Don't you just love the French?
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
- Status
Quote from rs7:
I will make more of an effort to keep a GPS kind of lifestyle. I could have sworn the sea was south.....oh well. shoot me!
Peace guys,
rs7
LoL nice one . Personally I couldn't give a max sh!t whether or not you can read maps, as long as you can make posts like your one to traderfuk you'll do ok . kriiiist rs7 just read it again.....that was a good un !
You digress intentionally. Your statement was not just confused compass orientation; the fact is you missed the location of the heliport entirely, proving you were never there.
Go back to your map, it's at a minimum a 10 minute trip through the streets of Monaco. Not only is it an unforgettable drive for the first time visitor, you had to do the return just a few days later. Don't you think having to drive by one of the world's most famous ports, full of mega yachts, part of which is the same path as the F1 Gran Prix route, including the famous hairpin, twice, would register somewhere in your memory?
The point is RS7, that you are a teller of tall tales. Your main excuse seems to rest upon, "So? What's wrong with that?"
Rs7,
What I want to say is never ever generalise. If some crazy assholes did that you cannot blame 1 billion people for that.
Just not rational and objective. When an american rapes, kills throw a bomb we don't say this is a fanatic terrorist but a crazy far right extremist. We do not generalise and say ok all the americans are crazy and fanatics.
The same applies to arabs and to all other races. That's my point.
The second point is oppression. You cannot say look at palestinian terrorism without talking about the real hard facts. A land like america that has been taken from its own inhabitants.
When white colons invaded america, indians did not accept it easily and tried to defend themselves. Guess what ... I am sure they were called extremsists, savages and terrorists, just like palestinians are called today.
Oussama and his men are just a tiny minority yet it can grow if arab or muslim countries are deliberately and without any real motive are bombarded.
History should never be forgotten. If jews were protected under muslim juridiction the same should apply when the reverse situation occurs.
Moreover, I don't think like you said that arab are all extremists and that hate the west. I am sure that if you go to any of those countries you will be amazed by their hospitality even if you say you are american. Of course nobody wants Iraq to be bombarded yet again, but that does not mean tehre will be a deliberate attack against you.
Of course, when I say that I am talking about the average guy not the al quaeida man who, as you may know can be anywhere.
Look at the washington sniper, a hero of the golf war and the guy was shooting at people in the street. this guy was insane and crazy and there are people like that wherever you go.
Concerning the events of september 11 , all the head of states of arab countries without exception and even Kadhafi, condemned the attacks. (i don't know about Saddam)
BUT and there is a but. Oussama is not a head of state, neither is he representing one billion people. Contrary to the american who committed the crimes against indians and black people. I forgot to talk about vietnam, Korea, (japan, the nuke that could have been avoided and that was deliberately done,tc... It was the USA that did that not an individual. that's the ùmain difference. So I don't know why I would say sorry to the US for the bomb by a guy who was an ex CIA man financed and armed by the USa in Afghanistan. Tell me why... This is the USA responsibility not mine.
What I want to say is never ever generalise. If some crazy assholes did that you cannot blame 1 billion people for that.
Just not rational and objective. When an american rapes, kills throw a bomb we don't say this is a fanatic terrorist but a crazy far right extremist. We do not generalise and say ok all the americans are crazy and fanatics.
The same applies to arabs and to all other races. That's my point.
The second point is oppression. You cannot say look at palestinian terrorism without talking about the real hard facts. A land like america that has been taken from its own inhabitants.
When white colons invaded america, indians did not accept it easily and tried to defend themselves. Guess what ... I am sure they were called extremsists, savages and terrorists, just like palestinians are called today.
Oussama and his men are just a tiny minority yet it can grow if arab or muslim countries are deliberately and without any real motive are bombarded.
History should never be forgotten. If jews were protected under muslim juridiction the same should apply when the reverse situation occurs.
Moreover, I don't think like you said that arab are all extremists and that hate the west. I am sure that if you go to any of those countries you will be amazed by their hospitality even if you say you are american. Of course nobody wants Iraq to be bombarded yet again, but that does not mean tehre will be a deliberate attack against you.
Of course, when I say that I am talking about the average guy not the al quaeida man who, as you may know can be anywhere.
Look at the washington sniper, a hero of the golf war and the guy was shooting at people in the street. this guy was insane and crazy and there are people like that wherever you go.
Concerning the events of september 11 , all the head of states of arab countries without exception and even Kadhafi, condemned the attacks. (i don't know about Saddam)
BUT and there is a but. Oussama is not a head of state, neither is he representing one billion people. Contrary to the american who committed the crimes against indians and black people. I forgot to talk about vietnam, Korea, (japan, the nuke that could have been avoided and that was deliberately done,tc... It was the USA that did that not an individual. that's the ùmain difference. So I don't know why I would say sorry to the US for the bomb by a guy who was an ex CIA man financed and armed by the USa in Afghanistan. Tell me why... This is the USA responsibility not mine.
Quote from rs7:
I don't see what you are arguing with me about. I agree that white americans committed atrocities against the african slaves. I agree they committed atrocities against the native americans ("indians").
However, the "same old story"?
Tell me who came to the defense of the victims of these atrocities? The Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement came from within. There were no foreign powers willing to commit their blood for the cause of the downtrodden slaves. Or the downtrodden "indians".
But, for argument's sake, let's suppose for a moment that the Kingdom of Fiji came and defeated America and restored the rights and lands of the native americans. Then, visitors from Fiji years later come to visit, let's say, Nogales Arizona, which has a large "indian" population. Now, if Fiji liberated the "indians", would the "indians" resent the tourists from Fiji? Or do you think that perhaps there might be, if not a residual feeling of "gratitude" then at least tolerance? Or something short of the outright rudeness shown to Americans by Parisians (in general)? Do you think the "indians" would treat the tourists from Fiji with the disdain that the French have been treating American tourists, who truly DID liberate France from the nazi occupation? And really, this issue is what the thread started out to be about. How every thread gets turned into an "Islam vs. the World" issue is a tribute to your adamant beliefs. I've got to give you credit, Traderfut....you always manage to steer the threads in the direction you want so you can express your beliefs. I admire that tenacity. But why not just start a thread about whatever point you wish to make, and do it directly. France to Iraq? Nazis to American founders that have been dead for 200 years? This was not the topic.
Traderfut...you know that on most issues we agree in principal. That we both only wish for peace and tolerance. But real life throws a lot of garbage at us. And we need to recognize garbage for what it is. While it is true that there have been great achievements and great examples of tolerance shown by the Islamic world, it is, often, now irrelevant. If the Muslim world was accepting of the Jews during the Inquisition, well, that is very admirable of them. However, that was also several hundred years ago. Where does Islam stand right now in the middle east? Who flew those jets into the World Trade Center? And what was their cause? What was the cause being supported by the terrorists at the 1972 Olympics? For what cause are kids becoming suicide bombers? What cause were 180 people killed for in Bali? Kenya?
I don't think that Islam itself should necessarily be held responsible for the scary state of affairs in the world today. But you tell me....has this religion been hijacked by a criminal element? Or are these terrorists really not criminals but only devout believers in their religion? What is it I need to be afraid of?
To say that Iraq now poses no threat to to the world is absurd, and that because they have a christian prime minister is irrelevant. How much power does their parliament have? The whole government structure is a joke. The nation is run by one maniac. That is just the way it is. Does that make the Iraqi people evil? obviously not. Are the Iraqi people free to express their dissent? Not even worth discussing. By the way, have you seen today's newspapers? Saddam has some pretty nice homes around Baghdad. One article I saw today said that staring at the homes was dangerous. Could imply "disrespect", which could have fatal results. Sounds like a reasonable "head of state" to deal with. The Parliament voted against the UN resolution. Only Saddam himself could make concessions. If a member of parliament had voted in favor of the UN resolution, what do you think his future would have held?
Americans HAVE tried to make apologies for their mistreatment of indians and africans early in American history. Restitution also to some degree (impossible in reality). Most Germans of today express remorse for the actions of the Nazis. Who in the Arab world is expressing regret for the terror and murder committed in the name of Allah recently?
Yeah, might as well blame it on oil and american politics. The big evil Satan. Responsible for all the world's ills. Tell me about the French article last week claiming that the Pentagon was not really struck by an airplane. All just a fraud
Which brings me to one question. Why, if America is such a hotbed of evil, do the perpetrators of these attacks not openly take credit for their deeds? If they are looking for support, how can they get it if they don't take credit? If they are looking to defeat an enemy, then who exactly is the enemy? All the 80+ nations who had citizens die in the attacks of 9/11?
My brain is obviously too small to comprehend the intent of all this horror. And if these attacks are in retribution of the mistreatment of the slaves and indians......well gee, seems a little untimely for that. No?
Peace,
Quote from rs7:
Where does Islam stand right now in the middle east? Who flew those jets into the World Trade Center? And what was their cause? What was the cause being supported by the terrorists at the 1972 Olympics? For what cause are kids becoming suicide bombers? What cause were 180 people killed for in Bali? Kenya?
Peace,
Rs7,
This does not justify any attack but may explain to you why those attacks occur. hEdward S Herman, USA writer on the Middle East: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
Edward S Herman, USA writer on the Middle East:
"Thus, instead of having to leave the occupied territories Israel continues to push out the locals by force, uproot their trees, steal their water, beggar them by 'closures' and endless restrictions, and it suffers no penalties because it has USA approval, protection, and active assistance. The partners also deny Palestinians any right to return to land from which they were expelled, so 140+ contrary United Nations votes, and two Security Council Resolutions (both vetoed by the United States) have no effect; and in a remarkable Orwellian process of doublethink - and double morality - Israel is free to expel more Palestinians in the same time frame in which their protector spent billions and great moral energy in a campaign to return worthy victims in Kosovo."
"Another remarkable Orwellian process is this: the abused and beggared Palestinian people periodically rebel as their conditions deteriorate and more land is taken, homes are demolished, and they are treated with great ruthlessness and discrimination. Many are among the hundreds of thousands expelled earlier, or who have still not forgotten their relatives killed and injured by Israeli violence over many years - and Palestinian deaths by Israeli arms almost surely exceed Israeli deaths from 'terrorism' by better than 15 to 1. And after this long history of expulsion and murder they are still under assault. In this context, if they rise up in revolt at their oppressors this is not 'freedom fighters' or a 'national liberation movement' in action, it is 'irrational violence' and a return to 'terrorism,' and both Israeli and USA officials (and therefore the mainstream USA media) agree that the first order of business is to stop this terrorism."
"But in the definitional system of oppressor and patron this is TERRORISM, horrifying and intolerable. What Israel has done making this people desperate is not terror. As [USA] State Department PR man James Rubin explained after another spate of Israeli demolitions of Palestinian houses, this was 'a wrong signal' for a delicate stage in peace talks. Not bad in themselves and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, just a wrong signal. Madeleine Albright called on the Israelis to refrain from 'what Palestinians see as the provocative expansion of settlements, land confiscation, house demolitions and confiscation of IDs'. Only 'the Palestinians' see these actions as 'provocative;' Albright does not find them objectionable in themselves or illegal. In fact, under Clinton the United States finally rejected the international law and almost universal consensus on the occupation, declaring the territories not 'occupied Palestinian lands' but 'disputed territories' (Albright). By USA fiat Palestinian lands became open to settlement by force by the ethnic cleanser who the United States has armed to the teeth, and who has aggressively brutalized while creating 'facts on the ground' during the 'dispute,' which will not be settled until the victims end their terrorism."
"And Albright has stressed that there is 'No moral equivalency between suicide bombers and bulldozers' (Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1997). Clinton, standing next to Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres as the latter defended a blockade of the Palestinians that was adding to their misery, put the blame on Hamas who were allegedly 'trying to make the Palestinians as miserable as possible' (Phila. Inquirer, March 15, 1996). There was not the slightest hint that Israel was contributing to Palestinian misery despite massive expropriations and 300 devastating "closures" after 1993."
"So it is not Israeli policy, which amounts to a continuous and illegal assault on and displacement of the Palestinians, that is ultimately at fault and that must be changed to resolve this conflict. Albright can't recognize that decades of 'bulldozers' necessarily produce suicide bombers, although she was quick to find that much less repression in Kosovo produced 'freedom fighters;' nor can she distinguish between systematic policy (i.e., bulldozers) and uncontrollable outbursts from victims that do NOT constitute policy. The inability of these USA officials to see Israel's hugely discriminatory and brutal expulsions, demolitions, mistreatment and plain exploitation as seriously wrong in themselves, illegal, or causal manifests a complete identification with and apologetic for the ethnic cleansers. Five years ago a senior Clinton White House official declared that 'We are not going to second-guess Israel'. [Later] Colin Powell assured the Jewish lobbying group AIPAC that 'We are dedicated to preserving this special relationship with Israel and the Israeli people...[and] a secure Israel with internationally-recognized borders remains a cornerstone of the United States foreign policy.' In short, now as in the past, and with only rare exceptions, as in the case of the unauthorized Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, Israel will get strong USA support for whatever it does, and the ethnic cleansing of its unworthy victims can proceed as required."
"One of the triumphs of [the] Oslo [Agreement] was its buying off of Arafat, making him into a second class client and an enforcer of the pathetic 'settlement,' with USA and Israeli funds and training exchanged for his commitment to keep his people in line and control 'terrorism.' The formula for the wholesale terrorists (Israel) has always been: whatever violence we perpetrate is 'retaliation' and it is up to the retail terrorists (Palestinians) to stop terrorizing and then we might 'negotiate' with them in a 'peace process.' Israeli leaders say 'You can't ask us to stop expanding existing settlements, which are living organisms' (Netanyahu), as if this were not in violation of UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and even the 1993 Oslo agreement itself."
"USA officials can never bring themselves to say that what Israel is doing is wrong - at worst it may send 'a wrong signal,' etc. And they follow closely the Israeli party line that 'terrorism' (Palestinian, not Israeli) must be stopped first, so that the 'peace process' can be put back on track. For Albright, 'security' is primary, and she told Arafat that 'she needed a commitment and action on the subject of security' before she could make a credible approach to Israel on other issues. 'Security' always means Israeli security, not Palestinian, for Albright - or for Colin Powell - just as for Israeli officials. Here as elsewhere these high USA officials internalize the Israeli perspective and the idea of 'security' for the unworthy victims doesn't arise, any more than the notion that Israeli insecurity arises from the much greater Palestinian insecurity that inevitably results from Israeli policies. In his visit to Jerusalem in March 1996, Clinton spoke of 'the awful persistence of fear' - but only in reference to Israelis, not to Palestinians. This is an internalized racist bias that has characterized USA official statements and media and expert opinion here for decades."
"Why does the United States support Israel's ethnic cleansing? Broadly speaking, the reasons boil down to two factors. One is Israel's role as a USA proxy in the Middle East and its integration into the USA security system, which encompasses not only keeping the Arab world in line, but also providing services like supplying arms to the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, the Pinochet government of Chile, Mobutu, Idi Amin, apartheid South Africa, and the Guatemalan and Argentinian terror states. Because of these services, Israel's victims are not merely unworthy, they also become 'terrorists' and part of the 'Islamic threat' for the USA political elite and mainstream media."
"The second factor is the exceptional power of the pro-Israel lobby, which for many years has bought and bullied politicians and the media, so that they all vie with one another in genuflections to the holy state. This bullying is especially strong and effective in Canada and the United States, but it applies widely, and the distinguished British reporter Robert Fisk, describing the abuse he has suffered in reporting on the Middle East, says that 'the attempt to force the media to obey Israel's rules is now international'."
"These factors feed into the intellectual and media culture in complex ways that institutionalize the huge bias, with pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian perspectives internalized and / or made obligatory by potential flak and pressure from above and without. This is extremely important, as there is no reason to believe that the USA public would support a massive and brutal ethnic cleansing program if they were given even a modest quantum of the ugly facts, if the main victims rather than the ethnic cleansers were humanized, and if the media's frames of reference were not designed to apologize for Israeli expropriation and violence. However, the ongoing media and intellectual biases do very effectively complement the national policy of support for the ethnic cleansing state, just as they helped cover up national policy supporting Indonesia's murderous occupation of East Timor, and just as they roused the public to a pitch of frenzy over the unapproved Yugoslav violence in Kosovo."
Der Spiegal, news magazine from Germany (1 September 1997):
"Never before in modern history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the United States does today... America is now the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, obtrusive, intimidating... The Americans, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank cheque in their 'McWorld'".
"Why does the United States support Israel's ethnic cleansing? Broadly speaking, the reasons boil down to two factors. One is Israel's role as a USA proxy in the Middle East and its integration into the USA security system, which encompasses not only keeping the Arab world in line, but also providing services like supplying arms to the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, the Pinochet government of Chile, Mobutu, Idi Amin, apartheid South Africa, and the Guatemalan and Argentinian terror states. Because of these services, Israel's victims are not merely unworthy, they also become 'terrorists' and part of the 'Islamic threat' for the USA political elite and mainstream media."
"The second factor is the exceptional power of the pro-Israel lobby, which for many years has bought and bullied politicians and the media, so that they all vie with one another in genuflections to the holy state. This bullying is especially strong and effective in Canada and the United States, but it applies widely, and the distinguished British reporter Robert Fisk, describing the abuse he has suffered in reporting on the Middle East, says that 'the attempt to force the media to obey Israel's rules is now international'."
"These factors feed into the intellectual and media culture in complex ways that institutionalize the huge bias, with pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian perspectives internalized and / or made obligatory by potential flak and pressure from above and without. This is extremely important, as there is no reason to believe that the USA public would support a massive and brutal ethnic cleansing program if they were given even a modest quantum of the ugly facts, if the main victims rather than the ethnic cleansers were humanized, and if the media's frames of reference were not designed to apologize for Israeli expropriation and violence. However, the ongoing media and intellectual biases do very effectively complement the national policy of support for the ethnic cleansing state, just as they helped cover up national policy supporting Indonesia's murderous occupation of East Timor, and just as they roused the public to a pitch of frenzy over the unapproved Yugoslav violence in Kosovo."
Der Spiegal, news magazine from Germany (1 September 1997):
"Never before in modern history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the United States does today... America is now the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, obtrusive, intimidating... The Americans, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank cheque in their 'McWorld'".
- Status