Press for truth!

[Dora]

Maybe Dora is able to translate it better, just be-
cause she said the same thing and translated it
far better then me.

Well, like mentioned in the private message, if you feel your english doesn't bring your idea clearly across I'll be happy to help you out, but I don't like to assume I know what you mean,

I suggest you just put what you think it should be in english and add the (in germany we say XXX) and I'll be happy to translate.

just inform me in private message when you have done this, cause I don't feel like stalking you around the board

 

[Oliver]

Well, like mentioned in the private message, if you feel your english doesn't bring your idea clearly across I'll be happy to help you out, but I don't like to assume I know what you mean,

I suggest you just put what you think it should be in english and add the (in germany we say XXX) and I'll be happy to translate.

just inform me in private message when you have done this, cause I don't feel like stalking you around the board

Hä? :-D Achso, ich glaub ich hab´s...

But i thought you might have some of your own opinions
to the thread and the discussion, anyway.

 

[gumboot]

well, I actually agree with this as well. But with a slight difference.
I think America has been throwing it's weight around BUT if there are situations where military interventions are necessary, the Western World also turns to America to throw their weight in, if you get what I mean.

It's imo a way to have a "clear" consciense, so yes, it's a bit hypocrit to first except America to come and help us, then blame them for being such warmongers.

Ah, and thanks to all for the warm welcome

I thoroughly agree with you. If you look at the majort American military actions post-WW2 there's a pattern of the USA basically doing the UN's dirty work.

We must remember the UN's number one primary absolute task is military intervention. Their primary job is to use military force to prevent threats to world security and stability.

And yet, if we look at the permenant members of the UN security council - the leaders of this quest for world stability - only the UK and the USA have consistantly provided significant forces to contain threats. France's only major contribution to a UN mission was the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. This is shocking, considering how furiously France fought to be included as a permenant member of the Security Council.

The Soviet Union and China have both consistantly failed to provide troops to the UN - indeed in the Korean War China fought AGAINST the UN.

The UN is suffering from the same fate the League of Nations did - loud words, but no actions to back them up. This led to World War Two, with the LoN. The USA seems determined to avoid that happening again, thus is bearing the brunt of UN military action. The US is one of the few members of the UN that takes Chapter VII of the Charter seriously.

I can hardly blame them, therefore, if they pick and choose which scenarios to get involved in.

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

I thoroughly agree with you. If you look at the majort American military actions post-WW2 there's a pattern of the USA basically doing the UN's dirty work.

We must remember the UN's number one primary absolute task is military intervention. Their primary job is to use military force to prevent threats to world security and stability.

And yet, if we look at the permenant members of the UN security council - the leaders of this quest for world stability - only the UK and the USA have consistantly provided significant forces to contain threats. France's only major contribution to a UN mission was the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. This is shocking, considering how furiously France fought to be included as a permenant member of the Security Council.

The Soviet Union and China have both consistantly failed to provide troops to the UN - indeed in the Korean War China fought AGAINST the UN.

The UN is suffering from the same fate the League of Nations did - loud words, but no actions to back them up. This led to World War Two, with the LoN. The USA seems determined to avoid that happening again, thus is bearing the brunt of UN military action. The US is one of the few members of the UN that takes Chapter VII of the Charter seriously.

I can hardly blame them, therefore, if they pick and choose which scenarios to get involved in.

-Andrew

I know what you´re saying, Andrew. It´s just that a lot
of people like me want to see more peace in the world.
Making war to make peace is not what these people
mean with their hearts.

And do you know why i personally feel this way?

Because of the Holocaust.

This must never happen again.

 

[Diazo]

I know what you´re saying, Andrew. It´s just that a lot
of people like me want to see more peace in the world.
Making war to make peace is not what these people
mean with their hearts.

And do you know why i personally feel this way?

Because of the Holocaust.

This must never happen again.

Except that another holocaust is almost exactly what these people want.

They are not attacking us in defense, or because we are doing something morally wrong, they are attacking us because we do not follow their definition of Islam.

These people do not want peace, and it takes both sides to achieve peace. They are going to attack us, even if we don't want them to.

Which means we either fight back, or let them roll over us. Since we are fighting back turns into a war, which pretty much puts us where we are today.

Almost everyone in the world does want peace, it's just these few people don't. Therefore they attack us, forcing us to defend ourselves and keeping us from being at peace.

 

[Belz...]

I followed the development of this whole mess since the first day and the unanswered questions asked in this film are quite exactly my questions that lead me to be 100% convinced that the official story is bogus.

100% ? So, you're close-minded, you say ?

The people on this forum are falling for deception. They still debunk question asked by con artists. It's sad to see how deep your cognitive dissonance goes.

I love it when kooks dish out that term.

@gummi: Sorry, forget to name your agenda. A very sophisticated kind of fear mongering.

Fear ? Terrorists of all kinda have caused trouble around the world for who knows how long! Terrorists ARE a threat, and islamic terrorists, fueled by religion, are even more dangerous, in my opinion. Or do you contend that they ARE just cave-dwelling barbarians ?

 

[gumboot]

I know what you´re saying, Andrew. It´s just that a lot
of people like me want to see more peace in the world.
Making war to make peace is not what these people
mean with their hearts.

And do you know why i personally feel this way?

Because of the Holocaust.

This must never happen again.

In that case we need to learn from history. How did the holocaust happen? Because the world sat there for a decade and watched while Hitler rose to power, and did NOTHING, in the interests of peace.

Something to think about.

-Andrew

 

[Belz...]

I'm afraid there is a language problem here. There are some Quebecois posters, and a few others from continental Europe.

Ain't a problem for me.

 

[Oliver]

Except that another holocaust is almost exactly what these people want.

They are not attacking us in defense, or because we are doing something morally wrong, they are attacking us because we do not follow their definition of Islam.

These people do not want peace, and it takes both sides to achieve peace. They are going to attack us, even if we don't want them to.

Which means we either fight back, or let them roll over us. Since we are fighting back turns into a war, which pretty much puts us where we are today.

Almost everyone in the world does want peace, it's just these few people don't. Therefore they attack us, forcing us to defend ourselves and keeping us from being at peace.

You don´t understand whats going on the planet
if you did´nt understood the thread so far. Nothing
personal at all.

 

[Oliver]

In that case we need to learn from history. How did the holocaust happen? Because the world sat there for a decade and watched while Hitler rose to power, and did NOTHING, in the interests of peace.

Something to think about.

-Andrew

It happend because nobody wanted to see it.
Many even did´nt now what´s happening or
what happens exactly in the camps.

I don´t compare these to things, but the whole
world thinks it´s wrong to invade iraq or violate
international laws in Guantanamo, or the depleted
uranium. We in germany are upset about this and
i know this from muslim friends, too - and their
worries are much bigger, because it is muslim
ground, not european.

It´s the way it started in germany. "Let´s see how
far we can go." - and if people are with us. And
somehow everything went out of control. The
Nazis had their "war on terror".

But keep in mind: i said started.

 

[gumboot]

It happend because nobody wanted to see it.
Many even did´nt now what´s happening or
what happens exactly in the camps.

both Churchill and FDR warned their countries. They got criticised for it. Churchill used to get locked out of parliament by his own party!

They all KNEW Hitler was an aggressor. They just convinced themselves if they buried their heads in the sand and gave him some more land, he'd stop. This is not a new trait. The Romans did exactly the same thing with the Goths.

I don´t compare these to things, but the whole
world thinks it´s wrong to invade iraq or violate
international laws in Guantanamo, or the depleted
uranium.

Woah, hold on there. First, not all the world agree that it's wrong to invade Iraq.

Second, what international laws are being violated at Guantanamo Bay?

Third, a vast amount of medical research has been done into Depleted Uranium by a number of different organisations. The health risks are considered minute.

In addition, while troops in the Gulf War suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, troops in Bosnia - also exposed to Depleted Uranium - have not experienced these symptoms. Logic says their illness is caused by something else.

Lastly, how does this relate to what we're talking about?

We in germany are upset about this and
i know this from muslim friends, too - and their
worries are much bigger, because it is muslim
ground, not european.

It´s the way it started in germany. "Let´s see how
far we can go." - and if people are with us. And
somehow everything went out of control. The
Nazis had their "war on terror".

But keep in mind: i said started.

Wait, so you're saying the AMERICANS are like the Nazis?

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

both Churchill and FDR warned their countries. They got criticised for it. Churchill used to get locked out of parliament by his own party!
They all KNEW Hitler was an aggressor. They just convinced themselves if they buried their heads in the sand and gave him some more land, he'd stop. This is not a new trait. The Romans did exactly the same thing with the Goths.
Woah, hold on there. First, not all the world agree that it's wrong to invade Iraq.
Second, what international laws are being violated at Guantanamo Bay?
Third, a vast amount of medical research has been done into Depleted Uranium by a number of different organisations. The health risks are considered minute.
In addition, while troops in the Gulf War suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, troops in Bosnia - also exposed to Depleted Uranium - have not experienced these symptoms. Logic says their illness is caused by something else.
Lastly, how does this relate to what we're talking about?
Wait, so you're saying the AMERICANS are like the Nazis?

-Andrew

You did not read carefully or maybe you
think in a different way about it, Andrew.
I don´t know the news you get in the media.
Off course the americans are no nazis - that
was´nt my message.

BTW: I found this today concerning torture.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Today-Lauer-Bush.mov

General: Maybe some people from other countries
knows what i´m talking about and willing to share
it in here?

 

[twinstead]

Oliver just because something isn't in the American media doesn't make it automatically true. Media can be biased or even simply wrong no matter where it is from.

Even German media.

 

[gumboot]

You did not read carefully or maybe you
think in a different way about it, Andrew.
I don´t know the news you get in the media.
Off course the americans are no nazis - that
was´nt my message.

It kind of sounded like it... with the whole "we'll see if people go along" and "war on terror" references.

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

Like little kids - everyone claims: "He started."
"No, it was him". "Thats not true, he did it."

What do parents say in this case - from their
neutral position? "i don´t care who started..."
That´s exactly my point of view: I don´t care
what you say - because i don´t care who
started.

Think about it. I know you´re still in your old
position. Think neutral.

Added: Beside usa, 911, presidents, rights, terrorists,
al quaida and so on. Try to leave this side out of your
mind for a moment.

You may miss the other side right now, am i wrong?

 

[dirtywick]

You did not read carefully or maybe you
think in a different way about it, Andrew.
I don´t know the news you get in the media.
Off course the americans are no nazis - that
was´nt my message.

The news you get isn't dependant on where you live. I can open my internet browser and find any point of view I want on any topic I want in any language I want.

 

[Hellbound]

It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

No.

I find this not only wrong, but reprehensible and highly insulting, as well as showing an utter lack of the ability to apply a moral standard.

You are here equating the intentional targetting of civillians, with an intent to harm as many as possible, not for military reasons but to instill fear and terror, with a declared, above the board war that attempts to follow international laws of warfare?

You equate those of use who watched our friends get killed because of restrictive ROEs that would not allow us to shoot first with those who plant IEDs along roadways and set them off in the middle of a group of children, just because a HUMMV rolls by?

You equate the capture of an enemy military leader, who is then fed, cared for, and put on trial to be judged by his own countrymen with the capture of a non-combatant reporter or truck-driver, who is beheaded on camera for propoganda reasons?

I'm sorry, but you have just accused the entire U.S. of being terrorists, murderers, and torturers.
You have specifically accusssed me, as a member of the U.S military, of participating in these acts.

And you are wrong. You are biased. You are morally bankrupt.

The fact that you can't see a difference in the actions taken by the U.S. and those taken by Islamic fundamentalists simply proves this.

I can't begin to express mny utter contempt for your view on this, It is entirely without merit. It is unsupportable unless you slide so far into moral relativism that you'd allow genocide.

 

[Oliver]

No.I find this not only wrong, but reprehensible and highly insulting, as well as showing an utter lack of the ability to apply a moral standard.

You don´t understand it - i´m not talking about al quaida
or the usual terrorists thing. Read the thread again. Try
to read slowly if my translation is not perfect.

 

[Pardalis]

The 3000 victims of 9/11 didn't start the war, that's for damn sure.

 

[Oliver]

The 3000 victims of 9/11 didn't start the war, that's for damn sure.

I know that, Pardalis.