Welcome to Gaia! ::

Agent Thrax's avatar

Smoker

Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
SaguaroDundee

I guess another question I have is why are Al Queda angry at the U.S? Did we provoke them? Or are their demands to aggressive?

I hypothesize we annoy them because we support Isreal.

We trained, funded, and encouraged Al Queda.

No, not exactly.


Uh... actually we didn't.

We trained the Mujahedin. But unless they had a complete 180 on their religious and moral beliefs, it's unlikely even a small handful joined up on the other side.

Nope, I'm actually pretty sure we did actually train Al Q. I remember hearing it multiple times from reliable sources.


How do you always manage to find me despite my many accounts? Very suspicious.


lol

I just point out fallacies when I see them, I can't help it if you're wrong all the time.


However!

There were false reports of Mujahedin joining up with the enemy, but it simply wasn't true.


Everything else you may or may not have heard was made up.

There are thousands of people joining, leaving, and dieing in these terrorist groups each year, it would simply be impossible for us to have trained and equipped them.


If you want the truth it was the Russians.

We trained the Mujahedin they trained Al Qaeda, and they battled it out in the desert for quite some time.


One thing we did do was arm a last stand movement in the middle of a city once.

They got overrun and the weapons we gave them were stolen, but very few got into Al Qaeda's hands, and those that did were sold on the black market.

If you say so, man.

That's not what I heard.

Excuse me if I don't believe you firsthand. You support the government, king of liars.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
SaguaroDundee

I guess another question I have is why are Al Queda angry at the U.S? Did we provoke them? Or are their demands to aggressive?

I hypothesize we annoy them because we support Isreal.

We trained, funded, and encouraged Al Queda.

No, not exactly.


Uh... actually we didn't.

We trained the Mujahedin. But unless they had a complete 180 on their religious and moral beliefs, it's unlikely even a small handful joined up on the other side.

Nope, I'm actually pretty sure we did actually train Al Q. I remember hearing it multiple times from reliable sources.


How do you always manage to find me despite my many accounts? Very suspicious.


lol

I just point out fallacies when I see them, I can't help it if you're wrong all the time.


However!

There were false reports of Mujahedin joining up with the enemy, but it simply wasn't true.


Everything else you may or may not have heard was made up.

There are thousands of people joining, leaving, and dieing in these terrorist groups each year, it would simply be impossible for us to have trained and equipped them.


If you want the truth it was the Russians.

We trained the Mujahedin they trained Al Qaeda, and they battled it out in the desert for quite some time.


One thing we did do was arm a last stand movement in the middle of a city once.

They got overrun and the weapons we gave them were stolen, but very few got into Al Qaeda's hands, and those that did were sold on the black market.

If you say so, man.

That's not what I heard.

Excuse me if I don't believe you firsthand. You support the government, king of liars.
The government doesn't lie, it just doesn't tell people things- in 10 years after the war is over they'll tell everyone everything, and it will be curriculum in schools, like in WWII- but during the invasion plan we don't tell nobody nothing.

Also I champion those who deserve it, not necessarily those who need it.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Blood Valkyrie


Yeah ... I'm not believing that because I don't think the U.S. government gives a s**t about that.
But, you are making sense, and you do not seem stupid. 4laugh


blaugh

Of course they do. This nation was built on the principles of freedom and equality and justice- we overthrow people all the time who stand to go against our freedoms.

No. We often use freedom as a justification to overthrow other governments, but ulterior motives are usually in play. Also, this nation wasn't built on freedom, equality, and justice; at the time when it was built, we were trading in slaves, so therefore such a foundation would be entirely hypocritical and therefore in name only.


Many of these people desired to abolish slavery, but decided to wait until another date to do so.

Baby steps.

Through that laziness, untold suffering was born into the world.


This Nation may have never been able to have been created at all.

How does one eat and elephant- one bite at a time.


It's like saying they should have eaten an Elephant whole.

Yeah, it would have been nice, but it's just not possible, they're just humans.
Suicidesoldier#1
If you want the truth it was the Russians.

We trained the Mujahedin they trained Al Qaeda, and they battled it out in the desert for quite some time.
Are you joking?
Soviet Union never supported anybody but Najibulla in Afganistan.
Russia never supported anybody but Northern Alliance in Afganistan.
Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1


Uh... actually we didn't.

We trained the Mujahedin. But unless they had a complete 180 on their religious and moral beliefs, it's unlikely even a small handful joined up on the other side.

Nope, I'm actually pretty sure we did actually train Al Q. I remember hearing it multiple times from reliable sources.


How do you always manage to find me despite my many accounts? Very suspicious.


lol

I just point out fallacies when I see them, I can't help it if you're wrong all the time.


However!

There were false reports of Mujahedin joining up with the enemy, but it simply wasn't true.


Everything else you may or may not have heard was made up.

There are thousands of people joining, leaving, and dieing in these terrorist groups each year, it would simply be impossible for us to have trained and equipped them.


If you want the truth it was the Russians.

We trained the Mujahedin they trained Al Qaeda, and they battled it out in the desert for quite some time.


One thing we did do was arm a last stand movement in the middle of a city once.

They got overrun and the weapons we gave them were stolen, but very few got into Al Qaeda's hands, and those that did were sold on the black market.

If you say so, man.

That's not what I heard.

Excuse me if I don't believe you firsthand. You support the government, king of liars.
The government doesn't lie, it just doesn't tell people things- in 10 years after the war is over they'll tell everyone everything, and it will be curriculum in schools, like in WWII- but during the invasion plan we don't tell nobody nothing.

Also I champion those who deserve it, not necessarily those who need it.


The government doesn't lie? What are you smoking? I want some.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
SaguaroDundee
Are we still doing that whole " we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing?


Never give a terrorist what they want. You'll only further encourage them. "Well, if I can just do that, and get whatever I want....then why stop?"

Quote:
Is it unconstitutional to deny "terrorists" representation in Democracy?
So why don't terrorists have representation in the U.N?, since they are both international.

Lets take japan for example. The Yakuza have representation in their country, in returned for being on the governments books. and they aren't exactly in hate with the west, nor are they agressive. Granted there are xenophopic Japanese. But they've not tried making demands to the U.S. nor try to bomb the U.S in modern times.

I guess another question I have is why are Al Queda angry at the U.S? Did we provoke them? Or are their demands to aggressive?


So far as I've heard, a lot of their problem with us, is that they don't like the way we live. Women are equal to men. Gays are not stoned to death in the streets. To them, Allah does not approve of American society, and promotes Jihad against us.

Quote:
I hypothesize we annoy them because we support Isreal.


I wouldn't rule that out, personally.
Suicidesoldier#1

The government doesn't lie, it just doesn't tell people things- in 10 years after the war is over they'll tell everyone everything, and it will be curriculum in schools, like in WWII- but during the invasion plan we don't tell nobody nothing.

Also I champion those who deserve it, not necessarily those who need it.As far as telling everything in school curriculum after a period of time, is not always true, and what an education system permits to be taught at school will always be self serving to that particular country.

I am sure there was talk of watering the whole slavery issue down to a trickle, regardless of the part it played within US history, both in the past and the more recent times.

There was talk of including Creationism in science books, rather than in comparative religion.

I still am unsure of exactly JFK was assassinated, and other possible motives for such an act.

School texts are snapshots of a time, and when those who decide choose what it is they believe we should know about our history, and guides our social mores, and how we view the rest of the world.

Maybe you are right, the govt, any govt doesn't lie about all things. But they do lie about some things. And you are correct in saying that further down the track information is revealed, that would have been better used at the time than upon reflection.

To know that the Vietnam War was built on really shaky foundations only reaffirms it still goes on to this day. But it changes nothing.

I think what my problem is, that when information is released, and appears to be contrary to what was happening at the time, little is done now to prevent it from happening again. I see the same stuff happen over and over, and the same remedies offered. Little changes, and why should it? Some folk like the things exactly the way they are, and real discussion occurs here, rather than in the chambers of the policy makers.

Politicians lurve saying the word 'transparent', in just about anything that may spew from their mouth. But now, just as then, and I suspect in the future, transparency is the first thing to go, and the word becomes meaningless.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Quote:
Suicidesoldier#1
Horace Burtons Ghost
Suicidesoldier#1

The government doesn't lie, it just doesn't tell people things- in 10 years after the war is over they'll tell everyone everything, and it will be curriculum in schools, like in WWII- but during the invasion plan we don't tell nobody nothing.

Also I champion those who deserve it, not necessarily those who need it.
As far as telling everything in school curriculum after a period of time, is not always true, and what an education system permits to be taught at school will always be self serving to that particular country.

I am sure there was talk of watering the whole slavery issue down to a trickle, regardless of the part it played within US history, both in the past and the more recent times.

There was talk of including Creationism in science books, rather than in comparative religion.

I still am unsure of exactly JFK was assassinated, and other possible motives for such an act.

School texts are snapshots of a time, and when those who decide choose what it is they believe we should know about our history, and guides our social mores, and how we view the rest of the world.

Maybe you are right, the govt, any govt doesn't lie about all things. But they do lie about some things. And you are correct in saying that further down the track information is revealed, that would have been better used at the time than upon reflection.

To know that the Vietnam War was built on really shaky foundations only reaffirms it still goes on to this day. But it changes nothing.

I think what my problem is, that when information is released, and appears to be contrary to what was happening at the time, little is done now to prevent it from happening again. I see the same stuff happen over and over, and the same remedies offered. Little changes, and why should it? Some folk like the things exactly the way they are, and real discussion occurs here, rather than in the chambers of the policy makers.

Politicians lurve saying the word 'transparent', in just about anything that may spew from their mouth. But now, just as then, and I suspect in the future, transparency is the first thing to go, and the word becomes meaningless.


A lot of what the government does is like a periscope, you see it from a different angle and you're farther away from it.

Politicians are more like a kaleidoscope.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Anaria Kuruba-no-imoto
Suicidesoldier#1
If you want the truth it was the Russians.

We trained the Mujahedin they trained Al Qaeda, and they battled it out in the desert for quite some time.
Are you joking?
Soviet Union never supported anybody but Najibulla in Afganistan.
Russia never supported anybody but Northern Alliance in Afganistan.


Sure.

And I suppose those Spetsnaz operatives were just, coincidentally training the same troops and arming them with Russian weaponry- they also just decided to wear ski masks in 115 degree weather for no reason.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

That's what the government wants you to think?

No.


The government doesn't want you to think at all.

Anyone question Area 51 any time soon- nope, and nobody cares.


That's exactly how they like it.

You aren't going to be fed a false story, you aren't going to be fed a story at all.


Not telling someone something isn't the same as lying.

Two words- plausible deniability
Suicidesoldier#1

lot of what the government does is like a periscope, you see it from a different angle and you're farther away from it.

Politicians are more like a kaleidoscope.
Ok. So why must they use the word transparent so often? Is it to disillusion the voting public, to encourage us not to vote? Because, it seems we are not being told anything.

Coal Seam Gas drilling, or Fracking (?) The doco and various news investigations suggest it is doing more damage to those living with the wells on their property than any compensation they may receive. Even if you take away the bias, much still stands up as an argument against fracking than for the practice.

But they will still keep drilling more wells, and ******** up more land.

Even I don't know what my point is, but I will leave it there for posterity.

Ok, I accept it is a kaledioscope, and depending on your interests, will depend on how you regard this. But it remains fragmented, and nothing better comes from it. I would like it to be a transparent kaleidoscope, where all facets are debated openly.

Not to discover several years later that Haliburton had as much influence on policy as did the Oval Office. I don't vote for companies, even if I were a shareholder, would not condone such actions as performed by the board of directors.

Any opposing argument is immediately dismissed by those who don't have a vested interest in changing the way things are. Because if you are not with us....etc, which is strange if the debate is coming from within and not abroad.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Horace Burtons Ghost
Suicidesoldier#1

lot of what the government does is like a periscope, you see it from a different angle and you're farther away from it.

Politicians are more like a kaleidoscope.
Ok. So why must they use the word transparent so often? Is it to disillusion the voting public, to encourage us not to vote? Because, it seems we are not being told anything.

Coal Seam Gas drilling, or Fracking (?) The doco and various news investigations suggest it is doing more damage to those living with the wells on their property than any compensation they may receive. Even if you take away the bias, much still stands up as an argument against fracking than for the practice.

But they will still keep drilling more wells, and ******** up more land.

Even I don't know what my point is, but I will leave it there for posterity.

Ok, I accept it is a kaledioscope, and depending on your interests, will depend on how you regard this. But it remains fragmented, and nothing better comes from it. I would like it to be a transparent kaleidoscope, where all facets are debated openly.

Not to discover several years later that Haliburton had as much influence on policy as did the Oval Office. I don't vote for companies, even if I were a shareholder, would not condone such actions as performed by the board of directors.

Any opposing argument is immediately dismissed by those who don't have a vested interest in changing the way things are. Because if you are not with us....etc, which is strange if the debate is coming from within and not abroad.


Uh...

What does fracking have to do with like anything?


Well I heard about all that and apparently the dangers of it was over exaggerated. Before fracking even began there was like natural gas coming from faucets sense it's found in ground water and the wells they dug to get the natural gas from were isolated areas and very little if any leaked to the surrounding areas, even though there is already tons there. The EPA has basically confirmed this.

What you have to realize is that competing oil companies don't want alternative fuels. They are going to spread misinformation in nearly every way to keep people from changing their stuff. Why would Obama cancel Canadian oil, cheaper, not from terrorists, no real worry about cleanliness than anything else, yet there was such strong hate against it- why? It's not like oil usage stopped. No, oil companies like hate against oil companies, they can use it to shut others down, and that's exactly what they did, to stur s**t up.


Of course I'm not interested in natural gas. Thorium is much more powerful and doesn't pollute at all. While global warming is pretty much a sham pollution is not- we breath in and drink the same stuff we put into the air which is a bad idea.

Thorium has the potential to be cheaper, safer, and cleaner. No chance of a melt down, 200 times more power output than uranium (and with current methods rising), cleans up nuclear waste, and is relativley safe. 3 times more common than tin and about as common as lead, and the U.S. has tons of it, literally. In the soil but in storage- it's a by product of a lot of soil and metal processing, so tons of it are in storage being used every year. The United States does not officially disclose how much but in 1958 we got enough of it from a single "cleaning" to power the U.S. for over 250 years- mind you we only need about 5 tons of it a year to power the U.S. instead of a billion tons of coal to power half.


It's half the price of coal but if we tapped int other EPA's reserves we'd have power for thousands of years that was practically free.

Declare electricity a utility so the government can produce electricity and business, home stuff, and stuff drop and stuff like carbon fiber and gold which can be created with lots of electricity become uber cheap. With carbon fiber frames comes better fuel efficiency (3-5 times, sense it's only 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter instead 7.8 like in steel) and electric cars suddenly have a viable range as well, making everything super cheapsz. But that's just me and my crazy antics. You could make electricity thousands of times cheaper and if the government made it 1/100th of what is now and basically took in the other stuff as taxes our national debt would get paid off real fast too. It's a win-win-win, but yet nobody will do it yet.
SonoraSamurai's avatar

Friendly Raider

black_wing_angel
SaguaroDundee
Are we still doing that whole " we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing?


Never give a terrorist what they want. You'll only further encourage them. "Well, if I can just do that, and get whatever I want....then why stop?"

Quote:
Is it unconstitutional to deny "terrorists" representation in Democracy?
So why don't terrorists have representation in the U.N?, since they are both international.

Lets take japan for example. The Yakuza have representation in their country, in returned for being on the governments books. and they aren't exactly in hate with the west, nor are they agressive. Granted there are xenophopic Japanese. But they've not tried making demands to the U.S. nor try to bomb the U.S in modern times.

I guess another question I have is why are Al Queda angry at the U.S? Did we provoke them? Or are their demands to aggressive?


So far as I've heard, a lot of their problem with us, is that they don't like the way we live. Women are equal to men. Gays are not stoned to death in the streets. To them, Allah does not approve of American society, and promotes Jihad against us.

Quote:
I hypothesize we annoy them because we support Isreal.


I wouldn't rule that out, personally.

If they're trying to change the world, I would understand. But it seems like they're mostly trying to keep us out of their tiny secluded mass in the Middle East.

I really don't think they're as much of a threat as we present them to be.
Agent Thrax's avatar

Smoker

Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Agent Thrax
Suicidesoldier#1
Blood Valkyrie


Yeah ... I'm not believing that because I don't think the U.S. government gives a s**t about that.
But, you are making sense, and you do not seem stupid. 4laugh


blaugh

Of course they do. This nation was built on the principles of freedom and equality and justice- we overthrow people all the time who stand to go against our freedoms.

No. We often use freedom as a justification to overthrow other governments, but ulterior motives are usually in play. Also, this nation wasn't built on freedom, equality, and justice; at the time when it was built, we were trading in slaves, so therefore such a foundation would be entirely hypocritical and therefore in name only.


Many of these people desired to abolish slavery, but decided to wait until another date to do so.

Baby steps.

Through that laziness, untold suffering was born into the world.


This Nation may have never been able to have been created at all.

How does one eat and elephant- one bite at a time.


It's like saying they should have eaten an Elephant whole.

Yeah, it would have been nice, but it's just not possible, they're just humans.

Have you ever tried to eat an elephant in one sitting? It's possible with enough supporters.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games