'USS Cole a war declaration on region'

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

I didn't say anything about being a doormat, but the fact is that western powers have been interfering in the region for many years for one reason only - OIL.

The terrorism in this case may be based on ideology in some respects, but it has it's roots in european and US imperialism - whether that be economic imperialism or any other sort.

The time for interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations is over, especially when its in the pursuit of wealth.

If russia were to plot the overthrow of the US government and the only way to retaliate was by guerrilla or terror tactics, you'd do exactly the same as these guys.

To say that this is based on ideology is a cop out - and propoganda put forth by those who started the whole mess off.



[edit on 5/3/2008 by budski]

It does not have any merit because there is no evidence that it is true.

Not only that, but it is patently wrong. Why would we fly someone to the US to plan an assaniation? What would have been wrong with planning it there?

I seriously doubt that we would waste a tomahawk for a single person, talk about excessive gov't spending. It would be a different story if it were a group of people we were after and they all happened to be in the same area.



I have minded my manners. I have not directly insulted you. Trust me, you would know if I did.



Since when did saying somone looks like something get turned into an insult?


Am I ever going to get any evidence from you (or anyone else) of US bullying by the ships off of the Lebanon coast?

Russia can fight back, but that's not really pertinent. Russia doesn't have volatile elections with terror groups trying to position themselves to take political advantage, in an already volatile region.

reply to post by budski

---

Of course these tyrannical groups just love brutal dictators and monarchs though. It's when the confounded westerners come around that they get agitated, and start to misbehave? Why is it that we don't have the same problems with say Norway or Britain, or non Arab/non Chavez oil sources?
I don't hear Norwegians complaining about imperialism. If the mid eastern governments weren't dysfunctional, they'd get treated the same way.

And now threats???

Perhaps it's time for this to be drawn to a close.

I have repeatedly stated my opinion and my position.

Parking off the coast of a foreign country in order to "send a message" constitutes a threat to that nation.

reply to post by budski

---

How many nations that don't threaten US interests, or sponsor terror groups, do we try to overthrow? Nations that are civil and wish to be a functional member of the international community, never have any problems from us.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

Please list the terror groups sponsored.

The US is interested in OIL and the israeli's - they threaten and bully everyone in the region to achieve both ends.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its not true.

Good Grief, how is that a threat?


Fine, just answer my question and I will leave you alone.


Neither of which I am interested in at this point.



How so? Is the US Navy making any threats to the people? Can you prove that they are?

Guess not....

reply to post by COOL HAND

---

It's not how you intended the remark that is the threat, it's how the person it's aimed at percieves it - I percieve it as a threat.

And yes, for the last time - sending a message in this way is a threat posture.

It's bullying - like you try to do.

Not if its in international waters.
Hell, China and Russia still patrol the coasts of the U.S. in their subs, in international waters of course.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

And at the same time does the commander say "we're here to send them a message"?

No,
the threat and the bullying is in the message - "do what we want cos we're bigger than you"

classic bully tactics.

They parked a warship off the coast to 'send a message'. Ask yourself what 'message' positioning a warship off the coast of another country sends and you'll have your answer.

edit: damn, budski, you managed to type two messages in the time it took me to type two sentences.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by Chris McGee]

Umm....YES!
Just the fact that they are there IS the message. Just because the captain is not standing on top the sub with a bullhorn yelling does not make it any less of a message.

reply to post by budski

---

Dictionary: threat (thrĕt)


n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
An indication of impending danger or harm.
One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.


Dictionary: bully1 (bʊl'ē)


n., pl. -lies.
A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
A hired ruffian; a thug.
A pimp.
Archaic. A fine person.
Archaic. A sweetheart.


I fail to see how Cool Hand threatened you, and I fail to see how Naval presence in international waters is bullying. Have we told Lebanon- this is the outcome we want, and will open fire if we are displeased. It would seem that the only outspoken person that feels bullied was that cleric.

Let's take a look at some of the policies we've implemented in the Middle East, and we'll see if anyone can explain them (other than Oil):

Keep in mind, we in America love freedom. Isn't that what we are fighting for? Let's examine what we have done to the Muslims.

"Challenging God's Word"

• "America has declared that waging jihad against Islam's attackers is a criminal act and has seized and incarcerated -- often without trial -- hundreds of suspected mujahideen around the world." For a Muslim to not participate is against the word of their God.
  
  
• "America has demanded that Muslim regimes limit, control, and track the donations Muslims make to charitable organizations that serve their poor, refugee, or embattled bretheren. Tithing is one of Islam's five pillars, and so America is asking Muslims to abandon God's law for manmade law."
  
  
• "America has demanded Muslim educational authorities alter their curicula to teach a brand of Islam more in keeping with modernity and, not coincidentally, U.S. interests. Thus, America wants Muslims to abandon the word of God as He reavled it in the Koran...."

"Attacking the Islamic Faithful and Their Resources"

• "U.S. policy supports oppression and often aggression by Hindu India in Kasmir, Catholic Filipinos in Mindanao, Orthodox Christian Russians in Chechnya, Uzbek ex-communists in Uzbekistan, Chinese communists in Xinjiang Privince, apostate al-Sauds in the Arabian Peninsula, and Israeli Jews in Palestine."
  
  
• "America supports apostate Islamic governments in Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere."
  
  
• "America, on its own or with the UN, often imposes economic and military sanctions on Muslims.... These actions force Muslims to follow U.S. orders, sanctioning Pakistan, for example, for building a nuclear weapon while condoning possession of such a weapons by India and Isreal."
  
  
• "The U.S. government and oil companies are seeking control of the Arab Peninsula to make sure its energy resources are sold to the West at below-market prices." Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi brings up a good point when he says, "If we take into consideration the fact that the Iraqi land contains 112 billion barrels of confirmed oil reserves in addition to 215 billion barrels of presumed oil reserves, Iraq becomes the world's second biggest reservoir of oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. This is one of the major reasons for striking at and occupying the two, even if it is done in stages."

"Occupying or Dismembering Muslim Lands"

• We helped create a new Christian state in East Timor.
  
  
• We occupy and pretty much rule these Muslim states: Afghanistan, Iraq, the states of the Arab Penninsula.
  
  
• We back Israel's occupation of Muslim Palestine (need I say more?)

Information taken from the book Imperial Hubris. Written by a former CIA expert on the Middle East.

Any questions?

[edit on 5-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

I don't really think that what goes on between two other members requires your intervention, or is any of your business.

Both of you have been trying to tag team me on this thread, and having failed, one resorted to trying to bully and became insulting and issued what I perceived to be a threat.

But like I say - what's it got to do with you?
Trying to tag team again?
That's another form of cyber bullying, and if you think I'll just take, then you are mistaken.

This thread is moving so fast that my previous post almost seems off topic. It was in reference to blueraja's idea that our policies don't promote terrorist actions.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

Well, from the definitions you posted:

Dictionary: threat (thrĕt)
n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
An indication of impending danger or harm.
One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

Dictionary: bully1 (bʊl'ē)

n., pl. -lies.
A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
A hired ruffian; a thug.
A pimp.
Archaic. A fine person.
Archaic. A sweetheart.

The bolded parts are the parts I would class as being relevant to this story. The presence of the warship and the 'message' it is sending could be considered both an intention to inflict harm and and indication of impending danger.

Further, the act of sending a warship to threaten a (smaller and weaker) people in this way could very well be considered to be both cruel and overbearing. The fact that the warship is there to ensure that the Israeli pogrom is not disturbed takes care of both the hired ruffian and thug parts.

reply to post by Sublime620

---

Now I wonder if you will play Devil's Advocate, and tell us why we may feel those ways towards islamic extremists, or are you merely gonna be an apologist for them?

If you perceived that as a threat, it's no wonder why you would think that a warship (in international waters) would be a threat.


You still haven't told me what message they are trying to send or what bully tactics that they are using.



Yep, looks like I am right.