and policing â€“ not arming terrorists in other countries.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:21 am

Bryn Mawr;1433248 wrote: That would be the result of intelligence work and policing â€“ not arming terrorists in other countries.

All part of the strategy I guess ...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:30 am

jones jones;1433249 wrote: All part of the strategy I guess ...

I'd love for you to explain how arming the terrorists and paying them to bring down the established government of the country constitutes "keeping them at bay"!

Care to point out how such a "strategy" could possibly work?

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:49 am

Bryn Mawr;1433251 wrote: I'd love for you to explain how arming the terrorists and paying them to bring down the established government of the country constitutes "keeping them at bay"!

Care to point out how such a "strategy" could possibly work?

Bryn ... it must be fairly obvious by now that I am very pro western and in particular pro American ... This being so, the fact that terrorist atrocities against the west and against America are currently at a low ebb, to me equates to the "strategy" working.

The fact that a large chunk of the democratic & civilized world, including Britain, supports the USA works for me too.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:28 pm

jones jones;1433208 wrote: Indeed gmc, I am aware that the USA assisted the Taliban in Afghanistan ... however in my opinion this assistance was necessary and should be looked at in the light of what the circumstances were back then.

At the time the Soviet Union was considered a greater threat than the Taliban ... and they were. Communism had spread across Eastern Europe and millions of people were enslaved. The Mujahidin caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces and made the war very costly for them. So in 1989 they withdrew from Afghanistan with a bloodied nose and a severe loss of face in the region. Mission accomplished!

I hear what you say about al-Quaeda gmc, but according to Michel Chossudovsky, author of the international bestseller Americaï¿½s War on Terrorism, al-Quaeda is a United States sponsored intelligence asset. So what are we to believe then?

As for Syria ... well France & Britain are doing the same thing as the USA. As for the logic behind Middle Eastern policy, I do believe it's called "strategic interests" gmc, but personally if it helps keeps terrorists at bay then it works for me!

I am going to post a separate thread later about the invasion & occupation of countries around the world by major powers & look forward to reading your opinion of it.

Take care now and have an awesome day!

Well no not unless you buy in to the insane logic that democratically elected left wing governments are always a bad thing. The mind set of america seems to be set back in the cold war unable to grasp that secular left wing government is actually what most rational people want when given a choice. It's the arrogance of your leaders that think they know best for other countries that is most of the problem. How does it benefit Egypt or syria to have islamic extremists in control except your administration seems to believe they will be grateful for the support and do business, delusional is not an adequate description.

As for Syria ... well France & Britain are doing the same thing as the USA. As for the logic behind Middle Eastern policy, I do believe it's called "strategic interests" gmc, but personally if it helps keeps terrorists at bay then it works for me!

You're dead right there but whose interests are we talking about? Not mine or that of ordinary people I don't know whose they are working for because all I can see is long term warfare unless we stop kidding ourselves we can still play the great game and get away with it. The world is too small a place and the victims are no longer weak and blind to what is happening. It was always a moot point whether the great game was one we should have been playing in the first place and now what is the point of it all? Neither your troops or ours will fight for empire any more all they do is find another reason and play on the loyalty of the military

Strategic interests? Who gains from perpetual warfare? Follow the money is as true in international politics as it is in criminal investigations. Yet we are told it's not our concern and anyone who blows the whistle is a traitor. Bradley manning didn't get a fair trial he got lynched. An open trial with a just might have decided that his actions were justified

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:35 pm

gmc: "Strategic interests? Who gains from perpetual warfare? Follow the money is as true in international politics as it is in criminal investigations. Yet we are told it's not our concern and anyone who blows the whistle is a traitor. Bradley manning didn't get a fair trial he got lynched. An open trial with a just might have decided that his actions were justified"

Bradley Manning is a Soldier. He was active on duty during his crime. He was tried by a Military Court. Anyone who blows the whistle is not necessarily a traitor but he did break Military rules & violated his Military Oath. Military Courts do not have to be conducted in the open. That's as it should be, for any nation with a standing army on earth. What can anyone rationally expect? That he should have hid out in the Soviet Union, oops, I mean Russia?

He willingly signed up, there is no draft.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:39 pm

Bryn Mawr;1433251 wrote: I'd love for you to explain how arming the terrorists and paying them to bring down the established government of the country constitutes "keeping them at bay"!

Care to point out how such a "strategy" could possibly work?

The American gov't, & yours as well and most others work for the big capitalist interests, IMO.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:43 pm

Thanks very much for your input ... much appreciated.

This: Yet we are told it's not our concern and anyone who blows the whistle is a traitor. Bradley manning didn't get a fair trial he got lynched. An open trial with a just might have decided that his actions were justified

Call me old fashioned, behind the times, a fool, an idiot and I guess I fall fairly & squarely into all those categories, but ... in my humble opinion Bradley Edward Manning is a United States Army soldier based near Baghdad who passed classified material to Wikileaks and was arrested and charged with communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source, thereby aiding the enemy … period.

He is not a whistle blower, not a 21st century Tiananmen Square Tank Man, he is a traitor.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:47 pm

In his case, yep. And Edward Snowden will become a lackey for the Russians. Can't trust anyone UNDER 30 anymore.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:31 pm

jones jones;1433253 wrote: Bryn ... it must be fairly obvious by now that I am very pro western and in particular pro American ... This being so, the fact that terrorist atrocities against the west and against America are currently at a low ebb, to me equates to the "strategy" working.

The fact that a large chunk of the democratic & civilized world, including Britain, supports the USA works for me too.

I am massively pro western but that does not equate, in all cases, to pro American.

In this case the short termism being shown is highly damaging to western interests - it is stupid policy and deserves all of the criticism it gets.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:39 pm

Bryn Mawr;1433283 wrote: I am massively pro western but that does not equate, in all cases, to pro American.

In this case the short termism being shown is highly damaging to western interests - it is stupid policy and deserves all of the criticism it gets.Causes one to realize, if one can, just how fragile life is and weak our current myths are.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:42 pm

Ahso!;1433287 wrote: Causes one to realize, if one can, just how fragile life is and weak our current myths are.

Where, or How, do you get that from what Bryn said? Explain, please.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:48 pm

AnneBoleyn;1433288 wrote: Where, or How, do you get that from what Bryn said? Explain, please.Which part would you like me to expand on?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:02 pm

Ahso!;1433290 wrote: Which part would you like me to expand on?

Start with:

how fragile life is and weak our current myths are

I don't see how it fits with anything Sir Bryn had to say that you quoted.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:21 pm

Bryn Mawr;1433283 wrote:

In this case the short termism being shown is highly damaging to western interests - it is stupid policy and deserves all of the criticism it gets.

Everything we value, to principles, ideals, morals, our way of life, everything, is a series of myths. We made it all up because that's what the gray matter we possess causes us to do. Our myths are, as Bryn suggested, short termism (love the word). When one realizes just how short sighted we are as a species, one realizes how fragile this entire life we've fashioned is. We're just going along and patching things generational-ly or as difficulties that we're capable of dealing with arise. My point is that our brain is a relatively young organ that is [hopefully] still adapting because if that's not the case, the species is probably doomed by it's own hands.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:25 pm

smarty-pants

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:49 am

Bryn Mawr;1433283 wrote: I am massively pro western but that does not equate, in all cases, to pro American.

In this case the short termism being shown is highly damaging to western interests - it is stupid policy and deserves all of the criticism it gets.

I fully grasp your point Bryn ... My pro-western stance too is not automatically coupled with the fact that I am fervently pro-American. The latter stance stems from the fact that my mother's family are from the USA.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:17 am

jones jones;1433338 wrote: I fully grasp your point Bryn ... My pro-western stance too is not automatically coupled with the fact that I am fervently pro-American. The latter stance stems from the fact that my mother's family are from the USA.

I can understand your sentimentalism JJ. But you can't be blind to us either, to the mistakes we make---deliberately or accidentally.

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:35 am

AnneBoleyn;1433341 wrote: I can understand your sentimentalism JJ. But you can't be blind to us either, to the mistakes we make---deliberately or accidentally.

Annie ... where terrorism is concerned, I am like "the end justifies the means." America will not again be terrorised like during 9/11 and why should they be when they have the means & the might to ensure this?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:19 pm

jones jones;1433343 wrote: Annie ... where terrorism is concerned, I am like "the end justifies the means." America will not again be terrorised like during 9/11 and why should they be when they have the means & the might to ensure this?

Saudi arabian terrorists attack the twin towers and iraq gets invaded. Too bad you invaded the wrong country don't you think? Maybe if the west had supported democracy in saudi arabia Wahhabism would have died on the vine.

Best way to end terrorism is cut off the money supply. That's what really curtailed the ira when the funding from norad was finally cut. What the US should do is seize all saudi arabian assets and tell them if they don't stop supporting islamic terrorists they will be bombed back to the stone age.

Post by **jones jones** » Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:22 pm

gmc;1433416 wrote: Saudi arabian terrorists attack the twin towers and iraq gets invaded. Too bad you invaded the wrong country don't you think? Maybe if the west had supported democracy in saudi arabia Wahhabism would have died on the vine.

Best way to end terrorism is cut off the money supply. That's what really curtailed the ira when the funding from norad was finally cut. What the US should do is seize all saudi arabian assets and tell them if they don't stop supporting islamic terrorists they will be bombed back to the stone age.

Well I guess that could work gmc but it would take a big bite out of the oil supply!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:37 am

gmc;1433416 wrote: Saudi arabian terrorists attack the twin towers and iraq gets invaded. Too bad you invaded the wrong country don't you think?

We invaded Afghanistan where those most responsible for bombing the twin towers were hiding. Nobody ever claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:17 pm

tude dog;1433443 wrote: We invaded Afghanistan where those most responsible for bombing the twin towers were hiding. Nobody ever claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

I beg to differ. One of the major reasons given for believing that thre was a real an imminent danger from Sadam's WMDs was that "he was funding and directly supporting the terrorists responsible for 9/11". That was proven to be a lie too.

Post by **jones jones** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1433459 wrote: I beg to differ. One of the major reasons given for believing that thre was a real an imminent danger from Sadam's WMDs was that "he was funding and directly supporting the terrorists responsible for 9/11". That was proven to be a lie too.

Ah ... but given by whom Bryn? Chapter & verse if you can ...