Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam

[drop]

In this former industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home. They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.

this is a small quote from a story in the todays New York Times.
all i really have to say about this is "YIKES!!!"

[Jamoid]

id quite like to see tony blair dead, dunno about the islamic flag though. lol

[drop]

apparently groups of islamic radicals, mainly in GB and Germany, are swearing alligence to osama and are willing to be used as his "sword" in order to bring Islam to "those godless Europeans" if they don't accept his truce, sounds more like surrender, offer. More mainstream muslims say that they are powerless (yeah right) to do anything about the situation, and want the government to act against the radicals. the governments say their hands are tied because of liberal laws affecting immigration, and investigation.

so in short expect another m-13/9-11 in Europe again, because the people who can do something about it appear to be playing power games.

[decadnids]

Originally posted by drop
the governments say their hands are tied because of liberal laws affecting immigration, and investigation.

so in short expect another m-13/9-11 in Europe again, because the people who can do something about it appear to be playing power games.

being british and living here, I can say that their are a far number of muslims who are british citizens, so immigrations doesn't affect them as they are already citizens of the UK - regarding laws on investigation, there are currently hundreds of people under arrest who can be detained indefinatley without charge. now, I dont see this as being that liberal.

the whole nature of these "cells" is that they have no centralised point that they take orders from, they act alone and die alone, and dont effect in any way the "operation". It is very easy for anyone to create an explosive device.

Bin Laden isn't some almighty ruler over some huge global army of terrorist, he is a lurker in some mountain region, and these cells act alone.

out of interest, are their any Muslims on the board? i would like to hear thier side of things.

I have read quite a lot regarding the hostory of islam, and I have a fond interest in sufism.

[drop]

how is this being reported in the UK,
that is,
if its being reported at all

[decadnids]

Originally posted by drop
how is this being reported in the UK,
that is,
if its being reported at all

depends on what paper you read, what news programme you watch.

I am more concerned about the sneeky way that Labour government has used every "threat" as a means to quickly shuffle a new law through - in the good interest of the people.

A lot of the press is blowing things out of scale, I feel, as they always do. Yes there def. is more chance of an "attack" to the UK due to our involvement in the Iraq war, but we have to remember that Bin Laden and Sadam where mortal enemies. Thier views on Isam can be liked to the Catholic / protestant schism. Both of the "same religion" but massivly different views.

The Government latest thing is trying to rush in the ID cards - as this will obviously protect everyone...... Now I dont for a second believe this will help in anyway in stopping an attack. if some one is that intent on blowing somewhere up, they will do it.

[drop]

just to add a little :
it seems that the main line of prevention in the UK and Germany (the countries covered in the article) is deportation, making thier problem someone elses.
the reference to liberal laws impeding investigations is applied to the case of a radical cleric that recruits and incites in the Luton area. supposedly the british gov. has been trying to deport the guy for years without sucess.
it really doesn't matter whether osama is in charge or not, he's a symbol that people are willing to die and kill for, and thats what the cells are all about.

[decadnids]

Personally, I feel that the thing that the Islamic people are willing to die for is Allah and not Bin Laden.

As has often been stated, there are wider issues regarding this whole mess. Historically, there has been constant wars between the christian west and islamic middle east. At times a lot of Europe was under Islamic power and not Christian. So lets not forget the history here.

I feel that a lot of the lines that are needed to be there are being blured by the press and by people.

And to just lump what these terrorist are doing as being ISLAM is very wrong, and would be like someone saying what the IRA do is representative of the whole of Catholicism.

[drop]

Originally posted by decadnids


depends on what paper you read, what news programme you watch.

I am more concerned about the sneeky way that Labour government has used every "threat" as a means to quickly shuffle a new law through - in the good interest of the people.

A lot of the press is blowing things out of scale, I feel, as they always do. Yes there def. is more chance of an "attack" to the UK due to our involvement in the Iraq war, but we have to remember that Bin Laden and Sadam where mortal enemies. Thier views on Isam can be liked to the Catholic / protestant schism. Both of the "same religion" but massivly different views.

The Government latest thing is trying to rush in the ID cards - as this will obviously protect everyone...... Now I dont for a second believe this will help in anyway in stopping an attack. if some one is that intent on blowing somewhere up, they will do it.

don't you think that the main pro/con to islam is that it brings a large diverse group of people together for a common cause.
example: the insurgency in iraq, sunni and shites, who really hate each suspending their hate to face a common enemy.

i think that the british role in iraq has triggered the radical islamist to take action, but if you look at the emergence of al qaida, which is fighting to end "western oppression" in the middle east, and the egyptian jihad of the 50/60s, which fought to end british influence in the area, there seems to be major precedent for wanting to wage jihad against the UK.
the same could be said of Spain, and France

[decadnids]

don't you think that the main pro/con to islam is that it brings a large diverse group of people together for a common cause.
example: the insurgency in iraq, sunni and shites, who really hate each suspending their hate to face a common enemy.


the sunni and shiites are not joined together, and I dont think they ever will. not totally.

if things dont get into check soon there will be a civil war in Iraq.

[drop]

Originally posted by decadnids
Personally, I feel that the thing that the Islamic people are willing to die for is Allah and not Bin Laden.

As has often been stated, there are wider issues regarding this whole mess. Historically, there has been constant wars between the christian west and islamic middle east. At times a lot of Europe was under Islamic power and not Christian. So lets not forget the history here.

I feel that a lot of the lines that are needed to be there are being blured by the press and by people.

And to just lump what these terrorist are doing as being ISLAM is very wrong, and would be like someone saying what the IRA do is representative of the whole of Catholicism.
agreed completly
i think the main problem is within the islamic community there aren't any voices reaching out to the terrorist, or at least there doesn't seen to be. i see a bunch of opportunist waiting to see what happens btwn islam and the west before they take sides. making the situation more dangerous than it needs to be because now western countries now have to defend themselves against one or two people with a bomb.

[decadnids]

islamic community there aren't any voices reaching out to the terrorist


I dunno about that. its not as simple as that.

the confilict in Ireland goes to prove that. No matter how many times people high up in the Catholic and Protestant Clergy said anything regarding the violence that was going on it didnt do much good.

These people, just because they call themselves followers of Islam, doesn't mean that they are will listen to other people who call themselves Islamic.

There isn't, as far as I can tell, this one big happy "islamic community" there is a world religion, that is ISLAM and with in that there are factions and splinters all taking the word of Mohammed and interpreting that how they feel fit.


~~~~~~SIDE NOTE@@@@@
An interesting thing relating to this, was a programme on TV last night called Abrahams Children, and it looked at the roots of Islam and Judaism. (both work their way back to Abraham).

The Jews see themselves as decendants of Isaac, and the Muslims as deceding from Ishmael.

[drop]

isn't the goal of the radical islamist to create an islamic community that reaches beyond established borders
i once recommended vs naipauls book "beyond belief: islamic excursions among the converted peoples" in another thread. the book gives several examples of the spread of islam from the middle east to the far east, pro and cons. over and over the point is made that the conversion to islam demands the erasure of the non-islamic past (remember the taliban), replaced with an alligence to all things islamic, including the holy lands.

side note: i think i saw the same doc. on the history channel, amazing that this whole thing comes out of some sibling rivialry

[decadnids]

Originally posted by drop
isn't the goal of the radical islamist to create an islamic community that reaches beyond established borders


thats my point - a lot of the press makes out that ALL OF ISLAM are radical islamist

thats all i was trying to get across, that islam as a "whole" doesn't equate to radicalism.

[schlongfingers]

Originally posted by drop

don't you think that the main pro/con to islam is that it brings a large diverse group of people together for a common cause.
example: the insurgency in iraq, sunni and shites, who really hate each suspending their hate to face a common enemy.

don't you think that the main pro/con to * is that it brings a large diverse group of people together for a common cause.

REPLACE AT WILL

[drop]

true that schlong...
but the fact is radical islamist have taken this cause and twisted it into "the beginings of all your suffering starts with the west"
maybe true
maybe false
i think more false than true since most of these people have chosen a lifestyle little changed since it began

so to take on your challenge shlong " the main pro/con to buddism is that it brings a large diverse group of people together for a common cause" except the buddist haven't advocating overthrowning the governments of europe and establishing buddist rule.

[decadnids]

Originally posted by drop

so to take on your challenge shlong " the main pro/con to buddism is that it brings a large diverse group of people together for a common cause" except the buddist haven't advocating overthrowning the governments of europe and establishing buddist rule.

is it a pro or a con?

either way, the main point of Buddhism isn't to "bring a large diverse group of people together for a common cause". neither is it Islams.

[drop]

true, but isn't that what its become

[drop]

i'm checking out the telegraph online, any recomendations as to what to read, who's credible, etc, etc

[decadnids]

true, but isn't that what its become


no - i dont believe it has.

as for press - I would say read as much as you can and make up your own opinion. after all

"its time we pulled the wool over our own eyes".

[schlongfingers]

Originally posted by drop so to take on your challenge shlong " the main pro/con to buddism is that it brings a large diverse group of people together for a common cause" except the buddist haven't advocating overthrowning the governments of europe and establishing buddist rule. [/B]

True, but we were talking 'common cause' not a specific one.

I don't believe overthrowing any government is the aim of Islam itself, it's possibly one of the aims of a minority within Islam. The same situation applies to practically every religious organisation - there are extremists in every walk of society.

[drop]

but hasn't that minority taken the majority for one hell of a ride.
i've read that the main struggle is, adding to the status of islam within world politics. many muslims believe that because of religious reasons their voice has been diminshed over the last 100 years. so taken into that context its easy to see why even moderate islamist would take a backseat to this conflict if, in the end, it means a higher status for islam.
yes there are extremist in every walk of society, or in this case every religon, but right now we're fighting a war against one.
the saddest part of this is that in reality its really an internal struggle btwn the governments of the middle east and their people.
in reality there is very little the West can do, except (i know ya'll are going to hate this next bit, so i'm going to say it and hope it doesn't get too nasty in here) do what we're doing now in Iraq.

[schlongfingers]

Originally posted by drop yes there are extremist in every walk of society, or in this case every religon, but right now we're fighting a war against one.

Are 'we'? I'm not, I don't think most people in the UK believe that they are either.

the saddest part of this is that in reality its really an internal struggle btwn the governments of the middle east and their people.
in reality there is very little the West can do, except (i know ya'll are going to hate this next bit, so i'm going to say it and hope it doesn't get too nasty in here) do what we're doing now in Iraq. [/B]

No, the saddest part about this is that it is the result of the actions of one unelected government and it's debtors (ie the UK) stealing as much oil as they can get their hands on. Not that this is a new thing, it's just that the supplies are starting to get low.

Do what we're doing in Iraq - yeah great idea - Who's next in line should we evacuate Luton? There's a large Muslim population here in Leicester should we get the red paint out and mark the doorframes? Could yellow stars make a comeback? Hey once we've rinsed them all out we can rob the petrol stations - that'll pay for the whole shebang.

[drop]

you missed my point.
so don't get too excited

because of a lack of moderation in the middle east, mainly the fault of the powers that be, the voice of the common man has been squashed,
the common man finds power within religon, and the religious leaders find that they now have the power to correct the wrongs of the oppressed.
take the egyptian jihad for example, heres a group that was outlawed by the government until they started teaching anti-us, anti-west- not anti-egyptian government which is the real cause of their oppression (actually they were also fighting the british who established a puppet government in the country),
the government kinda deflected any criticism of its policies and labeled their faults the faults of (pick a western power)
so really it a twisted internal struggle that has its roots deep in colonialism.

how do you defeat that,
i mean not later, western powers don't have dipolmatic missions with the different clerics and different sects.
you have to force a government to accept criticism from it people, the common man has to have a voice
elections, first for little things, eventually for a new form of goverance these kinds of things
but the people have to take action, and that is what has lead us to iraq.
for 10 years we've waited
and waited
and waited
and nothing until 9/11 when we opened our eyes to what could be
so yes if invading a country and taking out a government that continues to make its problems, MY problems then that is what has to happen. as a result saudi arabia has it hands full with al qaida, yemen (previously very unfriendly to the west) is changing, syria seems to be softening it line a bit, and even iran seems friendlier.
what about libya, damn!!!! outside of israel and iraq the middle east seems like a better place than it was a few years back. who cares if right now they don't like me or my country, in the end i think we'll all be better after a good wash to get rid of the dirt.

the misconception is, and point i've tried to make over the course of a few threads is this: iraq might have made the situation worse than it was, but who's to say that afganistan would'nt have been the excuse for an attack (i think it already come up, and really the taliban deserved what they got), and as a major western power why does the UK, or certain people from the UK, feel that they wouldn't have been targeted. if i were a terrorist attacking western intrest i would have the US at the top of the list, followed closely by the UK, and the rest of NATO. that has nothing to do with oil or iraq.

since i don't own a car, and i don't need to heat my home i really give a fuck about oil

[schlongfingers]

Originally posted by drop
Because of a lack of moderation in the middle east, mainly the fault of the powers that be, the voice of the common man has been squashed,
the common man finds power within religon, and the religious leaders find that they now have the power to correct the wrongs of the oppressed.
take the egyptian jihad for example, heres a group that was outlawed by the government until they started teaching anti-us, anti-west- not anti-egyptian government which is the real cause of their oppression (actually they were also fighting the british who established a puppet government in the country),
the government kinda deflected any criticism of its policies and labeled their faults the faults of (pick a western power)
so really it a twisted internal struggle that has its roots deep in colonialism.

how do you defeat that,


I can't talk about egypt as I have no knowledge of what you're discussing, so Ill leave this for now, will come back once I've done some research. But governments deflecting attacks by passing the buck is certainly not limited to the Middle East

you have to force a government to accept criticism from it people, the common man has to have a voice elections, first for little things, eventually for a new form of goverance these kinds of things
but the people have to take action, and that is what has lead us to iraq.
for 10 years we've waited
and waited
and waited
and nothing until 9/11 when we opened our eyes to what could be
so yes if invading a country and taking out a government that continues to make its problems, MY problems then that is what has to happen.

Sorry but I've seen nothing to suggest that Saddam hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, can you show me some?

In terms of the voice of the common man - how many countries have corrupt and self-servient governments? There are scores of places with awful records to which 'the people have to take action' could apply - and I include your country and my country in amongst them. I'm sorry but how can a country enforce an election upon another country when their own system is publicly thrown? I believe heavily in the theory that the invasion of Iraq was a result of the demand for oil - specifically because Saddam Hussein had switched to trading in Euro for Oil rather than $. Other oil producing countries were watching to see the outcome of this change and had they transferred to trading in Euro as well the US would have been screwed financially. The UK joined because our government is endebted to, and many would say the lapdog of, your government.


as a result saudi arabia has it hands full with al qaida, yemen (previously very unfriendly to the west) is changing, syria seems to be softening it line a bit, and even iran seems friendlier. What about libya, damn!!!! outside of israel and iraq the middle east seems like a better place than it was a few years back.

Yessiree, seeing your next door neighbour hunted down to his hiding place in a hole in the ground despite international condemnation puts real weight on the phrase 'put up or shut up'

the misconception is, and point i've tried to make over the course of a few threads is this: iraq might have made the situation worse than it was, but who's to say that afganistan would'nt have been the excuse for an attack (i think it already come up, and really the taliban deserved what they got), and as a major western power why does the UK, or certain people from the UK, feel that they wouldn't have been targeted. if i were a terrorist attacking western intrest i would have the US at the top of the list, followed closely by the UK, and the rest of NATO. that has nothing to do with oil or iraq.

No, you're right it would have been a target, I'm a firm believer in 'what goes around comes around' - I'm not making excuses for killing people, but that's what I think. If I lived in a world where every day was a struggle to feed my family, and was sat there watching my countrys natural resources being sucked dry for another countrys profit - I'd be pretty pissed off.

since i don't own a car, and i don't need to heat my home i really give a fuck about oil [/B]

What are you using to power your computer? What powers the trucks that drive back and forth to make sure there is food on your shelves? What powers the aeroplanes, cars and trains that criss-cross the world?

[drop]

damn, i've been waiting for someone to make that observation about oil. of course its about oil, that damn fucking obvious, the world economy would collaspe without it, certainly a reason to go to war, so why stop at iraq.
and if this were truely about oil, i mean completely about oil, wheres the benifits, the prices haven't changed,
i figure that would be the first thing that would've happened after the first gulf war, just to help justifiy that war, which the anti-war pack said was about oil. so that a yes, no, maybe type answer.

i'm not saying that i'm comfortable with whats happened in iraq, or how the bush/blair axis handled it, but
when saddam invaded kuwait, did he try to improve on the lives of kuwaitis, nah, he killed them, lots of them
some of which were formally buried today.

the logic behind getting rid of saddam was
1. he invaded kuwait on the premise of taking the oil fields (theres your oil based war)
2. he invaded iran, i don't know why
3. he was getting ready to invade saudi arabia
4. operation northern/southern watch had to come to an end sometime
5. iraq was becoming the war that never ends, like korea
6. the presence of troops in saudi arabia was one of the justifications of 9/11, troops that we pulled out at the begining of last year.
7. the saddam/osama axis was very unlikely, but the threat of saddam mounting his own campaign against the west would've complicated things.

there are a lot of very realistic what ifs...
and bushy, for all of his war-mongering monkeyness, didn't want to be the president who withstood a second, and third, etc, etc attack against the US by a foe who should've been dealt with 10 years back. hell, bushy even critized his pops for letting saddam go.

if our concern was oil, we would've changed governments in venezuela, and forced mass exploration for oil in south america, something that started but has recently been shelved.

as for iraqs neighbors, they said little before the war, and aided with the staging of US forces, what does that tell you, turkey not only backed out of the invasion,but it didn't permit US troops to use its soil as a staging area, why not jordan, and saudi arabia, and kuwait, and qatar, and uae, why did yemen let the US use it ports
if the governments of the middle east were so opposed to the invasion of iraq why didn't they go the way of turkey

something to keep an eye on in the next few months: if prince bandar really did get a glimpse of the war plans before the war and a deal was really made oil prices should go down for no reason at a time when they should be going up.

and as far as another countries profit is concerned i believe that some of the countries in the middle east maintain a higher standard of living (i should say the oil-rich countries, the ones being sucked off) than the majority of the western countries.

[schlongfingers]

Originally posted by drop
damn, i've been waiting for someone to make that observation about oil. of course its about oil, that damn fucking obvious, the world economy would collaspe without it, certainly a reason to go to war, so why stop at iraq.
and if this were truely about oil, i mean completely about oil, wheres the benifits, the prices haven't changed,
i figure that would be the first thing that would've happened after the first gulf war, just to help justifiy that war, which the anti-war pack said was about oil. so that a yes, no, maybe type answer.

No the prices haven't changed - it still as scarce as it ever was, it's just that the US government have ensured supply for the next X years and can continue to both profit on the use of $ as the usable currency and continue heavily taxing supplies for this period of time. I doubt you'll ever see prices of oil drop as a 'common man' in the US - it's not your pocket your government is trying to fill.

i'm not saying that i'm comfortable with whats happened in iraq, or how the bush/blair axis handled it, but
when saddam invaded kuwait, did he try to improve on the lives of kuwaitis, nah, he killed them, lots of them
some of which were formally buried today.

No, he was a nasty fucker - I'm not disputing that, it's a fact, but he was PUT INTO POWER due to the US governments fight againstY communism. Like it or not your government put him there, then when he got too big for his boots they took him out.

the logic behind getting rid of saddam was
1. he invaded kuwait on the premise of taking the oil fields (theres your oil based war)

Yep, I reckon there'll be many more to come

2. he invaded iran, i don't know why

http://www.nonviolentways.org/arming-iraq.html

3. he was getting ready to invade saudi arabia

First time I've heard that, where's the evidence?

4. operation northern/southern watch had to come to an end sometime

US would have continued surveillance no matter what.

5. iraq was becoming the war that never ends, like korea

I don't believe it was at war at the time? And re// Korea - another case of the US Gov supporting one side agains the communist affiliated opponent.

6. the presence of troops in saudi arabia was one of the justifications of 9/11, troops that we pulled out at the begining of last year.

Jesus - there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Iraq had any involvement in 9/11 - and it's not for the want of trying!!

7. the saddam/osama axis was very unlikely, but the threat of saddam mounting his own campaign against the west would've complicated things.

Yep, lots of possible events can cause possible complications - no reason for a war.

there are a lot of very realistic what ifs...
and bushy, for all of his war-mongering monkeyness, didn't want to be the president who withstood a second, and third, etc, etc attack against the US by a foe who should've been dealt with 10 years back. hell, bushy even critized his pops for letting saddam go.

The US didn't get attacked by Saddam Hussein the first time!

if our concern was oil, we would've changed governments in venezuela, and forced mass exploration for oil in south america, something that started but has recently been shelved.

Recently been shelved you say - why doesn't that surprise me. Somthing must have changed for the US Gov to no longer have such a concern in its near neighbours oil supplies. Funnily enough Venezuala were watching the success of Iraq's conversion to trading in Euros very intently - http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm

as for iraqs neighbors, they said little before the war, and aided with the staging of US forces, what does that tell you, turkey not only backed out of the invasion,but it didn't permit US troops to use its soil as a staging area, why not jordan, and saudi arabia, and kuwait, and qatar, and uae, why did yemen let the US use it ports
if the governments of the middle east were so opposed to the invasion of iraq why didn't they go the way of turkey

It tells me that the US Government has a real stranglehold on the Middle East.

something to keep an eye on in the next few months: if prince bandar really did get a glimpse of the war plans before the war and a deal was really made oil prices should go down for no reason at a time when they should be going up.

and as far as another countries profit is concerned i believe that some of the countries in the middle east maintain a higher standard of living (i should say the oil-rich countries, the ones being sucked off) than the majority of the western countries. [/B]

Yes, you're right the ones that aid the US Government in the extraction of oil get a lovely cut of the profits.

[drop]

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

like i said what ifs
look at the date and tell me that an alliance btwn osama and saddam could never have happened.

as far as south america was concerned the price of doing business, btwn the threat of mass indian revolt, corrupt governments, and guerillas, put the hold on oil exploration in the columbia, ecuador region

in what way do we have a stranglehold the major business partners in the region are european, remember the largest oil companies aren't american

the complications were the reason for war: remember the term preemtive, some people didn't to wait around and find out an alliance btwn osama and saddam was impossible.

as far a your assertion that the US, actually NATO ran Operation Northern/Southern Watch, could've continued, the US military is in the process of downsizing, considering the "war on terrorism" and the humantarian crisis that the siege of iraq was creating i think the decision was made to pull the plug and oust saddam.
tying up resources in a very hostile part of the world for 10+ years, and the money wasted on such an operation is foolish.
it was time to move on
and as it turns out the real benifactors of the siege wasn't NATO, or the US, or the usual suspects, it was the UN, who was blackmarketing oil for saddam, so he could build his palaces, and re-build his army.
didn't it strike you as strange that saddam was able to field a large army when the rest of his country was starving.

and as far as the wmd's are concerned check the news in jordan...

[drop]

oil as the excuse for everything the US does as of late is too simple
yes there are probably instances were it applys
but
i think that in the case of the iraq war it just one of many reasons
supposedly high-level government officials are smarter than i am so it troubles me when i can do about an hours worth of research (plus the military experience that i have) and pull down a dozen reason for ousting saddam and replacing him with someone friendlier not only to the US, but to the region. i feel that any of these reason could've been used to justifiy the war, instead they, my government, lied about the reasons for going. it pisses me off because what could've been a noble mission with international involvement (deflating all the reasons for osama jihad) has turned into pissing match.
that said the attitudes that the international community was also as dead wrong as bush and company. sitting and waiting, for what.... accomplished/es nothing but more sick and starving iraqis. how could any of ya'll go along that line. at least, no matter what, whether the US/UK establish the fabled democracy that's wanted the iraqi people have something to look forward to other than NATO warplanes, oppression, and starvation.
fuck all the rest of the bullshit

[schlongfingers]

Originally posted by drop
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
like i said what ifs
look at the date and tell me that an alliance btwn osama and saddam could never have happened.


Come on, that's extremist propeganda - the ravings of a nutter, what you're implying is that because Bin Laden put the call out to Islamic nations for Jihad on the US it's OK to take out the governments of Islamic countries because they might join in!
That's plain ridiculous!

as far as south america was concerned the price of doing business, btwn the threat of mass indian revolt, corrupt governments, and guerillas, put the hold on oil exploration in the columbia, ecuador region

Lucky South America!!!

in what way do we have a stranglehold the major business partners in the region are european, remember the largest oil companies aren't american
,
I think it is the element of control that is the key, ie// having influence over who gets the oil and what currency it's traded in. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FD27Dj02.html[/quote]


the complications were the reason for war: remember the term preemtive, some people didn't to wait around and find out an alliance btwn osama and saddam was impossible.

Do you get Brass Eye in the US? I've a feeling you do from some of your comments - NOTHING is impossible! Should we blow up the moon because it's possible that it might one day crash to earth?

as far a your assertion that the US, actually NATO ran Operation Northern/Southern Watch, could've continued, the US military is in the process of downsizing, considering the "war on terrorism" and the humantarian crisis that the siege of iraq was creating i think the decision was made to pull the plug and oust saddam.

Sorry, my bad I wasn't aware it was NATO ran, but I still stand by what I said - the US Gov would have continued surveillance - they do everywhere else.

tying up resources in a very hostile part of the world for 10+ years, and the money wasted on such an operation is foolish.
it was time to move on
and as it turns out the real benifactors of the siege wasn't NATO, or the US, or the usual suspects, it was the UN, who was blackmarketing oil for saddam, so he could build his palaces, and re-build his army.
didn't it strike you as strange that saddam was able to field a large army when the rest of his country was starving.

No it doesn't strike me as strange, he was a dictator that tends to be the route they follow. For more of an outline on dictators click here - http://www.konformist.com/2000/bush-dictator.htm

and as far as the wmd's are concerned check the news in jordan... [/B]

I see, looks like another suspected al qaeda attack has been stopped - unfortunately I don't believe their plans will EVER be stopped, not now it's too late. And if US/UK foreign policy continues the same path its trodden for the last 100 years their ranks will swell.

[garew]

If all cells were completely cut off from communication, acted alone, and died alone. I would think there would be more terrorism. Seems they wait and wait and wait and strike. You have to have serious logistics to keep everyone quite until someone says go.

[drop]

the problem with bush as dictator is that he isn't president for life, 8 years max, probably be out of office after november.

the military intelligence machine that once was was dismantled by Clinton, almost all the MI units are reserve or national guard, its hard to continue surveillance with weekend warriors

sure if the moon was threatening to fall down we would probably try and blown the sucker up first

jihad is what osama called for and jihad is what you see happening, check the begining of the thread

control over who gets what: now you're talking WTO, international business not strictly american

yeah i agree with you, lucky south america

[drop]

supposedly the cell don't act on their own, they can easily communicate the same way we are now.

i've seen pictures of osama with a SAT phone, i'm sure those things are all over the middle/far east so he's not cut off from his "soliders"

[schlongfingers]

Originally posted by drop
[B]the problem with bush as dictator is that he isn't president for life, 8 years max, probably be out of office after november.

I hope so. I hope we get rid of Blair as well. That said what alternatives are there this time around, unfortunately it always seems to be best of a bad bunch. Anyway hope this time both the UK and the US general public vote heavily with their feet - and that even the powers that be can't outsmart the counting procedure.

the military intelligence machine that once was was dismantled by Clinton, almost all the MI units are reserve or national guard, its hard to continue surveillance with weekend warriors

I'm thinking more along the lines of robotic and satellite surveillance.

jihad is what osama called for and jihad is what you see happening, check the begining of the thread

Yep, I think it's happening. I also think that UK/US invasion of Iraq has fuelled support for Jihad.

[anarchosyn]

Originally posted by drop

the logic behind getting rid of saddam was
1. he invaded kuwait on the premise of taking the oil fields (theres your oil based war)


And with the support of the US, via April Glaspie the US ambassador to Iraq at the time.

http://www.mideastfacts.com/saddam_glaspie.html

[bitconductor]

>m-13
never seen that written before
good to reduce that to a natty little buzzcode, not
dunno why i don't like that... but i don't

[bitch one]

that new york times 'story' sounds like it was lifted directly from a very shoddy tabloid sensationalist documentary which aired on itv last night. it was the classic roger cook style where they suddenly appear at some guy's home sticking a camera in his face accusing him of something bad (hoping he gets angry and hence looks guilty), and when he doesn't reply the desperate sounding journo says 'why don't you reply to these charges? it must be because you are guilty!' classic.

so i would take this new york times story with a pinch of salt if i were you.

[marcel]

Originally posted by drop
if our concern was oil, we would've changed governments in venezuela, and forced mass exploration for oil in south america, something that started but has recently been shelved.

well, the main reason for the iraqwar WAS oil. or to be more specific: economical. because saddam was the first one who thought (in public) about trading oil in euro's. this could have lead to a dominoeffect with every middleeast country trading oil in euros instead of in us$. that would have killed the useconomy (thats a bit complicated then youre not common with economics, but its true believe me). there are a lot of economists thinking that this was the main reason, or at least the last one that was needed, to turn him down. just do some inetresearch.
a shame i cna't comment on the other things brought her up but im recently working hard at the universityfront-no time

'off

[May Kasahara]

Originally posted by drop
yes there are extremist in every walk of society, or in this case every religon, but right now we're fighting a war against one.

Not to mention alongside one.

[bitch one]

personally i think the real reason bush went after iraq was a pathetic desire to please his daddy. the rest is just icing on the cake of this so childish of motives.

and blair just wanted to please his big bully mate.

world politics truly is the politics of the playground (to paraphrase aldous huxley)

[cut out]

Originally posted by May Kasahara


Not to mention alongside one.

damn straight - this is not a criticism of americans or nothing but it does do me 'ead in that liberal americans have been supporting bush/cheney/bumsfield, etc throughout the war - and they are all ultra-conservative christian fundamentalists...

i personally think blair is as extreme in his religious beliefs... but like it always says in the news, he likes to keep it a 'private' matter.

[drop]

Originally posted by bitconductor
>m-13
never seen that written before
good to reduce that to a natty little buzzcode, not
dunno why i don't like that... but i don't
when the madrid bombing happen tve (spanish television) had m-13 on the bottom of the screen ala cnn and 9/11

[drop]

Originally posted by bitch one
personally i think the real reason bush went after iraq was a pathetic desire to please his daddy. the rest is just icing on the cake of this so childish of motives.

and blair just wanted to please his big bully mate.

world politics truly is the politics of the playground (to paraphrase aldous huxley)
i believe you're right, last week he stated that the job should've been done 10years ago, a slap at daddy

[bitconductor]

Originally posted by drop

when the madrid bombing happen tve (spanish television) had m-13 on the bottom of the screen ala cnn and 9/11

i don't doubt it - i didn't think it was your own little abbreviation you made up

[drop]

Originally posted by cut out


damn straight - this is not a criticism of americans or nothing but it does do me 'ead in that liberal americans have been supporting bush/cheney/bumsfield, etc throughout the war - and they are all ultra-conservative christian fundamentalists...

i personally think blair is as extreme in his religious beliefs... but like it always says in the news, he likes to keep it a 'private' matter.
that probably has something to do with it on the fringe, a little something for the moral majority
like i said lots of reasons bush and company decided to end the fight
(or start it ) when they did.

my reference to jordan: supposed terrorist confesses to transporting and funding terrorist plot to blow up the jordaninan intelligence hq using chemical/ high explosive truck bomb. 70 different chemical were found in a warehouse, among them agents used to make wmd's like blister agents. could've resulted in a death count into the 1000s

[drop]

Originally posted by bitch one
that new york times 'story' sounds like it was lifted directly from a very shoddy tabloid sensationalist documentary which aired on itv last night. it was the classic roger cook style where they suddenly appear at some guy's home sticking a camera in his face accusing him of something bad (hoping he gets angry and hence looks guilty), and when he doesn't reply the desperate sounding journo says 'why don't you reply to these charges? it must be because you are guilty!' classic.

so i would take this new york times story with a pinch of salt if i were you.
thanks,
thats what i was looking for
i wanted to see how this was being reported in europe
decadnids stated it depended on who you were watching/ reading
i checked a couple of british newspapers. the telegraph ran the story within another story/ about the iman in luton winning his case against deportation, there was a little blurb about the imans call to jihad in europe, maybe the times ran with that, maybe it was too much for the telegraph to deal with (the telegraph maybe felt he was talking shit)

[bitconductor]

drop ur in the army tho, aren't u? or used to be?
i met a soldier in a club satdy night. going back to iraq next week.
he borrowed some skins off my mate, and i got chatting. i had to abandon the conversation when he said what do you think about terrorists.
not now, PLEASE. not now, not with you.

[drop]

Originally posted by bitconductor
drop ur in the army tho, aren't u? or used to be?
i met a soldier in a club satdy night. going back to iraq next week.
he borrowed some skins off my mate, and i got chatting. i had to abandon the conversation when he said what do you think about terrorists.
not now, PLEASE. not now, not with you.
good thinking , soldiers out of the combat zone aren't very rational humans
the ability to call on extreme violence and anger at will usually get out of control , which is why i've always believed that soliders should go though some type of normalization before coming home.
a few days ago a solider in washington, or oregon was indicted for killing his wife, he just arrived from iraq.

i was in for 6 years, after i got back from panama i had to seek treatment for ptsd

[grobelaar]

Some interesting links with info about recent invasion of Iraq

http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html

http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm

As it goes, the Libyan leader's recent arrival in Brussels may indicate that he is also looking to trade oil in Euros, and perhaps has gone about things in the correct order. Give up WMDs, hand over suspects and so forth and then go visit the Europeans. Not that the US could invade Libya at the moment.

[garew]

I'm sure its complicated as fuck, but this business about the euro and Iraq makes a lot of sense from the outside. Considering what's been happening lately in Europe. This makes sense. I don't think the War was for any one thing, but this could be one of the big things. Must research more. It's all sickening. We used to go to war and know why we were there. Ahh, the good old days

[drop]

i agree with garew the business with the euro and Iraq is troubling because it implies that the United States and Europe are in the midst of an economic cold war and that the war in iraq is just a physical manifestation, just as vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were physical manifestations of the conflict btwn the West and the USSR.

it makes sense, the threat directed towards the EU candidates, by the French prime minister, before the second UN vote to jusitify using force against iraq. i've read that if estonia, latavia, and the other new members of the EU had voted with the US it might have changed things in the security council.
i never believed that the German and the French governments decided against the war on moral grounds, their almost as corporate driven as the US.

[drop]

grobs thanks for the links
interesting

[Mirsha]

Originally posted by drop
i agree with garew the business with the euro and Iraq is troubling because it implies that the United States and Europe are in the midst of an economic cold war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1204094,00.html

[bitch one]

...that GM story makes me mad. how can u.s. govt go on about being the champions of democracy on one hand, and then try to force the people of europe to buy something they patently don't want, even trying to ban LABELLING of gm products?? cunts.

[drop]

http://usembassy.state.gov/mumbai/wwwhwashnews374.html

i don't really know if i want to take a stand on this.
the language in the guardian story is rather inflamatory, "force the EU into submission..."
i did check the US paper to see if the story ran, and as of yet it hasn't, i guess they're going to wait until the actual action happens.
the story on the failure to lift the moritorium did run on dec 8, 2003 in a few papers, and cbs news ran a piece.
i think whats at stake, not mentioned in the piece, is the whole idea of free trade in general, "i have a product that i want to sell, and legally i have the right to sell this product." in the end the EU, which really forced the issue by placing a 5year moritorium, that it didn't lift after 5 years without reason, is really abusing the system. whether the system is proper (the WTO) is probably the subject of another debate.
i think these multinational organizations (UN, WTO, World Bank) are really in need of some fine tuning.

[bitch one]

i thought consumer choice was at the centre of american capitalism, hmm?

if people don't want something because they mistrust it, they should not be forced to buy it.

[drop]

but i don't understand the problem with modified food,
if you drink soda, nothing natural about that
drink any kind of alcohol,
eat most kinds of junk food
or any kind of food that isn't labeled organic
why should food modified to produce higher yields worry you

has it come to the point to where we mistrust the farmer
and trust the chemist when our food is concerned
i guess the saying "better living though chemistry" is true after all

[bitch one]

personally i worry about genetic pollution. for example, a gene for herbicide resistance could easily jump into a virus a thence into a weed and produce superweeds. and there are likely to be unforseeable consequences. genetic engineering is one thing, releasing millions of weird seeds into the environment is another. i'm not worried about eating the stuff, i'm worried about what we are doing to evolution.

[drop]

don't you think that the production of gm crops could help with feeding those unfortuates that don't have the access to food.
in that context don't we, those of us with the technology, have a moral obligation to at least try and work it out.

[bitch one]

...but unleashing gm crops into the ecosystem without knowing the potential consequences for evolution is stupid. it is not being done for the benefit of hungry people, it is being done for the benefit of corporations.

i am not against gm, i just think more science needs to be done first. but it's too late anyway cos u.s. economic policy is simply steamrollering over these concerns and forcing this gigantic experiment onto all of us. they have decided it's ok because it suits them to think that, and because the people who have decided that are not evolutionary scientists and so not sufficiently scared by the possible dire consequences.

we seem to learn nothing from our mistakes. burning oil>global warming. it is possible that gm>some horrible evolutionary catastrophe on a par with global warming...

or not. i just think it's something we should consider before blundering around blindly submitting to economic forces (again)

[drop]

that is true, but i think that some kind of compremise has to be reached with the corporations for this kind of research to go though.
its the curse of a capitalistic society, risk of failure is great, but the chance at success is also great. the money spent by the corporations on growing these huge fields of wheat and corn has to be recovered in some fashion, if the US government did more to aid in this kind of research it would be cool, but the government isn't really willing to fund these kinds of activities (not taking any side, but i can see what the corporations are thinking).
are there any countries in europe who are currently doing this same kind of research, if not then i think the US position might be valid.

[falp]

"but it's too late anyway cos u.s. economic policy is simply steamrollering over these concerns and forcing this gigantic experiment onto all of us. they have decided it's ok because it suits them to think that,"


USA cowboy push everyone over killer culture (let's admit it) is turning the world against Americans and the USA. I hope the Euro wins. At least then we'll have a bit more of a chance than with America and its shoddy short sighted foreign affairs policies inciting terrorism and revolt wherever they trespass.

I'm sorry to be so un-debate like and rude but how could anyone in their right mind support what the USA is trying to do? I understand how allot of Americans can support it out of pure ignorance and brainwashed closet patriotism, especially as I'm from Texas myself! Even soem of my most intelligent LSD taking freinds were still confused about whether the USA had won Vietnam when they were 18!

Simply smash the current 'world order elite' or be ensalved mate!

[grobelaar]

It's the 'terminator' genes that worry me. Typically a farmer will keep back 20% of their grain, to seed the next crop. However, if you are using genetically modified stuff from say Monsanto you are not allowed to do this (its breaches the license conditions). However, they knew that farmers were continuing with the tradition, rathr than buying their expensive seeds each year, as obviously the seeds from a GM crop have the same GM benefits.

So Monsanto, invented the 'terminator' gene, this essential creates sterilised plants, plants incapable of producing seeds - now that's a fucker - if that crosses into other plants, then we are fucked, and the fact is, its bound to, because all of mother nature is about fucking, everything fucks everything else eventually and we (humans) are about to fuck it all, once and for all...

Obviously I have no scientific evidence to support this, but still its an entertaining prospect, all the plants on the planet dying out in a few generations - I reckon it'd be just about done and dusted then...

[bitconductor]

oh, yessssss
that is a muthafucker
please, some science-minded person please tell us grobelaar is over-reacting, that that won't happen, come on, let's have it

[grobelaar]

me over-react? Never! That's outrageous thing to say, I can't believe you besmirched my good name with these scurrilious claims. Come lets do this right now, right here on the 'COGs (I know its not the 'Cogs, but I couldn't resist saying it, sounds so loveable...)

[bitconductor]

let's do this
RIGHT HERE ON THE MUTHAFUCKIN COGS MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
nah, trouble is i don't think you are overdoing it. i just wish you were cos it sounds like the end

[garew]

If superweeds were possible we'd have seen them on the cover of high times, already.

[garew]

Stick with the U.S. We are winners. Maybe it's our eternal optimism. Or our coercion, but hey, what country doesn't coerce? America always comes out on top. Bet on the U.S.

[decadnids]

I think it is pretty shite that companies are able to get patents on genetic code.

actually, I am not even going to get started, as I think everyone is aware i hate most things. :)

[grobelaar]

Originally posted by garew
Stick with the U.S. We are winners. Maybe it's our eternal optimism. Or our coercion, but hey, what country doesn't coerce? America always comes out on top. Bet on the U.S.

Hah, you reckon huh! Don't you yanks know we have been hustling you - I mean look at the big picture, you guys got the bum deal, like a bad deck of cards in a game of Civilisation - some chunk of old desert on the arse end of the planet, probably still half wasted from when that meteorite hit it and did for the dinosaurs - only enough oil to give you ideas above your station and now we are gonna slap ya... :)

Yeah, cling to that optimism dude cos ya gonna need it :)

[garew]

We are english bastards, yes. We have much in common with the Aussies.

[drop]

i feel that grobs and garew are right, sort of...
i think the United States get alot of flak because we live in an open society where everything in put under the microscope,
lately it really doesn't matter how rich and famous you are, if you've done something wrong in the US you're probably headed to jail. that fact alone should keep a few of the out of control corporations in control, at least until they find another loophole around the current situation.
in contrast, the series of accounting scandels that rock italy around xmas seriously quited down, if i were a part of the EU i would worry about that because your economies are tied together, is that how you want business run in Europe.

[drop]

falp your avatar is extremly disturbing

[M H]

Originally posted by drop

i think the United States get alot of flak because we live in an open society where everything in put under the microscope,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!lol
Sorry, but you are funny if you still really believe all that shit....

[schlongfingers]

.

[schlongfingers]

Erm Harken, Andersen, Halliburton, Enron and on and on

Sure there's always a fall guy or two - but so long as these companies foot the propeganda for the Republicans the real criminals can get away with murder. Just like OJ. Nowhere is perfect but the US is corrupt as FUK.

[schlongfingers]

That said, steal tins of food from a shop three times and you're in for life.

[M H]

Originally posted by schlongfingers
That said, steal tins of food from a shop three times and you're in for life.

One law for the rich, another for the peasants...

[drop]

Originally posted by M H


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!lol
Sorry, but you are funny if you still really believe all that shit....
well,
what other country puts its rich and powerful behind bars,
you don't have to remind me that most of these cases are the rich fucking over the rich (talk about entertainment) but at least its a start,
for years the corporations have been screwing the average joe behind closed doors, which i guess was fine to the average joe because nothing was done to stop this abuse.
now the number of companies that have to restate their earnings is becoming the joke (i'm laughing because i don't invest, or work for any of these companies, but it really does suck for the average worker) ,
so M H, the enron scandel and the others that followed really lit a fire underneath the government,
they don't want to prosecute these people, cause their buddies, but if they want to be in congress after their term is up,
they have to

2 million dollar party anyone

[drop]

Originally posted by schlongfingers
Erm Harken, Andersen, Halliburton, Enron and on and on

Sure there's always a fall guy or two - but so long as these companies foot the propeganda for the Republicans the real criminals can get away with murder. Just like OJ. Nowhere is perfect but the US is corrupt as FUK.
first off its not a politicial party thing,
its a rich vs. poor thing
second the Republicans have always been very up front about fucking its citizens
respect ;)
the Democrats are so sneaky about fucking people i can't really think of any examples,
but examples exist
believe me

second, i forgot that Europe was the perfect example of all that good and right in the world 8-()

i'm telling Richie Hawtin about the FUK thingy

[drop]

Originally posted by drop

first off its not a politicial party thing,
its a rich vs. poor thing
second the Republicans have always been very up front about fucking its citizens
respect ;)
the Democrats are so sneaky about fucking people i can't really think of any examples,
but examples exist
believe me

second, i forgot that Europe was the perfect example of all that good and right in the world 8-()
you think that the US is more corrupt than most because we hold are companies, and our government accountable for thier actions,
you see it in the news, you read about in the paper, if a questionable action is address today, it doesn't mean that it won't be addressed at a later time.
do you seriously think that bushy and friends are going to be rewarded for killing 1500+ americans in the name of democracy?
or that padding an earnings statement is going to get an accountant a cookie?
if the fed don't do it, it'll be done at state level
right now bushy has all sorts of problems with both sides of congress cause they feel he fucked them over,
this is a perfect example of how an action (withholding intelligence that dealt with 9/11, presenting congress with false intelligence) is repaid and the people get even,
why do you think all these investigations, and commissions are happening in an election year

i'll tell you what
unless you want to get into some mudslinging you worry about what your government is doing to combat corruption in your country and i'll worry about the Martha's of my country.

i'm telling Richie Hawtin about the FUK thingy

[drop]

sorry 'bout the double posting

i meant to edit, not quote
oh well