C H A N N E L S  A M S T E R D A M
German Spanish French dutch Italien Portugese  
HOME
SEARCH
A - Z
HOTELS
AREAS
FORUM
MAPS
REVIEWS
NEW





Amsterdam Knowledge Base

A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 



<< PreviousNext >>
USA is not the country of the freedom




It's really, war is over. But are you sure that american people are happy of having won after having seen the costs of keeping peace in Iraq and do you think really someone still agree with Bush?
I can't stand with Saddam or terror but this war has been useless 'cause all over the world there are hundreds of dictators who might be more dangerous than Saddam, think to North Korea for example. Should we make war against all?
I just wanted to ask: are you sure that americans can rule the world as they want? Why boycott the products of a country who doesn't agree with USA political choises? I've read a message of someone who wants to boycott even catholic religion for vatican position against Iraq war: are you crazy? Boycotting a religion just like it was a product sold in a shop.
Where is so the freedom of every country to say what it wishes about politcal issue?
I like USA but only when they are more democratic and respectful of other's opinion. I'm really disappointed.
wc, the war isn't over. See 'Quagmire Watch' on this forum.
more dangerous than Saddam. Your grasp of the geopolitical matters is amazing.

NK ( oh, and Charles Taylor, of Course)is certainly worth debating, how about the other 99?

Don't worry, we have handled (negotaited, intimidated, befriended)other hostile countries with Nuclear Bombs. NK nuclear capability ( All 3 bombs) is something I would put more on the "watch closely" rather than "attack immediately" catergory..Oh you libs are so hawkish towards marxist dictatorships with nuclear capabilities? What happened?
kdog, my english-drivel, drivel-english dictionary is lost at the moment. Please could you rearticulate that with punctuation and a syntax that people who aren't you can understand?
kdog, when you say "we" I think you mean USA, don't you? Do you really think that is a solution to throw down a nuclear bomb to all countries which are politically opposite to USA?
Tell me if americans have found some nuclear bombs or other weapons in Iraq: nothing has been found.
And I want to say that it doesn't matter much to me if NK has got only 3 nuclear bombs: the most important thing is that they've got them.
Do you want other 99 countries: Iran, Pakistan, ecc. can find the way to have a nuclear bomb and there are lots of countries which are dictatorships: open your eyes.
But you haven't answeared to my question: do u think USA have got any right to say to France or Germany or other country what political position to keep? The war has been wanted by Bush without any NATO support: did you forget that? If every country could act as it likes, there would be hundreds of wars all over the world and NATO wouldn't be necessary.
Someone has taken over your duties! But you'll have to register first, because Dazz feels it is of the utmost importance...

Yeah, Dazz, The drivel (what happened to Dribble?) is pretty tough to understand. I think parentheses throws you off a bit...Just ignore them and continue reading...But I'll humor you and translate...

Right, "hundreds" of dictators.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

more dangerous than Saddam. Your grasp of the geopolitical matters is amazing. "

See, that's called sarcasm. I was sarcastic with WC (that's World Citizen, not Water Closet) because its kind of absurd to say there are hundreds of dictators let alone hundreds more that "might be more dangerous" than Saddam. Most dictators are more of the Kleptocrat variety. Spending money on military or infrastructure of any sort, ain't their thing.

"NK ( oh, and Charles Taylor, of Course)is certainly worth debating, how about the other 99?"

NK=North Korea. Sorry for using that top secret code. Sarcasm, again with CT. CT=Charles Taylor. No he's not some obscure Englishman that you are fond of citing to everyones (oops, forgot that Apostrophe, can you figure it out?) bewilderment. He's the leader of Liberia (a country in Africa). Maybe you have caught something about it in the papers.

"Don't worry, we have handled (negotaited, intimidated, befriended)other hostile countries with Nuclear Bombs. NK nuclear capability ( All 3 bombs) is something I would put more on the "watch closely" rather than "attack immediately" catergory..Oh you libs are so hawkish towards marxist dictatorships with nuclear capabilities? What happened?"

Not sure what threw you off there...sorry for mispelling Category...I know it's tough to figure out (more sarcasm..)
sorry, the last message was mine, I haven't written my name.
Equals 2..a far cry from "hundreds." So yes, I would be curious for you to throw out 97 more. Just looked up a factoid, 192 countries in the world (including that absolute dictatorship The Vatican)....Don't tell me, GW Bush is among the hundreds of dictators?

I am afraid my syntax and puncuation has got you a little mixed up. I did not call for a "throw down a nuclear bomb to all countries which are politically opposite to USA?" In the case of NK, I cousel a "watch closely" rather than "attack immediately" approach. Quite the opposite of your interpretation.

Guest, I wasn't avoiding your question, I had just read it. No France and Germany don't have to agree with the US and we don't have to agree with them (or ask their permission)...Boy, you come up with some tough questions...

Many NATO countries were on board. You seem to think that France and Germany's opinions are all that matter.
so why USA have to "watch closely" NK and have to "immediately attack" Iraq? Where are nuclear bombs Bush said there was?
Why not immediately attack NK and watch closely Iraq? It would have been the same thing.
Saddam wasn't a near danger for USA cause terror and AL qaeda are everywhere, not only in Iraq.
I know I'm the man of the tough questions....
bye
Iraq is to Liberia is to North Korea...The fact is Saddam is (or was)the wealthiest, most scientifically advanced, militaristic, overtly anti-american, butcher in the world. Go ahead and name the hundreds that match up. He has no peer. I am glad that libs have actually dropped the obvious fact that there are proven ties to Al Queda and terrorism. That is the threat with which we are dealing. North Korea is something different entirely.
So the question is: Do YOU think we should attack North Korea?
I missed that....Considering Libs are grasping at "the British Intelligence has Learned" speech, I would think that a quote detailing such an arsenal would be much more compelling in the "Bush is a Liar" campaign.

I actually think they should go back to the "where are the WMDs?" argument myself.
No, no. 'Dribble' is what drips from your mouth when you fall asleep on the train. Drivel is meaningless, trite, often contradictory garbage produced for effect.

Your attempts to explain yourself have only highlighted the accuracy of this definition.
the ol' "you're stupid" routine....It usually follows the "you forgot the comma" or "quit using Strawmen".....good, witty stuff..original too!
There are no "proven ties" between Sadam and al Qaida. None. More Bushist lies. "Big Lies". Bin Laden called for the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, calling him an infidel.
Forget it, you're wasting your breath. Most americans I hear can't even get it through their skulls that Iraq was a secular country. Most think it was islamic for some reason or another.

Then again, maybe people like you will be the staw that broke the camels back for some of these people.



_non
Forget it, you're wasting your breath. Most americans I hear can't even get it through their skulls that Iraq was a secular country. Most think it was islamic for some reason or another.

Then again, maybe people like you will be the staw that broke the camels back for some of these people.



_non

_non, where does this information come from? By this I mean to say, where are you getting Iraq is not Islamic? Look at this information, perhaps it will bring lucidity to a few of your assertions.

Iraq, religiously speaking, is Islamic. Here are some figures:
Muslim 97% (Shi'ite 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

Now let's define Muslim:
1.of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.
2.an adherent of Islam.

Now, a brief synopsis of Sunni and Shi'ite.

Sunni, also called Sunnite, is a member of one of the two great religious divisions of Islam, regarding the first four caliphs as legitimate successors of Muhammad and stressing the importance of Sunna as a basis for law.

Shi'ite is also a member of one of the two great religious divisions of Islam that regards Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad, as the legitimate successor of Muhammad, and disregards the three caliphs who succeeded him.

Now, let's look at Islam, also called Muhammadanism:
1.the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.
2.the whole body of Muslim believers, their civilization, and the countries in which theirs is the dominant religion.
Yes, those brainiacs in al-queda had a whole team of Nuclear/Bio/Chem scientists. Are we saying that that unless they created WMDS (or any weapons) themselves they would not use them. Simply, they would have to go to someone that is not a Militant fanatic. Yeah I heard those madrassas have killer engineering and science programs. But, I thought the US created the Taliban in the Afghan/Soviet war by supplying OBL himself with Stingers...God, I love that one. It also kinda throws out the "attack North Korea" 'cause they got nukes arguement. In case you didn't know they're avowedly atheist. Just like Dazz!

I suggest you look into the no ties thing a little further. I read an article in a British paper that catelogued a few dozen different reports from media outlets, Intelligence agencies, and politicians. The funny thing was all these reports were dated pre Sept. 11 and Pre-Bush...The spooky Bush conspiracy really had some reach apparently.
Forget it, you're wasting your breath. Most americans I hear can't even get it through their skulls that Iraq was a secular country. Most think it was islamic for some reason or another.

Then again, maybe people like you will be the staw that broke the camels back for some of these people.



_non

_non, where does this information come from? By this I mean to say, where are you getting Iraq is not Islamic? Look at this information, perhaps it will bring lucidity to a few of your assertions.

Iraq, religiously speaking, is Islamic. Here are some figures:
Muslim 97% (Shi'ite 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
............

Actually, _non is correct from a governmental standpoint. Just as the USA is not a 'Christian' government, although the majority of its inhabitants are.
The Baath Party is secular, and socialist in nature.

But then, you seem to prove his point.
organization Iraqis for Separation of Church and State were furious at his building of several grand Mosques..a clear violation of their Constitution since they are just like the United States, right?...Did you hear today's tape? He called for a Jihad. That's "Holy war" to you infidels. It must mean that it can't be that secularist Saddam, a sure fake! No need to investigate further. It's also unforunate the members of those secular organizations like Hezbollah (Party of God), Islamic Jihad (it's got a certain Religious ring to it), and Hamas can no longer count on his financial support any longer for their suicide bombers.....uh-oh, here comes the shrill, "Hezbollah is not Al-Queda!!!!! No Conection, whatsoever, Impossible to fathom! Saddam and OBL are men of strict principle that would never compromise!"...
Actually dannymac _non did not bring up the idea of government in his statement, but you do. All _non states is the fact Iraq is/was a secular country. That statement is incorrect. Government was not brought into the equation until you introduced it by stating _non was correct from a governmental standpoint. So, dannymac, you prove your own point, not me.

And dannymac, who is this 'world citizen' poster that started this topic? Hmmm. I wonder. ; )
Actually dannymac _non did not bring up the idea of government in his statement, but you do.
And dannymac, who is this 'world citizen' poster that started this topic? Hmmm. I wonder. ; )
It's that reading comprehension problem of yours again. I guess we'll have to wait for _non to explain what he meant.

Of course, I didn't see mention of the Iraqi people either, only the Iraq country.

Kdog, I would say that Sadam was/is an opportunist, which is why he built the Mosque's and has called for a 'Jihad'.

modern roots, I don't know who 'world citizen' is. If I post as a non-registered user, it comes up as 'guest', because I was too damn stupid/forgetful to log in. Of course, I follow that up with an indication of my stupidity/forgetfulness - logged in as dannymac.

Now, if I could only restrain myself.
I do enjoy your sense of humor dannymac. : )
And I also enjoy your projections.
And I am sure you know what a projection is....
I do enjoy your sense of humor dannymac. : )
And I also enjoy your projections.
And I am sure you know what a projection is....

Speaking of humor has anyone seen the movie Dumb and Dumber?
I do enjoy your sense of humor dannymac. : )
And I also enjoy your projections.
And I am sure you know what a projection is....

Speaking of humor has anyone seen the movie Dumb and Dumber?

Yes. Although what that has to do with humour, I'm not sure. Witless farce, maybe.

Iraq was a secular state. The declaration of religious distribution is meaningless, as by that argument the UK is a Christian theocracy because only about 2% of UK citizens are registered without a religion.
What do you get when you add a recession + a "Bush" ? = WAR!
I have grown up where our current, money-hungry,oil barren of a president did. It was a poor decision to put this type of person in a position of power. "rednecks" fight over donuts, bigoil companies eat the smaller ones. Everything that drives is about Ego and power. I don't agree with countries like france( who should be speaking GErman now) when they use the US as forum to croak their little froggy banter. But, it is equally childish to put an embargo on french fries, french toast, etc. When I was growing up, all I remember about terrorism was pan-am in paris this, metro bombing in paris, nerve gas, car bombs, on and on and on. Why then would you belittle someone(U.S.) who is trying, incorrectly, but trying to eradicate terrorism. What has France ever done about terrorism?
BestI can tell they are a canvis from which terrorists paint bloodypictures
for the world to view. I just like the whole, why speak if it is not good. Expressing opinions, fine but with tact!

A note on religion(all religion): James 1:26 If any man considers himself religious, and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue; he deceives himself and his religion is worthless!!!!!!!! Tot ziens! T
"News of you, the men of the armed forces and the Republican Guard, reaches me. I am pleased when I hear that you are carrying out these honorable Jihad operations side by side with the brother Mujahedeen or when you are leading them in..."

hmmm, sounds like that would be admission of some sort of alliance religiously driven, non-Iraqi forces...I am shocked...
by kdogs twisted logic, US is a fundamentalist christian state.

bush said its a crusade. he told the palestinian pm that god told him to attack iraq

jidah = holy war -- only in the minds of ignorant westerners who oversimplify out of antimuslim bigoitry
to the enlightened, tolerant Muslims that so often invoke the word?...Through the fog of ignorant, oversimplified, Antimuslim Bigotry I defintely got the impression that Jihad had some sort of religious connotation, sorry, my mistake. Please enlighten us all! While you're at it, Could you get me squared away on Mujahadeen as well? I mistakenly got the impression that they were some sort religious fanatics...

If it were a crusade in the sense that you understand it, face it, I think things would be a bit different, don't you. Why would he attack a secularist and an avowed enemy of Terrorists like Saddam Hussein?
Thanks Dazzler for restating what I was saying about the Iraqi being secular.

I think that Bush and Sadam were/are both using similar techniques to rally the masses to their cause.
Bush wanted a war with Iraq, so he says whatever it takes to get congress and the masses on his side...........
Saddam wants to be boss again (fat chance), so he says whatever it takes to get the masses to attack the invaders.

Obviously, Bush wasn't about to say anything that would put in doubt Saddams ability and desire to deliver WMD on our shores...........
Just as Saddam isn't about to say, "kill the Americans so I can restore my ruthless regime".

It's a marketing ploy for both of them!
jihad and mujahadeen.

What do they mean? Whatever CNN and fox tell you. believe what your told to believe. ignoranc eis voluntary. you can volunteer if you like.
but seriously, tell me what you think they mean. Do they have any sort of religious connotation? Or is that just CNN rallying the cause for GW.....
modernroot, dannymac
I haven't been here for some days but I'm reading the discussion I have created. I enterd as guest, but so? what's the matter with me?I'm a guy from Italy and I'm planning a travel to London, I found this site...and this forum and I've started to chat. I've got my political ideas and I completely disagree all that Kdog is saying...but it's a thing of mine. I followed all the debate and I found it quite interesting.
I'm really sorry for my nick but I have chosen it when I was in a hurry, it was the first nick I thought of...I couldn't use my own name! You can call me wc if you like more.
Maybe this is the first message which doesn't deal with war or Saddam...it's funny cause I started talking about this issue.
I'm still reading and I'm waiting for stories developments.
In my copy of the Qur'an , Jihad is mentioned four times, each time it being translated as meaning 'struggle' or 'strive'. When one reads further, it is apparent that this 'struggle' means an individuals attempt to find peace and harmony within the Islamic faith. In none of these passages does it talk about war or 'Holy War'.

Mujahadeen is not mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an. It's popular definition is a "holy warrior" who volunteers to fight in an Islamic cause against infidels.

Although the term 'Jihad' has a somewhat noble definition as used in the Qur'an, in all fairness I should mention that there are several other passages in the Qur'an that are quite inflammatory in reference to Jews, Christians, and infidels.

But then again, wasn't it Jesus who supposedly said, "….You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof....."

Does this mean that Christianity is in support of fratricide, etc.?
do you really think when Saddam and OBL call for Jihad against the United States they are referring to "a individuals attempt to find peace and harmony within the Islamic faith. "?

I'll go out on a limb, and say, no, JC was not calling for fratricide.
I don't understand where this Saddam Hussein-Osama Bin Laden conjunction came from.

It's like suggesting that Billy Graham and Aleister Crowley are in League.

There's a big section of America that likes being taken for mugs with all these bogeymen.
know Mr. Crowley (killer Ozzy tune, BTW) I would have thought you were citing another obscure Englishmen that nobody knows about....

The conjunction comes from the fact that the anti-american and religious rhetoric of Saddam and OBL is almost exactly the same. Why people think the prospect of such an alliance is an absolute impossibility, i'll never know. Not sure if you would ever confuse the sermons of Rev. Graham with Alistair Crowley though...great analogy, Buddy!

Hey, its not like I am making up this conjunction. "Saddam" or "the Secularist" as he should be more accurately known, acknowledged this alliance himself in his latest message. Here it is one more time:

"News of you, the men of the armed forces and the Republican Guard, reaches me. I am pleased when I hear that you are carrying out these honorable Jihad operations side by side with the brother Mujahedeen or when you are leading them in..." ---why, he sounds like such as secualr leader he could be the Prime Minister of Sweden!
so where's the imaginary conjunction between SH and ObL? nowhere. not in your quote. not in the real world. nowhere. they're both arabs. one is a muslim, one uses muslim terminaology. and you just hate all arabs and muslims. you hate the words they use, and you still don't have a clue what the words mean.
Saddam acknowledged it himself....if it is indeed him...and I am not so blinded to conclude that it is possible that it might not be....In the real world, there are non-Iraqis (mujahadeen, if you will)fighting against the US, not sure if they are carrying there Al-Queda Membership cards though!

Actually Saddam is a Muslim..he has even written a Koran in his own blood (how cool!)..Are you somehow implying that OBL is a "true Muslim?" Sounds like you have a wonderful perception of Islam. Oh yes, I am the bigot.

When it comes to the destruction of America and all non-muslims, yes, I do hate (not the exact word I'd use) those words. You got me there, I am so intolerant...

I am pretty sure I am not misunderstanding "Jihad" and "Mujahadeen." as Saddam and OBL commonly use them....Again, guest, if I am wrong, please enlighten me....Fox and CNN have warped my mind on understanding these two complex words....
No kdog, I'm not saying that you have misunderstood the current usage of the words. I was only explaining what the actual meaning(origin if you will, especially of 'Jihad') of the words are - you did ask.
I also have no doubt that if Saddam offered/offers OBL WMD, that OBL would gladly take them.

The FACT still remains, Saddam's Iraqi government and the Baath party were secular in nature, and more specifically socialist.
The FACT also remains that twisted minds can twist the meanings of religious texts, regardless of whether they're Jewish, Christian, Islamic, or those of any other religion.
and, Political leaders will say anything to get what they want.
Obviously, Bush wasn't about to say anything that would put in doubt Saddams ability and desire to deliver WMD on our shores...........
Just as Saddam isn't about to say, "kill the Americans so I can restore my ruthless regime".

It's a marketing ploy for both of them!
do you really think when Saddam and OBL call for Jihad against the United States they are referring to "a individuals attempt to find peace and harmony within the Islamic faith. "?

I'll go out on a limb, and say, no, JC was not calling for fratricide.

And I'll go out on a limb, and say, no, the Qur'an isn't calling for the annihilation of all non-moslems either.
so where does saddam supposedly say that there is a connection. noplace. you have shown nothing. there is no connection. your all bluster with no facts to back you up
Relgiously driven, non-iraqis are fighting alongside secular Baathists....
so where is the connection with ObL. you keep ignoring that simple question, and you keep changing the subject. as always. please tell us where the connection is. it's not in anything you wrote so far. there is no connection.
Poloroids, signed service contracts, OBL on Saddam's AOL "Buddy List"

Saddam personally and openly supports and sponsors Islamic terrorism and OBL is the Islamic terrorist. These are facts that you I invite you to dispute. It's enough for me. I think you have missed the point entirely here. Saddam supports terrorism. People seem to discount the possibility that Saddam would actually deal with OBL inparticular. Despite the complete logic and lots of compelling evidence of the connection, it's the the thread in which all anti-american libs are hanging. "No connection!, prove it!, I don't believe it!, Bush is lying, Osama said himself that he hates saddam, Saddam said he would admit if there was a connection with Al Queda" In due time, the dots will be connected....I am sure you'll be shocked....
"Saddam Hussein supports Islamic Terrorists"
"Osama Bin Laden is an Islamic Terrorist"
"Therefore, Saddam Hussein Supports Osama bin Laden."

See?

Incidentally:

Every US president since Reagan has supported Irish terrorism in the form of Sinn Fein. Will we be seeing them tried at the Hague? The USA (the country that harbours them) bombed and pillaged? Or is it just Muslims that you hate?
"George Bush supports terrorists"
"Osama bin Laden is a terrorist"
"Therefore, George Bush supports Osama bin Laden."

See?

The "logic" is the same, as is the fallacy in the logic. In either case the third sentence does not follow from the first two (in both posts, the first two statements are true).
So the the US is to Iraq as Sinn Fein is to Al Queda...another great analogy, Dazz! They are mirror images of each other....

I realize that Gerry Adams was invited to the negotiating table but what sort of support did the United States give exactly. I Kinda got the impression that this was more of an attempt to reach settlements and peace through negotation rather violence. You can question the effectiveness or the morality of it certainly, but this as an example of the US supporting terrorism is comical.

I kinda thought the US was in more of a Mediator in " the troubles"...I do realize that the IRA receives alot of support from Irish Americans. But if you got some evidence of the US government aiding the IRA you got some pulitizer prize story to reveal. Again, using common sense, why would the imperialist pig United States alienate its best ally and trading partner to support a band of socialist thugs that have no shot (or desire)whatsoever to liberate the counties. What do they get out of it exactly?

But thanks for bringing this up. It reminds me how hypocritical Brits are when lecturing Americans about being a "occupying force".....good stuff Dazz!
Yeah, sorry Guest. I thouht the fallacy was obvious without pointing it out. I forgot we were dealing with kdog.

But I wasn't suggesting that George Bush supported Osama Bin Laden. The US, however, are responsible for supporting the group that caused

It goes on...
as our esteemed guest demonstrates that this is really about hatred for GW Bush and facts, logic, evidence, history, be damned....We must get BUSH!
Really? I was six months old when the new phase of the troubles arrived. When I was old enough to understand what was going on, I supported in principle the withdrawal of troops form Northern Ireland. You are old enough to understand what's going on, yet you still act as an apologist for Bush's actions.

The truth is that the US never wanted to mediate between Westminster and the Taoiseach. America's involvement was always political, intended to score points with Irish voters and those Americans who romantically consider themselves to have Hibernian roots. Support has always been political, although there was no talk of freezing accounts of terrorists after the docklands, Birmingham, Manchester and M25 bombings.

As an example of even liberal America's sympathy with the Irish cause no matter what the cost to life on the mainland, see Braveheart.

And I'd prefer it if you didn't call me 'Dazz'. It's spelt with one 'z' and only people who have earned my respect get to call me that.
are still occupied so the hypocrisy still stands....and you refer to those poor oppressed people as terrorists that are on par with Al Queda...

I am one of those Sons of Hibernia that believes the IRA is a group of terrorists. There may have been some legitimate struggles for freedom pre '39...The IRA currently is a bunch of gangsters, extortionists, drug dealers, and guns for hire..Although I believe there are folks in the republican movement whose intentions are pure, my thoughts are, to let it go. I find the Ulster Unionists equally repulsive.....How the hell did we get here? Oh yes, we support terrorism like saddam supports terrorism (which of he doesn't, only the US supports terrorism).
Just checking.....its hard to keep track of England's Uccupied territories....
I'm also sure that religiously driven Iraqis are also fighting against our occupation. Whether they are 'alongside' the Baathists, I'm not so sure of.
I should hope you were using a little hyperbole here, kdog.
If this is what proof you believe, then you should very easily be able to direct us sceptics to your source of this info. Or, it could be that you are one of the extremely gullible people who believe anything that is put in print or on the boob tube.

When I say I'm a sceptic, I mean that I'm sceptical that there is any proof of an ongoing past partnership between Saddam and OBL. I do keep up with the news (both CNN and Fox, with some (C)NBC thrown in for good measure, not to mention print and internet sources) and I haven't seen any Polaroids of the two together, signed service contracts, or the most ridiculous statement - 'on each other AOL buddy list'.
Precisely an example of the kind of double standards I was talking about.

How rich and free are the Iraqis and the Afghans now then?

Almost everyone in England and Ireland has been wishing that the counties problem would go away for the last fifteen years or so, but the basic problem is this:

Northern Ireland, according to most people in the UK, should belong to the Irish. From the republican side, the demand is that the counties of Ulster be repatriated to Ireland immeidately. The problem is that it is part of a democracy and most people in Northern Ireland want to be British, not Irish and the UDA/UDF/other loyalists agree with them. How can you displace people or force them to change their nationality against their will?

Another complication is that the British cannot be seen to give in to terrorism

So, you see, it's a little more complex than England continuing to assert her territorial claims .
I think what we agree on is that there are not irreconcilable differences between Secularists and Relgious Zealots in Iraq and the Middle East. They can often have identical goals and objectives.

Sorry Danny on the misunderstanding, I was demonstrating the absurd levels of proof that would be needed to even suggest that any al-queda/IRAQ connection exists.

Dazz, I was being a bit fecetious re: the "poor Innocent freedom fighters IRA". Setting off nail bombs in public places is quite the same whether its in Belfast or Gaza. I think it's that sentimenatlity of which you speak, but I do have something that leans to the republican side, but I think the IRA are gangsters (quite literally) that spend more time terrorizing their own and enriching themselves than doing any "Freedom fighting" Actually, I think its real similair to PLO and affiliate organizations. I am not sure but I think the politcal leanings of Sinn Fein is pretty left. Doesn't exacftly stir my blood for the cause.
The Afghans and Iraqis are without a doubt more free...rich? All I can say is they can nowhere but up. I am willing to be patient on both fronts.
Special offers
NH Collection Amsterdam Barbizon Palace



Prices from EUR 151

NH Collection Amsterdam Barbizon Palace combines modern facilities such as a fitness area with historic features including.... >>

More offers...



The Knowledge base is created by answers from the amsterdam forum on The Channels website.
Opinions expressed here are from the posters on the forum and do not nessecarily represent the opinion of The Channels











© Channels 1995-2018, guides to the cities of the world   Pricacy statement   About The Channels