Terrorists are only Helping the world

you just made everyone in this forum stupider for reading this

 

hahah "stupider" nuff said.

 

DJ, I'm glad you can appreciate alternative points of view.

Terrorists doesn't really refer to anyone, terrorism is just a vauge tactic, and the war on terror was declared by the bush administration to specifically justify a campaign aginst iraq a year and a half later.

The US doesn't want to take over the world, and our interests in the middle east are soley based on oil, otherwise we'd just leave these people completly alone, so when you look at it that way, your assertion that terrorists are helping the arab world from being taken over sorta makes sense, but our only intrest is oil, and we can import that until we fulfil our energy needs elsewhere.

But what we refer to as terrorists, which are Islamic fundamentalists, are intersted isn't securing their society from being taken over, but instead they are interested in protecting their way of life from changes that would result from associating with the west, they are afraid of democracy, they are afriad of women and they are afraid of change and thats the western immorality they refer to. The Islamic fundamentalists feel the only way to protect their society is the complete abolishment of our own, and we can't accept that, and you should never become so tolerant that you tollerate intollerance.

These Islamic fundamentalists hate these aspects of western culture and anyone who practices them, Canadians, Europeans, Austrailians, Russians, and Japanesse should never think that they are immune from the wrath of these 'terrorists' simply because the US is the most attractive target, these fundamentalists despise western culture and would stike at these places in an instant.

The USA may do some undesirable things, but you should never confuse the fact that 'terrorists' hate the most desirable aspects of western culture, and would stop at no atrocity to strike fear in to the hearts of their enemies, and thats what terrorism is, its using the most deplorable tactics imaginable to bring the world back to an ideal from the dark ages, where jews and women were used as currency.

I'd rather be *sorta* free.

 

i only want to have a discussion, not push views on people. I will respond to your post tom, i'm too tired tonight :S

 

OK digitalldj, I will illustrate to prove the point that nobody is better off because of terrorism.

This is your country before you decide to kill a few thousand American civilians:



.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And this is what happens to your country afterwards. (that's America on the left, and the country the terrorists came from on the right)

Also, winning a bunch of medals at the Olympics is quite possibly the stupidest reason ever invented to attack a country.
​

 

Lots of my friends have this anti-usa feeling and sometimes i can understand them

 

Hole in the wall country?

i would call it an economic partner and allie

 

Lodui, links please.

From this link, China rates 10th in the world in reserves. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

This link speaks of China's largest onshore oil field becoming exhausted. http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/engli...tent_317672.htm

If the supply is so huge, then why is there problems in meeting the demand? They're pumping flat out. If China has so much, why is she to become the second biggest oil importer in the world. http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t44331.htm

 

Got links?

The hydrogen economy I have read is a myth.

Fuel Cell Folly. http://manila.servlet.net/fuelcellfolly/

Why hydrogen is no Solution. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr...en_answers.html

The Hydra Headed Hydrogen Hoax on future "Freedom" cars http://www.recoverybydiscovery.com/hydrogen.htm

As for my views on alternative energy, well they work but they will not facilitate the high material life style you think it will. Don't confuse the lower energy per capita Europeans with the US, where they have made moves, both culturally and in clean alternatives. They're the key differences you have to accept, but no, far easier to buy into the "hydrogen economy" as that means nothing has to actually change. Factor in too the mere 1.2 billion USD to the R&D. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2705607.stm

The only real way to have a complete alternative energy society is to get rid of the car, decentralise cities, with farming within the community and electric trams/trains as public transport. Think. If this hydrogen economy was actually possible, then why is the US in Iraq and has so far spent 130 billion USD and increasing. Quite a trend to keeping the gasoline economy and NOT the hydrogen economy. http://costofwar.com/

The problem...

http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
It's important for Americans to remember that America imports more than 50 percent of its oil -- more than 10 million barrels a day. And the figure is rising. [..]this dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security. To put it bluntly, sometimes we rely upon energy sources from countries that don't particularly like us. - George W. Bush, February 25, 2002

The spin...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0604-10.htm
The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

Now, if you're talking fusion, well the US appears to have pulled the pin on that. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996225

If you're talking how far away a fusion reactor is...

http://popularmechanics.com/science...dux/print.phtml
"To me, this is just a mind-boggling achievement. With adequate federal funding, a prototype nuclear fusion reactor could be tested within 30 to 40 years. A commercial reactor could be deployed by the middle of the century." -- Miklos Porkolab, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Plasma Science and Fusion Center in Cambridge

30 to 40 years on a prototype...pfft. If fusion was close, then yes a hydrogen economy would be plausible because hydrogen is only a carrier and not an energy. You need vast sums of energy to make hydrogen. I don't see the money and trends to that end.

 

Why over consume? Especially now. It hasn't done your nation any favours, aside throw it into colossal debt. Read this article.

Spending our way to disaster -- The consumer debt bubble in the United States could make the stock bubble seem like nothing. http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/

From a financial point of view with imminent recession (yes, recession in the US), you'd be a fool to go credit card buy a plasma TV and surround sound system if you haven't paid off your mortgage or other debts. Here's some recent news.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business...40827_1266.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3605432.stm

http://www.financialsense.com/edito.../2004/0824.html

http://www.safehaven.com/article-1886.htm

http://www.safehaven.com/article-1866.htm

http://www.forbes.com/business/ener...820topnews.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/20...sh_givadam.html

 

Jealous, hardly. Not when 1/3 of your rivers and lakes are mercury polluted. The crime rates, insane drug laws, the inequity, the lack of medical, the social problems ect ect. I'll set it straight. I've never been, nor will be jealous of the US.

http://www.escapeartist.com/australia/evaluation.htm
Escape Artist Evaluation of Australia As a Expatriate Destination - As pointed out in the book Escape From America, measuring a nation's potential as an expatriate destination by looking only at the level of wages & personal income is foolish. Level of income tells you nothing other than how much is being earned. It doesn't tell you the price of tomatoes, the quality of the schools, nor the level of crime. If you have to put bars on your windows, bus your children 15 miles to a civilized school and eat polluted tomatoes, you've lost income and quality of life - - Australia is noted for many things, but most of all it is noted for it's excellent quality of life.

 

illustrating your point through posting pictures of babies is great, not. and where did i ever say that winning a tonne of medals at the olympics was the reason for war? i only said that it shows their dominance in producing super athletes as did nazi germany during the 2nd world war.

 

This email from an American friend (and no less a conservative) doesn't paint such a rosy picture:

"Regarding coal as a replacement - not a good thing at all. Having our environment soaked in mercury is not what you want to see. We already have enough stupid people with low foreheads running around.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...cury-lede_x.htm

Eating a fish caught in our local lake's or river's is likely to be dangerous. Mercury is some horrendous shit. Coal is not the answer.

It is prudent to entertain the thought that America will get really fucked up as this and other issues come to a head. You have to look at the factors that make the phenomenon possible, just like with a tornado or other natural event.

Massive public and private debt. Impending energy crisis. Lots of weapons. A huge, violent underclass. A lack of conscience and intellect. Sellout gov't that has abandoned the best interests of the people. Competition from other world powers. Population soaring, in contrast with other first world nations. Serious future concerns over sufficient clean water. Lack of social mobility. Media exists to profit, not inform. The gigantic cost of Zionism. An absolutely awe-inspiring amount of money stolen by fat cats. Gigantic health care markups. A soft, soft, soft pussy-ass population that is separated from chaos by a few days of missed shipments of essential goods.

It would really suck to be a young person now. I'm glad I'm kind of old, and have no desire to see what the second half of this century is gonna look like. I think it will resemble a dirty rag on a donkey's ass."

 

I see the situation is now changing. That's the key difference.

The choice is a soft or hard landing. I think the former is better. To continue on the path of the latter is a march to resource war. The US will have a draft for that. You'll lose more than the near 1000 service people so far in Iraq. How real is a draft, well the math of it shows the trend. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0423-04.htm

As for "consumerism", I've never been one for overt consumerism, you can't save and invest to what's important, if you do that. It's a shabby way to get ahead. I also have a dim view of credit moochers who get stung on needless materialism.

Take a look at the real cost. http://www.verdant.net/index.html

Of course, you can take the easier path and take this view, which is outdated given the facts of today. http://www.economist.com/displaysto...story_id=718860

I see you offered no links, just your worthless lil' feelunz. *yawn*.

 

i love it when people can back up their shit with sources and links, good work debating mr soul, my hats off to you

 

if you like links, here ya go: Compelling evidence

 

idiot. at least others post reliable sources with usefull info, dont fuck with a thread cause your to stupid to do anything otherwise.

 

sounds like somebody could use a nap

 

Way to post a serious(ly stupid) topic in Random Thoughts, smart guy.

If you want a chance to be taken seriously go to Politics or America Attacks. this place is for jokes and bullshit and stupid popularity threads.

 

TTT, i wasnt going to post anything else in this thread, but fuck heads were giving me death threats in my Thread ratings, so i decided i would revive it, anyone got anything else retarded to say to back up your country?