i did refer to the 1st world quentin,so don’t kid yourself by thinking that any non US citizen (a french especially!) would use this accolade to talk about USA. 
rwanda was “just” an exemple,there are dozens of terrible things that have happened and didn’t get any coverage. 
You should have seen the tribute on Eastenders last night. Dogshit.
yeah,keep them coming Tom,i’ve been looking at reasons not to miss UK too much,and that fit the bill…
The most striking thing to me is the success of the 9/11 attacks. Killing people was always a means to an end, and the end was Terror. It worked.
From my standpoint, which is admittedly distant both geographically and culturally, America seems like a country ruled by fear now. Things which were easy are now hard – travelling is the most obvious. The world is now a much more dangerous place to be American, and they know it.
Meanwhile, the War on Terror continues to make things worse. There are always lots of people looking for a cause. Looking for something to hate. Hitler knew that, and used it to his advantage. So did the Japanese, at NanJing. So did countless other dictators in history. I’m not sure Bush - or America - knows. These invasions are guaranteed to achieve the opposite of their intent. Osama, if he exists, must be laughing his ass off.
The saddest thing is that Britain doesn’t seem to know either. We bloody well should, after Northern Ireland.
No good can come of this.
9-11 was an imaginative, ballsy manuvere you have to admit. Hi-jack a few passenger planes and fly them into the world trade centre and the pentagon. Holy shit. It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so horrible.
Yeah, I can see that bob, however AQ’s truer nature is far less than ballsy. Blowing up Iraqi civilians standing in line to register to vote, or shopping for food, or going to school, or waiting to sign up to become policemen.
How do you spell egomaniacal thug?
Osama.
I hope Bush is right, that AQ and Saddy had no contact. I find it hard to believe as reports had AQ operatives in Iraq beforeand after 911. Now this band seems to feel the need to roam furhter and take the fight from Iraq into Israel. You know, in times past marauding bands of terrorists had a different name.
Barbarians.
Yeah, I can see that bob, however AQ’s truer nature is far less than ballsy. Blowing up Iraqi civilians standing in line to register to vote, or shopping for food, or going to school, or waiting to sign up to become policemen.
How do you spell egomaniacal thug?
Osama.
I hope Bush is right, that AQ and Saddy had no contact. I find it hard to believe as reports had AQ operatives in Iraq beforeand after 911. Now this band seems to feel the need to roam furhter and take the fight from Iraq into Israel. You know, in times past marauding bands of terrorists had a different name.
Barbarians.[/quote]
I take exception to the word barbarians. Modern terrorists such as AQ or the IRA have ideologies, and use terror as a means to attain their ends, because symmetrical warfare against a country’s armed forces is just not possible. To name them barbarians is to dismiss them. That is not to say their violence should not be condemned and repudiated.
The barbarians of old, though vicious in a vicious time, were facilitators of trade (e.g. Mongols extended and made safe the Silk Road), superior craftsmen (e.g. Scythian gold artifacts); and were just trying to ensure survival of their peoples are they, in turn, were being pushed by other tribes (e.g. Vandals pushed by Huns) or by climate changes (the Viking invasions of N. Europe which led to formation of states like England, Russia, etc.). Were the Romans who were invaded by the Vandals so innocent? Despite their immense contributions in many fields: civil engineering, government, technology, etc., were they also not "barbarous? Did they not have a slave system? Did they not have gladatorial combat, crucifixions, torture? Did they not exterminate and enslave defeated peoples? At the end of empire, did their citizens not describe themselves as decadent and wicked?
Truly, the spoils and writing of history go to the victors.
I’m not dismissing them. I am categorizing them. AQ has an ideology? Surely it is just as selfish as the barbarians’.
You want to play the moral equity card with these assholes JB, go right ahead. “They’re just trying to get ahead in the world the only way they know how” doesn’t work for me.
Live by it, die by it. And the sooner the better.
[quote=“jdsmith”]I’m not dismissing them. I am categorizing them. AQ has an ideology? Surely it is just as selfish as the barbarians’.
You want to play the moral equity card with these assholes JB, go right ahead. “They’re just trying to get ahead in the world the only way they know how” doesn’t work for me.
Live by it, die by it. And the sooner the better.[/quote]
Actually, you mistake my meaning. I’m not playing some morality card. I don’t condone terrorism; I’m not idolizing them. (see my sig below from MLK) I’m just talking about misconceptions about barbarians historically speaking.
I’m asking that the barbarians of old should not be included in the same category as your hated AQ. The Vikings who populated England, and the Germanic tribes who became the French, etc. are ancestors to many civilized peoples. We’re talking about vast human migrations, which in a different age and time, did include violence and conflict. But I applaud the human spirit in such an undertaking. Imagine if you will, in the 4th and 5th centuries, you are part of a farming community that made its way from the forests and plains of modern-day Poland and Eastern Europe, and in less than a few generations, you had made your way all the way to Spain, where you proceeded to build a fleet to bring your people to Carthage. To me, that’s amazing footnote in the annals of human migration.
I’m sure AQ thinks the same of themselves.
Me? I’ll follow the wikipedia definition:
[quote]
The word “barbarian” generally refers to an uncivilized, uncultured person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos perceived as having an inferior level of civilization, or in an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, insensitive person whose behavior is unacceptable in a civilized society. While the latter sense is always pejorative, the former one has not invariably been so, as described below.[/quote]
If you want to teach a history class jack, try Open.
Such a subjective term. The actual origin of the word is from the Greek ‘barbaros’ which means foreign, or not of us. A fairly loaded term, ripe for use by proagandists and war-mongerers.
[b][quote=“jdsmith”] You know, in times past marauding bands of terrorists had a different name.
Barbarians.[/quote][/b]
Yep and you may apply this to the first white settlers of the now USA who slaughtered the Indians.
Only these barbarians have been given slant credence for their brutality. They were the Osama’a and red neck mullahs of their time.
Hundreds of years later they drop two A bombs on civilians in Japan… no terror in that at al eh???
[quote=“Serial Killer On Parole”][b][quote=“jdsmith”] You know, in times past marauding bands of terrorists had a different name.
Barbarians.[/quote][/b]
Yep and you may apply this to the first white settlers of the now USA who slaughtered the Indians.
Only these barbarians have been given slant credence for their brutality. They were the Osama’a and red neck mullahs of their time.
Hundreds of years later they drop two A bombs on civilians in Japan… no terror in that at al eh???[/quote]
I’m not sure the settlers fit the description though. Were they uncivilized compared to the Indians?
Then again, I’m not talking about then, I’m talking about now.