Thread: Why Are Americans So Angry?

Yeah, its pretty much the same stuff that was in bowling for columbine. I didn't listen to it end to end but the general gist is whats been shoved down peoples throats that they (unfortunately) believe.

A good vid although I was expecting something a little bit flashier at first.. XD Not some old man at a podium.

Reality Tv.

The first speaker speaks much truth, but has a couple misconceptions about America. For one, he said we should fall back to our origional foreign policy of peace and trade with all world nations. If my American history is correct we were spawned out of war and isolationist ideals. Also, his theory that leaving everybody alone will bring peace is questionable.

I know how I come off when i support war, but evasion and talk are not a defense against conflict. Unfortunately, neither is premature action. That's about all i can say.

To me, it's not about WMDs. The jihad ideal seems more dangerous to me.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

The first speaker speaks much truth, but has a couple misconceptions about America. For one, he said we should fall back to our origional foreign policy of peace and trade with all world nations. If my American history is correct we were spawned out of war and isolationist ideals.

That's more than a misconception, it's a lie. Since its very inception America was formed on blood and terror. Christopher Columbus the Butcher erected policies making it legal for new arrivals to feed living Native American men, women and children to their dogs. And this is the same man America honors (and lies about in the history books) with a holiday. This would be akin to Germany still celebrating Adolph Hitler's birthday. Can you imagine the outcry the world would have in response to that? Yet lo and behold, through American mass deception, the U.S. has painted a violent sadistic man, who according to any text book would be described as a homicidal psychopath, into a worshipable hero and an icon.

I'm not sure what the video is about, having not had the opportunity to watch it, but the posts here remind me of the words of Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General.

"The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy."

All the hype about Iraq is just so much spin for popular consumption. If the exact same "atrocities" were happening in Africa (or I dare say any other non-Middle Eastern country for that matter), you can be assured the U.S. would NOT be sending troops there in droves.

Not a lot has changed, historically, for America. Half a century later and they're still falling back on barbarism and terror (and I say this as an American expatriate myself.) Case in point:

"We have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. Our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and maintain social stability for our investments. This tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and Peru. Increasingly the role our nation has taken is the role of those who refuse to give up the privileges and pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment."

— Martin Luther King, Jr.
New York City
April 4, 1967

America was 'attacked' (it wasn't even really an attack, it was more of a statement) mainly because some groups in the middle-east had the feeling America was doing wrong things in their region.

And really, what the hell was America Ever doing there? Can some one tell me what the hell was the (first) reason for America to ever set foot near the middle-east?

America's current intervention-strategy comes from an intervention strategy. The 'terrorists' you are so afraid of have NEVER attacked a country unless that country had something to do military of politically, with the country or region those terrorists claim to represent.

-

Besides that, it was a pretty good speech. Probably very true. Probably it has made no-one wiser : / Most of the people that see and hear such things, already know, or already chosen not to care.

Originally Posted by Neruo

America was 'attacked' (it wasn't even really an attack, it was more of a statement) mainly because some groups in the middle-east had the feeling America was doing wrong things in their region.

And really, what the hell was America Ever doing there? Can some one tell me what the hell was the (first) reason for America to ever set foot near the middle-east?

America's current intervention-strategy comes from an intervention strategy. The 'terrorists' you are so afraid of have NEVER attacked a country unless that country had something to do military of politically, with the country or region those terrorists claim to represent.

-

Besides that, it was a pretty good speech. Probably very true. Probably it has made no-one wiser : / Most of the people that see and hear such things, already know, or already chosen not to care.

Over 3000 dead civilians is a hell of a lot more than a "statement"

First of all, the constant conflict between Jews and Muslims for over 2000 years is the ultimate cause of violence, and has led to every foreign intervention.

The problems in the Middle East are related to European intervention there, dating back all the way to the Crusades and maybe even farther. This also includes England's intervention in the area. America's history in the Middle East started after WW2 when we gave Israel to the Jews. There was senseless violence over the Gaza strip that never resolved itself, so we decided to draw boundaries. This was seen by Muslims as an unfair act by Christians to their Jewish friends, instead of the attempt to create peace that it was meant to be. It has snowballed ever since then. In the end, all problems in the Middle East stem from the selfishness and spite of fanatical Muslims and Jews. Our attempts to create peace there were seen as an act of agression. Their selfishness and racism against Jews is the cause of turmoil.

American and European attempts to save lives in the late 1940's drew us into the 2000 year war.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Over 3000 dead civilians is a hell of a lot more than a "statement"

No, actually it isn't. It's very bad, sure. But an attack almost implies it had some sort of tactical goal or something. I don't think you can just use 'attack' when it comes to politics. The word has just been used because it's a strong word. But the dead people are part of the statement. An attack is more of an act of war. I don't think bin laden really though he would ever totally cripple America's infrastructure and such.

This is how I see it:

Statement: Blowing up statue
Attack: a tactical strike against a country's infrastructural, economical and military stuff with as goal to hurt the country.

9/11 was somewhere in between. It didn't really hurt your country that bad, enough offices to go around in Manhattan.

First of all, the constant conflict between Jews and Muslims for over 2000 years is the ultimate cause of violence, and has led to every foreign intervention.

What the hell? Religions have been butchering each other all over the world since the dawn of civilisation. A huge Jewish lobby in your government doesn't give you a free-pass to mess things up in the middle-east and claim 'they attacked us for no reason'.

The problems in the Middle East are related to European intervention there, dating back all the way to the Crusades and maybe even farther. This also includes England's intervention in the area. America's history in the Middle East started after WW2 when we gave Israel to the Jews. There was senseless violence over the Gaza strip that never resolved itself, so we decided to draw boundaries. This was seen by Muslims as an unfair act by Christians to their Jewish friends, instead of the attempt to create peace that it was meant to be. It has snowballed ever since then. In the end, all problems in the Middle East stem from the selfishness and spite of fanatical Muslims and Jews. Our attempts to create peace there were seen as an act of agression. Their selfishness and racism against Jews is the cause of turmoil.

Well, you did give the Jews a Shitload of weapons and HUGE amounts of money. All that, while they Jews in Israel never really acted fair and balanced. Actually, sometimes Israel acts like a giant douche.

That 2000-year war is of course bullshit. Muslims and jews haven't been systematically killing each other for 2000 years. Actually, they only are now, in the gaza-strip. It's a 59-year old conflict, since isreal was created, and you backed them up with a shitload of weapons, and you kept backing them up, and doing other shit beside that.

America's fault was, to just give Israel more and more money, while it was pushing it's borders. And it still is. Israel is claiming more and more land, funded with your money. The hopelessness, the ability to do anything, just mentally obliterates the innocent people in Palestine, making them turn to religious extremism.

America should have stop funding when it became overly appearant peace was going to be impossible, the way both parties acted. Acted like retards, that is.

It like 600 dollar per Israeli per year you are giving, you know that? It's just silly. Ha. It's like communism, giving away money

ARMS DEALERS, are the richest bunch in the country right now. they have a bussiness to run, they have government influences to keep wars going so they sell their arms

Originally Posted by Neruo

No, actually it isn't. It's very bad, sure. But an attack almost implies it had some sort of tactical goal or something. I don't think you can just use 'attack' when it comes to politics. The word has just been used because it's a strong word. But the dead people are part of the statement. An attack is more of an act of war. I don't think bin laden really though he would ever totally cripple America's infrastructure and such.

This is how I see it:

Statement: Blowing up statue
Attack: a tactical strike against a country's infrastructural, economical and military stuff with as goal to hurt the country.

9/11 was somewhere in between. It didn't really hurt your country that bad, enough offices to go around in Manhattan.



What the hell? Religions have been butchering each other all over the world since the dawn of civilisation. A huge Jewish lobby in your government doesn't give you a free-pass to mess things up in the middle-east and claim 'they attacked us for no reason'.



Well, you did give the Jews a Shitload of weapons and HUGE amounts of money. All that, while they Jews in Israel never really acted fair and balanced. Actually, sometimes Israel acts like a giant douche.

That 2000-year war is of course bullshit. Muslims and jews haven't been systematically killing each other for 2000 years. Actually, they only are now, in the gaza-strip. It's a 59-year old conflict, since isreal was created, and you backed them up with a shitload of weapons, and you kept backing them up, and doing other shit beside that.

America's fault was, to just give Israel more and more money, while it was pushing it's borders. And it still is. Israel is claiming more and more land, funded with your money. The hopelessness, the ability to do anything, just mentally obliterates the innocent people in Palestine, making them turn to religious extremism.

America should have stop funding when it became overly appearant peace was going to be impossible, the way both parties acted. Acted like retards, that is.

It like 600 dollar per Israeli per year you are giving, you know that? It's just silly. Ha. It's like communism, giving away money

The war between Jews and Muslims has been raging for even more than 2000 years, actually, a whole lot longer. Do you know anything about it? The dissagreement between Jews and Muslims stems all the way to Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Issac. Ishmael was the first son, even though it wasn't with Abraham's wife (with Hagar, a female servant). Without going more into it, Muslims believe the first son was the one God promised, Jews believe it was the second. Since God/Allah promised the true son the land of Israel, both religions think they are entitled to the land. The Jews expelled the inhabitants of the land when they were freed from Egypt. The expelled people were the ancestors of Muslims, and they are angry about it.

I'm not going to pretend i care about who's land it is. All that matters is that in like 4000 years, they havent resolved the conflict by themselves. They are both stubborn. I know its easier for you to blame the US, but it is not true.

Heres a funny fact. Both sons were promised a nation (Hebrew and Islam) According to the bible, God said (about Ishmael) "his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him". Sounds a lot like what jihad has done.

The Jews expelled the inhabitants of the land when they were freed from Egypt.

Are you talking about moses freeing jews, well this didn't happen.

Some archaeologists believe Moses was a fictional character, since no physical evidence like pottery shards or stone tablets have been found to corroborate his existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#_note-0

Sorry if your not. However, it seems like your a brainwashed christian. Stick to the facts, not the bible.

Also can you quote your source when you got the fact that muslim has being fighting jews for 2000years. As Neuro is correct.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Are you talking about moses freeing jews, well this didn't happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#_note-0

Sorry if your not. However, it seems like your a brainwashed christian. Stick to the facts, not the bible.

Also can you quote your source when you got the fact that muslim has being fighting jews for 2000years. As Neuro is correct.

You're talking to an atheist, my friend. However, it is pretty much proven that some biblical events happened. Im not saying Moses existed or he parted the Red Sea. But the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians, and they did reclaim their land.

I was just posting what the Jews and Muslims believe, which i think is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

O yea, Muslims havent been fighting Jews for 2000 years, but they, and their ancestors have. Get a refresher course on mid-East history.

But the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians, and they did reclaim their land.

Again where is your source.

O yea, Muslims havent been fighting Jews for 2000 years, but they, and their ancestors have. Get a refresher course on mid-East history.

Their a big difference between muslims and jews fighting and their ancestors fighting. Plus ancestors is so vague.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Again where is your source.

Their a big difference between muslims and jews fighting and their ancestors fighting. Plus ancestors is so vague.

Known history is my source. If you want, check out "Gaza Strip" on Wikipedia. Of course, since you claim everything in the Bible is an utter lie, it won't make sense to you. You need to start realizing that the Old Testament has a lot of truthful historical events in it. Don't let your atheism (i assume) blind you.

You are completely missing the point. There has been conflict and animosity between the two cultures for thousands of years, that has untimately led to the conflict we see today. Thats all i was trying to say. And it all stems back to both religions claiming that the land is theirs. Just understand that i am NOT saying their claims are meritable.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Statement: Blowing up statue
Attack: a tactical strike against a country's infrastructural, economical and military stuff with as goal to hurt the country.

Your definition of attack is exactly what Al Qaeda claims the 9/11 attacks (not the "9/11 statements") were about. They were, according to them, trying to cripple the U.S. economy and incite a war between the Middle East and the West. They did screw up our stock market and airline travel numbers for a little while, but the big result was that two Islamofascist governments got overthrown. Despite Al Qaeda's claims, I think the 9/11 attacks were really about cave men who were jealous as Hell of the results of capitalism and wanted to lash out against power while getting power for themselves. That's the Al Qaeda leaders I am talking about there. The people who actually committed suicide to kill thousands of innocent people were just brainwashed dumbasses with nothing to live for. If Al Qaeda wants to pull that shit again, we will be glad to take over a few more countries. Idiots.

If Al Qaeda wants to pull that shit again, we will be glad to take over a few more countries. Idiots.

Al Qaeda has grown in popularity and got stronger, because america invaded Iraq. Now Iraq is in civil war and Al Qaeda has got more support in the middle east then america. The point is this taking over countries is different then actually chaning countries so their not extremeist. See if america takes over another country then it will just become another Iraq, does the normal american want another Iraq?

People should make more of an effort to resolve problems with words

Originally Posted by wendylove

Al Qaeda has grown in popularity and got stronger, because america invaded Iraq. Now Iraq is in civil war and Al Qaeda has got more support in the middle east then america. The point is this taking over countries is different then actually chaning countries so their not extremeist. See if america takes over another country then it will just become another Iraq, does the normal american want another Iraq?

Al Qadea has not gotten stronger. They are simply experiencing a come-back from the 3/4 of them we killed or detained in the early years of the wars. Pretty soon people there we understand that joining Al Qaeda is a death sentence.

I'm from the U.S. and I blame Fergie for our anger. LOL.

In all seriousness, I dont consider myself angry at all. I really never get mad. I get frustrated, who doesen't?

In the stereotype of Americans, we are loud and abnoxious. Our education system is really bad. Inner-city schools cant teach their kids because they dont want to learn. They live in an environment that casts out intelligence and replaces it with gang life. As a result, we are uneducated and poor. We have the hip-hop culture, that is slowely dying (thank God), that gives the impression to little kids that it is cool to be a thug. (Thank You G-Unit) If you need proof of this image affecting our youth, do you remember that Nelly song Grillz? When that song came out, so many teens got those grills just because they liked the song. It was unbelievable. The American media is to blame for creating an image that we have as Americans. Pop culture is killing America.

Al Qadea has not gotten stronger. They are simply experiencing a come-back from the 3/4 of them we killed or detained in the early years of the wars. Pretty soon people there we understand that joining Al Qaeda is a death sentence.

I will admit the strength of Al Qaefa is exaggerated, however the strength of fundamentalist islam is getting stronger. See what is a death sentence to a person who thinks dying a martha will get you in heaven. Plus saying places like Iraq is getting better and war is nearly won is wrong. Vietnam comes to mind. Seriously speaking why isn't america pulling out its troops from Iraq? The anwser is because it is still messed up. Seriously america is not going to win the Iraq war and then the terriorist will have two places to hide, Iraq and pakistein. Well, assuming the sunni's win.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I will admit the strength of Al Qaefa is exaggerated, however the strength of fundamentalist islam is getting stronger. See what is a death sentence to a person who thinks dying a martha will get you in heaven. Plus saying places like Iraq is getting better and war is nearly won is wrong. Vietnam comes to mind. Seriously speaking why isn't america pulling out its troops from Iraq? The anwser is because it is still messed up. Seriously america is not going to win the Iraq war and then the terriorist will have two places to hide, Iraq and pakistein. Well, assuming the sunni's win.

If we withdraw now, the fanatics there will see it as a victory against the West, and they will become even stronger. This will make them believe that suicide bombing and insurgency are great things in the fight against the West. That cannot happen. It will only reinforce their insane behavior. They will see us as weak and defeatable. It will enpower them.

We we took on fanatical Islam, we started a long war. We have to follow it through, or they will continue.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Al Qaeda has grown in popularity and got stronger, because america invaded Iraq. Now Iraq is in civil war and Al Qaeda has got more support in the middle east then america. The point is this taking over countries is different then actually chaning countries so their not extremeist. See if america takes over another country then it will just become another Iraq, does the normal american want another Iraq?

That is another example of judging the future of Iraq by its transition period. It is fallacious to do that. Overthrowing two Islamofascist governments has a lot to do with why we have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. That caused a lot of hesitation. Even if Al Qaeda wins over the entire Middle East, the Islamofascists do not want us taking over any more countries. You can look at the insurgency to see their reaction to that sort of thing. Taking over another country or two could very well be exactly what will happen if we get attacked here again. They know that.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

If we withdraw now, the fanatics there will see it as a victory against the West, and they will become even stronger. This will make them believe that suicide bombing and insurgency are great things in the fight against the West. That cannot happen. It will only reinforce their insane behavior. They will see us as weak and defeatable. It will enpower them.

We we took on fanatical Islam, we started a long war. We have to follow it through, or they will continue.

That is a very important point, and I think it is irrefutable.

Overthrowing two Islamofascist governments has a lot to do with why we have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11.

9/11
9/11
9/11

Seriously, since 9/11 did you lose the abillty to think. I hope your not applying that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. As it hasen't http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm
So what has Iraq got to do with stopping terrorism, nothing!

That is another example of judging the future of Iraq by its transition period. It is fallacious to do that.

So what else am I to judge it on, god, fairies, magick. Or let me think evidence, their no evidence Iraq is getting better. History Vietnam comes to mind. Palistein, woops. Let me think Afganstan.
I get what you mean if I abandon evidence, then it looks like Iraq will be okay.

Taking over another country or two could very well be exactly what will happen if we get attacked here again.

Again your not techniquely winning, so blowing up a few more building would proberly change nothing. Come on you can't take on Iran and Pakinstein won't let your america invade it country easily.
Another war means more dead soliders, does america want more dead soliders?

If we withdraw now, the fanatics there will see it as a victory against the West, and they will become even stronger.

How can you let them win when your not winning in the first place?

This will make them believe that suicide bombing and insurgency are great things in the fight against the West.

Again Vietnam used similar tactics, and who won that war?

When we took on fanatical Islam, we started a long war. We have to follow it through, or they will continue.

Seriously following through seems to imply you have a plan of action. The only plan Bush has shown is increased troops, however this has just made the violence worse. Now the insurgent are getting helped by Iran(for example they now have a steady supply of rockets, even anti aircraft rockets), so I guess fighting the war would only leave more dead soliders.

That is a very important point, and I think it is irrefutable.

Sometimes the best thing to do is just give up, Iraq is not getting safer and the insurgent are getting stronger and more equiped.

The Iraq war can be summed up as this How many more dead troops are united states willing to have?
I wonder what the death toll is now.

We are kicking ASS in Iraq. Over 500,000 insurgents or Iraqi troops have been killed, compared to our 3,600. That is the definition of "winning". Not to mention the fact that we sacked their capital in a few months.

Listen to you!! Its pathetic!!! "Just give up"?

Iraq is not another vietnam. We are fighting and offensive war in Iraq. We were fighting a defensive war in Vietnam. 30,000 US troops died in the first 5 years of real fighting in Vietnam. 3,600 dead in about 5 years in Iraq. Waves of troops attacked US bases in Vietnam. Insurgents spray AKs, hide, then plant bombs in Iraq. The only common ground is that we are killing bad people. Thats all.

The reason the world ignored Hitler when he was rising was because nobody wanted anyone else to die. Look what happened. I am not saying the two situations are the same thing, but ignoring a problem is no solution to a problem.

Originally Posted by wendylove

9/11
9/11
9/11

Seriously, since 9/11 did you lose the abillty to think. I hope your not applying that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. As it hasen't http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm
So what has Iraq got to do with stopping terrorism, nothing!


So what else am I to judge it on, god, fairies, magick. Or let me think evidence, their no evidence Iraq is getting better. History Vietnam comes to mind. Palistein, woops. Let me think Afganstan.
I get what you mean if I abandon evidence, then it looks like Iraq will be okay.

Again your not techniquely winning, so blowing up a few more building would proberly change nothing. Come on you can't take on Iran and Pakinstein won't let your america invade it country easily.
Another war means more dead soliders, does america want more dead soliders?

How can you let them win when your not winning in the first place?

Again Vietnam used similar tactics, and who won that war?

Seriously following through seems to imply you have a plan of action. The only plan Bush has shown is increased troops, however this has just made the violence worse. Now the insurgent are getting helped by Iran(for example they now have a steady supply of rockets, even anti aircraft rockets), so I guess fighting the war would only leave more dead soliders.

Sometimes the best thing to do is just give up, Iraq is not getting safer and the insurgent are getting stronger and more equiped.

The Iraq war can be summed up as this How many more dead troops are united states willing to have?
I wonder what the death toll is now.

The American death toll is less than 4,000. It was 55,000 in Vietnam, and we left too early. The American death toll in World War II was in the multiple hundreds of thousands. We will do what we have to do. And don't think for a second we can't take Iran and Pakistan (We don't have a beef with Pakistan any way.). Are you joking? We have the power to turn the entire Middle East into a sheet of glass within an hour. We don't want to do that (But Al Qaeda would do that to us without hesitating if they could.), but don't say we can't take little piss ant countries in the Middle East. We do need to possibly take down the government of Iran so they will stop supplying the insurgents. We are really constructively at war with Iran right now too. Our ultimate goal right now is to help Iraq grow as a democracy. That success will not be revealed during the transition phase. It will take a long time. But... The seed of democracy has been planted. A democratic government is in place, and the population has the right to vote and DOES SO in higher percentages that WE do. What does that tell you? It tells you that the will for freedom is very much alive in Iraq along with a democratic government. I hope you are hoping the best for that situation. Are you?

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.