Re: Democracy Villagers re-enter the banned public space!


"Doug" <jagmad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d5ea0f61-6a1a-4a4a-9f19-13ec5487ad2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 3 Aug, 09:37, "Brimstone" <brimst...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8ae4792b-0439-49bf-9aba-3e40d11a0a47@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



> On 2 Aug, 09:45, "Brimstone" <brimst...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:d0afdb2b-6eb6-4d88-a17a-de06edeb0d9f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> SNIP

>> >> Bin Laden's nationality is beside the point. His physical location >> >> at
>> >> the
>> >> material time was.

>> > So we went to war in 2001, and are still killing loads of innocent
>> > people, against a country which just happened to be the location of
>> > someone who was holed up there, instead of against the country whose
>> > citizens were responsible for 911?

>> Do you really not have a clue Doug, or are you merely acting as
>> uninformed
>> as some backwoodsman without access to newspapers or the internet?

>> The then government of Afghanistan were asked to hand over Bin Laden.
>> They
>> refused.

> So if a country refuses to hand over someone this is sufficient
> justification for going to war against it for nine years and still
> counting!

We are not at war with Afghanistan.

Really? What do you call it then?

Counter Insurgency. That is, countering the efforts of those who are trying to impose their will on the rest of the population by force.

>> The only people deliberately killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan
>> are
>> the Taliban with their suicide bombs and mines under the road surface.

> Rubbish! They are killed by our forces too. Don't you bother to ever
> read the news?

Did some aspect of the word "deliberately" escape your attention?

Oh I see, because it is not deliberate it doesn't matter.

I didn't say that, but why do you only condemn our forces who kill accidentally whilst doing their best to avoid civilian casualties whilst praising the enemy who kill and maim innocent civilians completely indiscriminately?

>> >> >> Why did we get involved? Because, a) about 70 British people >> >> >> were
>> >> >> killed
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> 11 September 2001 (more than any other nationality excepting
>> >> >> Americans)
>> >> >> b)
>> >> >> it was an attack on a NATO country and under the terms of that
>> >> >> treaty
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> attack on one is an attack on all.

>> >> >> But, of course, you knew this already, didn't you Doug?

>> >> > Nope.

>> >> So you didn't know that 70 British people were killed in the attack >> >> on
>> >> the
>> >> World Trade Centre and that an attack on one NATO country is >> >> treated
>> >> as
>> >> an
>> >> attack on all?

>> > Why were so many people killed? Because the poorly constructed >> > towers
>> > fell down. The attackers couldn't possibly have known that this >> > would
>> > happen.

>> Do stop taking crap. Doug. The towers fell down because a load was
>> imposed
>> on them that they, nor any other structure, were not built to >> withstand.

> Rubbish, quote.

> "When the Twin Towers were constructed in the 1970s, the builders were
> granted some exemptions from New York's building codes. The exemptions
> allowed the builders to use lightweight materials so the skyscrapers
> could achieve greater heights. But, the consequences were devastating.
> According to Charles Harris, author of Engineering Ethics: Concepts
> and Cases (compare prices), fewer people would have died on September
> 11, 2001 if the Twin Towers had used the type of fireproofing required
> by older building codes."

What about the impact and resultant extra load caused by the aircraft
hitting?

The towers didn't fall down immediately.

True, and?

Aviation fuel burns at a lower temperature than steel melts.

What about the contents of the offices?

What about it?

>> >> Perhaps it's time you became better informed.

>> >> > 911 was not an invasion.

>> >> No one said it was, it was an attack.

>> > So an attack by a small group of people is an excuse for a 9 year >> > war
>> > against the wrong country? Maybe instead the USA, who has roped us >> > in
>> > too, just wants to get rid of as many Muslim fundamentalists as
>> > possible and doesn't care how or where so many innocent people get
>> > killed in the process. But of course it will not do it against the
>> > country actually responsible because it has close economic and
>> > strategic ties with it.

>> You really don't listen and learn do you Doug?

> That is not an adequate response from you. Try harder of don;t bother
> posting.

More unwitting irony from Doug.



>> > BTW, the Saudis are ruled with a rod of iron by a monarchy with >> > which
>> > many disagree and would like to rebel against.

>> > "...There are no recognized political parties or national elections,
>> > except for one local elections which were held in the year 2005 when
>> > participation was reserved for male citizens only..."

>> > How ironic that it is a deeply Muslim country and is close chums >> > with
>> > USA.

>> >> > Terrorist attacks by a handful of
>> >> > people are not invasions or wars but our government's involvement >> >> > in
>> >> > attacks and invasions of other nations are indeed wars, which >> >> > have
>> >> > appalling consequences in which many more innocent people die >> >> > than
>> >> > those due to terrorism.

>> >> > A much better response to 911 by USA would have been to stop
>> >> > attacking
>> >> > Muslims and not drag us into their stupid warmongering.

>> >> And how would that have dealt with the perpetrator of the attacks?

>> > The perpetrators died during the attack and their country of origin
>> > still remains unpunished.

>> You're confusing the perpetrators and those who carried out the >> action.

> No I am not. Nobody can make a suicide terrorist do what they do.

Making someone do something and persuading them are two different things,
but the people who carried out the attack didn't organise it.

How do you know? Just because the authorities you revere

What's this another pathetic attempt at insult? What's the point of it Doug?

say it was
bin Laden and use this as an excuse for a nine year 'act of
aggression' doesn't make it so.

Bin Laden has said he was behind it. How else would NATO have known who to go after? Who is this 'act of aggression' against Doug?

>> > Maybe now you will admit that the Democracy Villagers, and the
>> > majority of our population who are opposed to the Afghan war, have a
>> > point?

>> All you managed to do Doug is to convince me that you don't have the
>> faintest idea of what you're talking about.

>> If the Democracy Villagers are as informed as your are then it's no
>> wonder
>> no one is listening to them.

> The world's media has covered the Democracy Village. I would say a
> very large number of people have been watching and listening. You see,
> many other countries dislike the wars we have been involved in and are
> prepared to say so. Unlike you who seem to relish such wars.

Again you destroy your argument by making unfounded personal allegations.
Why do you do that Doug, is it really your intention to kill off
discussions?

Pot kettle.

What is that supposed to mean?

So why are you trying to justify the UK killing of
innocent civilians in Afghanistan and trying to pretend it is not a
war?

No one is trying to justify such deaths. However, as you've been told before, there is such a thing as having a sense of proportion and recognising that UK and other forces are doing their best to avoid civilian casualties. What you seem to overlook is that we are trying to improve their standard of living to a level that most people in this country would have nightmares about.

Let me spell it out for you. We invade another country, aka 'an act of
war' and some of its citizens, aka Taliban, strenuously object and
fight back. Meanwhile a puppet government is installed in the name of
democracy, which is supposed to make everything OK but doesn't because
many of the citizens still object to having been invaded, as would we
if we were in their position.

Some of Afghanistan's citizens undoubtedly don't want us there, however, they want the Taliban even less.

Tell me Doug, are you against girls and boys going to school and being able to dress and live as they wish or do you want to see girls and women having to walk around wearing a tent and allowed to do nothing except grow up, get married at a very early age and spend the rest of their lives producing more children?

Are you in favour of women and girls being treated like this:-

<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush buys Land in Northern Paraguay
    ... declared war on us is a war crime. ... The way you stay alive, in the nuclear age, is to ... Then you support pre-emptive attack on N.Korea, China, and Russia? ... other side will be in full control of your country. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Who is in Charge of Libyan Revolution?
    ... higher positions of power, but once a couple of those tribes start to ... Please read the condensed rap sheet of your country. ... The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into ... Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: WHY...
    ... If this war was about oil, ... attack nations that can not harm us, ... Again...see my previous responses. ... single American soldier having to die for his country. ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)
  • Ahmedinejad: The New Boogeyman
    ... Bushand many in the GOP are so war hungry. ... Mahmoud Ahmedinejad denies the Holocaust. ... But Ahmedinejad is the leader of an important country in the Middle ... propaganda fodder for an attack against Iran, ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Democracy Villagers re-enter the banned public space!
    ... > So we went to war in 2001, and are still killing loads of innocent ... > someone who was holed up there, instead of against the country whose ... Do you really not have a clue Doug, or are you merely acting as uninformed ... >> So you didn't know that 70 British people were killed in the attack on ...
    (uk.legal)