Support NeoGAF

[fart]

i'm not justifying either criminal act. you and people like you are the ones doing the justifying.

thanks for playing though.

oh, and here's a quick google search. why don't you check out some of the links

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=iraqi+war+civilian+casualties

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

yeah im from jersey too man this suxs

Yeah, he's been on the news alot lately (south jersey). People in his hometown had a prayer vigil last night. RIP

It suxs to been in his position over the past few days. When will people realize that this is the wrong way to further your agenda.

 

[Incognito]

What the hell? You do realize you're talking about Al Qaeda, the group that organized a random assault on American soil and killed over 2000 people? You're an idiot if you think they wouldn't assault any more Americans if the Iraqi invasion hadn't taken place.

Do you watch the news at all, Tritroid? I'm guessing not, because if you had, you would have noticed the rather large headlines of "NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND IRAQ". Now, you can keep soaking up all the disinformation from Bush and his cronies for however long you wish, but you need to realize these guys are WRONG and LIARS. And because of our illegal invasion into Iraq, we've managed to piss off every single living terrorist in the world and become the SOLE target.

 

[Kuramu]

organs?

don't like the word? another quote from putin:

Hussein's regime was preparing acts of terrorism - we did have this information and we handed it over.

he went on to say that he didn't think it justified the attack, but that's where room for personal judgement comes in.

 

[Incognito]

If there are saudi nationals in Iraq and not buying stuff on million dollar road and making business deal, most likely they are doing a jihad which means they are targets.

If there are american nationals in Saudi and not buying stuff on million dollar road and making business deal, most likely they are doing covert ops which means they are preparing for war.

 

[Cooter]

And because of our illegal invasion into Iraq, we've managed to piss off every single living terrorist in the world and become the SOLE target.

You have got to be kidding me.

This is the most absurd statement I have heard in a while.

What the Hell was 9/11? This is the problem with people in your school thought. You somehow think if we are nice to them they will stop. Tell Elvis I said hello because you are clearly living in a parallel universe.

 

[Kuramu]

Do you watch the news at all, Tritroid? I'm guessing not, because if you had, you would have noticed the rather large headlines of "NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND IRAQ".

if you did a little deeper, you will find that the news left out the last part of "NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND IRAQ in 911 attack" The administration never made such a claim to my knowledge. It's not a lie if you never said it. That's what we get for relying on the media for our information. Direct quotes are the only thing i trust anymore

 

[Tritroid]

Do you watch the news at all, Tritroid? I'm guessing not, because if you had, you would have noticed the rather large headlines of "NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND IRAQ". Now, you can keep soaking up all the disinformation from Bush and his cronies for however long you wish, but you need to realize these guys are WRONG and LIARS. And because of our illegal invasion into Iraq, we've managed to piss off every single living terrorist in the world and become the SOLE target.

Are you for real? How can anyone actually think like this?

Do you honestly think that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked American citizens if the Iraqi invasion hadn't taken place? This has nothing to do at all with the 9/11 commission finding no connections with Iraq and Al Qaeda, this is about Al Qaeda continuing their efforts to slaughter and kill Americans post 9/11.

Tell me Half, what invasion by the American military prompted Al Qaeda to send two passenger planes into TWC? You can try to look at these people like they're simply misunderstood and lashing out because of something the American military has done to wrong them, but they aren't. Their primary goal was to bring terror to America. They did that on 9/11, and they're still doing it now, regardless of the invasion in Iraq.

Wake up please and realize that simply because you don't agree with how the Bush administration is handeling the war on terror doesn't mean that everyone else is automatically innocent. Al Qaeda began this war, and it's pretty obvious they intend on finishing it, whether the United States sits on its ass and does nothing or not.

My GOD are all liberals this fucking stupid?

 

[Incognito]

You have got to be kidding me.

This is the most absurd statement I have heard in a while.

What the Hell was 9/11? This is the problem with people in your school thought. You somehow think if we are nice to them they will stop. Tell Elvis I said hello because you are clearly living in a parallel universe.

Uh, we were already on the shit list, sure. Now, though, we're on every terrosists shit list and stupid shit like torturing POW's or detaining them without proper notification doens't help. Why is Rumsfield allowed to keep his job?

 

[Guileless]

I'm sure no Saudi nationals are killed by our military. *cough*

I don't know what this means. What are you getting at there?

we've managed to piss off every single living terrorist in the world and become the SOLE target

So you want to pursue a foreign policy designed to not "piss off" terrorists. What would that be exactly?

 

[Tritroid]

So you want to pursue a foreign policy designed to not "piss off" terrorists. What would that be exactly?

In other words, he wants a foreign policy similar to what France has.

 

[Lucky Forward]

organs?

organ :
n 1: a fully differentiated structural and functional unit in an
animal that is specialized for some particular function
2: a government agency or instrument devoted to the performance
of some specific function; "The Census Bureau is an organ
of the Commerce Department"

 

[Drey1082]

Are you for real? How can anyone actually think like this?

Do you honestly think that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked American citizens if the Iraqi invasion hadn't taken place? This has nothing to do at all with the 9/11 commission finding no connections with Iraq and Al Qaeda, this is about Al Qaeda continuing their efforts to slaughter and kill Americans post 9/11.
My GOD are all liberals this fucking stupid?

Haha, well what I think, although I don't claim to be right, is that why didn't bush concentrate a majority of efforts on al-qaeda. Instead he concentrated on Iraq, which in no way strengthened our position against al-qaeda terrorism. He used Iraq in way to make people think he was almost getting two birds with one stone, (how, i still don't understand) He saw that we were being attacked by this terrorism group, attacked back, and saw a window open up for the ability to get iraq, using the countries anger from 9/11 as fuel. Please respond because i love talking politics!

 

[Incognito]

Are you for real? How can anyone actually think like this?

Do you honestly think that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked American citizens if the Iraqi invasion hadn't taken place? This has nothing to do at all with the 9/11 commission finding no connections with Iraq and Al Qaeda, this is about Al Qaeda continuing their efforts to slaughter and kill Americans post 9/11.

Tell me Half, what invasion by the American military prompted Al Qaeda to send two passenger planes into TWC? You can try to look at these people like they're simply misunderstood and lashing out because of something the American military has done to wrong them, but they aren't. Their primary goal was to bring terror to America. They did that on 9/11, and they're still doing it now, regardless of the invasion in Iraq.

Wake up please and realize that simply because you don't agree with how the Bush administration is handeling the war on terror doesn't mean that everyone else is automatically innocent. Al Qaeda began this war, and it's pretty obvious they intend on finishing it, whether the United States sits on its ass and does nothing or not.

My GOD are all liberals this fucking stupid?

Yes, Al-Quada would have attacked us with or without the Iraq invasion, that's not the point I was conveying, though. We've been tit-for-tat with them for years and it's finally caught up to us. I'll admit, I don't llike how Bush has handled it all, but to say beheadings is just another day in terrorist land is wrong. They want to send a message like America has, too.

Regardless, America should have finished this "war" 10 some odd years ago. This is total bullshit, now...

 

[Kuramu]

Haha, well what I think, although I don't claim to be right, is that why didn't bush concentrate a majority of efforts on al-qaeda. Instead he concentrated on Iraq, which in no way strengthened our position against al-qaeda terrorism.

Well, he did go after the Taliban first. I view that as showing that Al-Qaeda was his top priority. For the most part, fighting AQ isn't the sort of thing you can do with armies on battlefields. seems like it would mostly be covert stuff, and most likely stuff that's happening as we speak without our knowing about it. So being in Iraq doesn't in and of itself show that we're not focusing on al-qaeda as well

 

[Tritroid]

Yes, Al-Quada would have attacked us with or without the Iraq invasion, that's not the point I was conveying, though.

Then you shouldn't have said this:

This is war, and seeing as how America basically lives beyond the laws of war, why shouldn't the terrorists react in kind? Sure, it's a bad thing for the guy and his family, but it is war. Some of you all need to realize that and remember none of this would be happening on a somewhat regular basis had Iraq not been invaded on shaky and shady 'evidence'.

Hmm, you weren't trying to make the point that Al Qaeda assaults on American citizens wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the Iraqi invasion? Could have fooled me.

We've been tit-for-tat with them for years and it's finally caught up to us. I'll admit, I don't llike how Bush has handled it all, but to say beheadings is just another day in terrorist land is wrong. They want to send a message like America has, too.

I'd say their initial message on 9/11 was a big enough message to America.

Again, I'm telling you that these terrorists don't care how America retaliates post 9/11, they are out to murder people simply because they are AMERICAN.

Let's say the Iraqi invasion had never happened, and regardless Al Qaeda still managed to take prinsoners. Is it your belief that they would have eventually released the prisoners to American soldiers through negotiations?

Regardless, America should have finished this "war" 10 some odd years ago. This is total bullshit, now...

You keep switching back and forth from point to point. I'm assuming right now you're talking about the invasion in Iraq. Considering this thread is discussing the execution of an American hostage by Al Qaeda, (you know, those guys who want to kill Americans n'stuff?) I don't really see what relevance this has here.

 

[Drey1082]

Well, he did go after the Taliban first. I view that as showing that Al-Qaeda was his top priority. For the most part, fighting AQ isn't the sort of thing you can do with armies on battlefields. seems like it would mostly be covert stuff, and most likely stuff that's happening as we speak without our knowing about it. So being in Iraq doesn't in and of itself show that we're not focusing on al-qaeda as well

Yeah, i stated that we went for al-qaeda first, and i'm saying that we used sending some troops over there as a way to open the door to this iraq war. Bush: "We have 9/11, many people join the army ready to fight al-qaeda, and nationalism is at an all time high..... we send soldiers to fight al-qaeda. Well.. while we've got all these things going, let's get people angry at iraq, our old enemy, so we can settle the score with them too.. since, if i had called upon a war against iraq before 9/11 people would have me out of office in a second, asking why.. but since america is angry..... let's use that anger as fuel to settle this old feud...

That's at least how i see it.....

 

[CaptainABAB]

"In other words, he wants a foreign policy similar to what France has."

Yeah, that has worked out well for them...

1994 Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by GIA members who planned to crash the plane on Paris but didn't succeed.
http://www.fact-index.com/a/ai/air_france_flight_8969.html

2000 German police foil plot to attack a cathedral in Strasbourg, France

2001 Paris embassy terrorist attack plot foiled
http://www.fact-index.com/p/pa/paris_embassy_terrorist_attack_plot.html

 

[Drey1082]

Yeah, i stated that we went for al-qaeda first, and i'm saying that we used sending some troops over there as a way to open the door to this iraq war. Bush: "We have 9/11, many people join the army ready to fight al-qaeda, and nationalism is at an all time high..... we send soldiers to fight al-qaeda. Well.. while we've got all these things going, let's get people angry at iraq, our old enemy, so we can settle the score with them too.. since, if i had called upon a war against iraq before 9/11 people would have me out of office in a second, asking why.. but since america is angry..... let's use that anger as fuel to settle this old feud...

That's at least how i see it.....

the lack of responses to my arguement = me being right!! horray me!!

 

[kaching]

when you start excusing one with the word "oops", you start to decriminalize the other

Please, it can take far less than that - plenty of people in this world just looking for a reason to hate and harm their fellow human beings. This doesn't create a situation of shared responsibility: if US military bombs a innocent civilian target, that's solely their responsibility and if a group of militants behead an innocent civilian, that blood is on their hands and no one elses.

 

[Kuramu]

the lack of responses to my arguement = me being right!! horray me!!

hey now, give people a chance to read other threads, will ya ;p
my guess is that you're probably right in that last post, although i would add that i don't think he took out Saddam just to get even with an old enemy. especially after hearing about what Putin said, i feel going in there was long overdue

 

[Ripclawe]

If there are american nationals in Saudi and not buying stuff on million dollar road and making business deal, most likely they are doing covert ops which means they are preparing for war.

goofy try, since Americans in Saudi are there along with other foreigners to work in the economy, there is no proof of that going the other way.

 

[krypt0nian]

All that sand will make for a fine glass skating rink.

Fuck em at this point. They act like animals, they get treated that way.

 

[Drey1082]

hey now, give people a chance to read other threads, will ya ;p
my guess is that you're probably right in that last post, although i would add that i don't think he took out Saddam just to get even with an old enemy. especially after hearing about what Putin said, i feel going in there was long overdue

See, if that was the case, then why were the reasons for going over there "weapons of mass destruction"?? why didn't he just say, hey, we have evidence that iraq is planning to commit terrorists acts against us, so we're going to act first.... He did do that, but yet had to go the extra mile explaining there were weapons of mass distruction... was that necessary?? He claimed that the threat was immediate... more immediate than al-qaeda....i don't think so.. I can't see iraq attacking any time soon after our inspectors went through their country. Wouldn't they think, "these inspectors hint to us that they know something is up, let's back off a bit."

again, just my opinion, right or wrong.

edit: i realize i'm getting a little off topic.. I just think we could have had more of an impact on al-qaeda if we had focused more on them, as opposed to diverting some forces to iraq.

 

[Ripclawe]

See, if that was the case, then why were the reasons for going over there "weapons of mass destruction"?? why didn't he just say, hey, we have evidence that iraq is planning to commit terrorists acts against us, so we're going to act first.... He did do that, but yet had to go the extra mile explaining there were weapons of mass distruction... was that necessary?? He claimed that the threat was immediate... more immediate than al-qaeda....i don't think so.. I can't see iraq attacking any time soon after our inspectors went through their country. Wouldn't they think, "these inspectors hint to us that they know something is up, let's back off a bit."

again, just my opinion, right or wrong.

He never said it was immediate/imminent, it was preemptive based on the information we and other countries had along now we have Russia's information in public, WMD's was not the ONLY reason to go in and America can chew gum and walk at the same time. Al Qaeda cannot be fought with only ground troops and airfire, at this point Qaeda is decentralized and pairing up with other like-minded groups all over the world.

Immediate as people want to say Iraq is going to lob weapons across the oceans and send hordes of armed forces after us.

 

[Kuramu]

since we all believed that they had the weapons, and since we now know that there was outside intelligence saying that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack, it seems even more logical that they would push the WMD thing hard at that time

 

[NetMapel]

So... they threatened to kill an AMERICAN civilian so SAUDI might release their prisoners... ?

 

[DJ Sl4m]

The really sad part of it all, is supposdely the people there want the US off it's land, but with every public death like this, and all thier futlie resistance, it just shows how thier ignorance will lead to thousands more being killed.

When the fighting stops, the US is gone, it's that simple.

 

[xsarien]

Ummm, how about no? That is not the reason those bastards flew those planes into the WTC. Al-Qaeda had a sworn hatred for "the enemy" since the early 90's. Remember they bombed the WTC in '93? They had the plans to fly the planes into it since 1999.

I'm going to buy a big billboard in space, and the copy is going to read:
"AL QAEDA DID NOT BOMB THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN 1993!"

It was a plot hatched out of some extremist dorks in Jersey, who were promptly rounded up, hauled into court, given a trial, and thrown in jail faster than you can say "Dubya." At least one of them - I believe - is in solitary on a life sentence.

That's how things used to work in this country, anyway. Now we just toss people in federal prison, deny them access to a lawyer (even the original WTC bombers had representation), and throw away the key.

He never said it was immediate/imminent

I dunno, him agreeing with that whole "45 minute" thing from Blair seemed to imply it pretty well. But I guess "implication" isn't "saying" in Republicanland; that shoving things between the lines somehow renders everything untouchable.

 

[Tazznum1]

I thought his spleen was taking over. Followed by his kidney...

 

[nitewulf]

this whole war needs to just end.

 

[Tazznum1]

I'm going to buy a big billboard in space, and the copy is going to read:
"AL QAEDA DID NOT BOMB THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN 1993!"

It was a plot hatched out of some extremist dorks in Jersey, who were promptly rounded up, hauled into court, given a trial, and thrown in jail faster than you can say "Dubya." At least one of them - I believe - is in solitary on a life sentence.

That's how things used to work in this country, anyway. Now we just toss people in federal prison, deny them access to a lawyer (even the original WTC bombers had representation), and throw away the key.

Yeah that scary wannabe blind Santa guy.

 

[fart]

Please, it can take far less than that - plenty of people in this world just looking for a reason to hate and harm their fellow human beings. This doesn't create a situation of shared responsibility: if US military bombs a innocent civilian target, that's solely their responsibility and if a group of militants behead an innocent civilian, that blood is on their hands and no one elses.

i agree that there is a level of personal responsibility (one we have not seen from the us military but i digress), but remember this is politics. this kidnapping is being propagandized; it is not just a crime between two people, there are nations, religions, socioeconomic castes involved. it's a very complex situation and one aspect of that complexity is that, for many people, two wrongs make a right. the escalation of violence that we're seeing has to do with this dehumanization and decriminilization in light of this or that retaliatory violence. the invasion of afghanistan was "justified" (and all the 'collateral' deaths that came with it) because of the bombing of the towers, and the bombing of the towers was "justified" because of a hundred years of neocolonialism, and so on and so on. of course, the bottom line is (should be) that violence is never, ever justified, but tell that to the family of the kidnapping victim, the iraqi boy whose parents were killed by an american bomb. the responsibility is shared because, looking at the last 100 years holistically, it is not only one person who has committed a vicious, atrocious act of violence like this, it's groups of people, and these groups of people don't live in a vacuum, they're influenced by each other and so on and so on.

this isn't even the most complex layer. there are economic forces at work here (and god, please don't deny it), HUGE economic forces, as well as social, religious, political, etc. etc. etc.

the best thing you can do is learn as much as you can about the history of the world and the current state of the world before going off on your internet rampage against this or that evil dictator or evil president or evil terrorist. even the topic of this thread completely misrepresents the nature of events today. the terrorists killed that guy? who are these "terrorists"? at one level they're petty criminals, at another, they're political revolutionaries, and so on and so on and so on. who is that guy? he's a guy, right? but he's also an american, and not only that, but he's an american in a foreign country, a contract worker. these are all people, and people are not as simple as we'd like to think

so, everyone in this thread, shut up already. come back when you're ready to explore and discuss and not just spew ultimatums (exactly what most propaganda nudges you towards of course)

 

[Tazznum1]

We are f*cked.

Really, there will be no end to this. The world is literally filling up to fast with people. It will be pretty much impossible to combat this type of terrorism.

 

[Ripclawe]

Thats a bunch of pseudo rationalizing claptrap.

who are these "terrorists"? at one level they're petty criminals, at another, they're political revolutionaries, and so on and so on and so on.

No, they are TERRORISTS , they have fallen for an ideology that has progress more and more towards being the Arabic version of Nazism where the only people deserving to live in their eyes are the purest of all muslims. political revoluntionaries? bullshit, who are they trying to free? the millions of Saudis who benefit from having foreign help working the oil fields where they get the money to pay for their lifestyles? petty criminals don't go around bombing people. The dream is to make the planet fall under sharia law, to make everyone follow islam or everyone dies. All you wrote can be put down to the same tired "blame America" thinking that is unjustifible in light of events.

its the same maddening thinking that is going with the terrorists in Iraq as being the "minutemen" of Iraq, freeing the oppressed from evil America, despite the fact that as the handover is getting near they are killing more Iraqis than ever before, blowing up the infrastructure that benefits the Iraqis.

 

[Guileless]

the bottom line is (should be) that violence is never, ever justified,

So the violence to destroy the Nazis wasn't justified?

 

[xsarien]

So the violence to destroy the Nazis wasn't justified?

The Nazis wore uniforms, and were formal military members. Terrorists are neither. They're you, your neighbor, anyone who's sufficiently "fed up."

 

[Ripclawe]

The Nazis wore uniforms, and were formal military members. Terrorists are neither. They're you, your neighbor, anyone who's sufficiently "fed up."

and the Nazi were made up of aliens from other planets? terrorists aren't fed up, they want something that appeals to their group thinking.

 

[xsarien]

and the Nazi were made up of aliens from other planets? terrorists aren't fed up, they want something that appeals to their group thinking.

My point, which you seem to have eluded for the sake of doing so, is that because terrorists are, in all technical terms, not military targets in any defined or traditional sense, more measured tactics are needed when dealing with them.

 

[Guileless]

The Nazis wore uniforms, and were formal military members. Terrorists are neither. They're you, your neighbor, anyone who's sufficiently "fed up."

OK, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to my question to "fart." Was the violence used by the Allies to destroy Nazi Germany not justified? Judging by his absolute prohibition on violence, his answer would have to be no.

 

[fart]

i see rip isn't ready.

on the nazis: much of your feelings on ww2 have been formed by what's basically propaganda. now, the nazi party with hitler at the helm imo unquestionably killed millions of innocent people, and i think we can all agree that that violence was not justified at all. discussion of the war that was raging while this was happening is a bit deeper for me. there's evidence, i think, that the US knew about the death camps before they declared war (i'm not 100% sure about this). it wasn't until pearl harbor that isolationism was no longer popular in the us (and of course pearl harbor is another can of beans right there i'll tell you). there's certainly evidence that a lot of US companies (think henry ford) even supported the nazis prior to and during the us campaign. so yah, as a blanket statement i would say that killing people was generally not just even in ww2, but you have a point, if no one had stopped the reich from its campaign of mass murder, that would have been bad as well. again, this is a complex situation. a little easier to think about in retrospect, but still more complex than nazis bad allies good, as usual.

 

[nitewulf]

thats the thing, its not just "arabs". i was in the post office picking up a package last week, and this completely ghetto muslim guy and his thug friends were in front of me on the line. i mean you should have heard him speak! he was speaking complete street language as in "so that n*gga came upto me the other day, and i was like why the f*ck you frontin' motherf*cker?, imma slam yo ass on the ground you b*tchass c*cksucker...", yet he had a huge beard and was wearing a toupee (the white cap muslims wear during prayers)...his friends? neighborhood asian/black gangster kids! none of them even gave a fuck that he is, at least in appearence, a conservative muslim.
i mean, im not used to seeing hardcore muslim thugs!!!
i have a lot of very religious muslim friends from college but they are all quite conservative.
also, i was browsing through some brit underground music site, and they covered this iraqi death metal band...i mean you gotta respect those kids. bombs are flying...buildings are burning, and they are practicing and singing pure death metal influenced by slayer, sepultura etc among all that chaos. they rock.

 

[nitewulf]

heres a article on that band, its not the same article i was talking about but its the same band:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2733

 

[Guileless]

this is a complex situation. a little easier to think about in retrospect, but still more complex than nazis bad allies good, as usual.

Let's all be thankful "fart" wasn't prime minister of Britain in 1940.

"Hmmm, this is a complex situation. I don't think killing Nazis is justified. When Hitler comes in to get the keys, I'll let him know how unjustified all of this is before he kills me."

 

[fart]

OK, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to my question to "fart." Was the violence used by the Allies to destroy Nazi Germany not justified? Judging by his absolute prohibition on violence, his answer would have to be no.

you're still looking at things to simplistically, either that or i have to clarify. i do think that if no one ever killed each other the world would be a great place, and you might even agree. so in that light i don't see how violence is ever justified. but it's not the same as a prohibition on violence, because in the real world rules are broken. how systems react when those rules are broken is what's at issue. at a personal level i think let's try to reassemble our systems without violence, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth you know, but it's a crazy world out there. justification is a moral argument. maybe sometimes the system just has to be "in the wrong" in terms of condoning violence in order to restore itself. what are the implications of this? well, it depends on the situation.

do you see where i'm going here?

these are difficult questions and i'm establishing kind of a kind of humanistic moral imperative because i think it's kind of the lowest common denominator. most people in the thread tend to agree that killing the hostage was pretty bad, so i think we can agree that killing people is bad, kind of as a rule.


you know, i give up. gaf has proven to me time and time again that no one wants to do anything but tell fart jokes and think they're right. way to go, internet! i'm going to get back to what i do best, BUTTSEX

 

[themadcowtipper]

FOX News : Report: Al Qaeda Leader Abdulaziz al-Moqrin Killed
Breaking News - the executioner of Paul Johnson was killed in raid.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123117,00.html

 

[Malleymal]

YES... 1 down, well 3 down , and 83478340786730789 to go... Lets get going Saudi arabia... Chop chop....

apparantly they killed him while they were dumping his body.... Damn

 

[Evolution VIII]

Americans and Western companies are there because there are no Arab companies with the resources or technical ability to do the work. And they are there because oil is there. If the Middle East were as resource-poor as sub-Saharan Africa, there would be no Americans there. The world economy, and by extension all of us, depends on a steady oil supply. The only way to get it is for Western companies to do the work, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

Knowledge leaks, unless you're saying that the Middle Easterners are too dumb to learn how to do anything on their own, to which we all know is utter bullshit.

 

[Kettch]

Fart
beheading is murder, a crime

MSW
To sit here and see you justify this gruesome act sends chills up my spine.

*confused*

The blame for this act lies with these militants, but that doesn't mean I can't hold others responsible for giving them further motivation.

 

[Guileless]

Knowledge leaks, unless you're saying that the Middle Easterners are too dumb to learn how to do anything on their own, to which we all know is utter bullshit.

I did not say that. I'm saying the capital and technical know-how to profitably exploit oil fields presently rests solely with Western companies. Knowledge may leak, but the technical advancement needed to perform this complex feat is very high and is a result of our advanced engineering schools, competition, and ability to pool capital.