Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 03-20-2011, 03:16 PM
J from Michigan's Avatar
J from Michigan J from Michigan is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-24-10
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 521
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Of course it's U.S. led... we have the most dominant, technologically advanced military on the planet.

What Dan (although I probably shouldn't speak for him) and myself are surprised about is that the French were the first ones to make a move.
Because it's very... "un-French like."

It almost seemed symbolic, or maybe even requested by Sarkozy, hoping to improve their image, militarily.
Either way, it's not a big deal... just different.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 03-20-2011, 03:17 PM
robjones's Avatar
robjones robjones is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Developer - Since you've used the accepted muslim pejorative for anglo forces entering the middle east ("Any criticism against the crusader is counter-attacked with "oh you are just Anti-American")... and subscribe to a conspiracy theory that absolves Muslims known to have made the 9/11 attack ("Should I be Pro-American government after taking down building 7 in New York?")... simple observation indicates you're more likely Muslim than Methodist.

That leads me to wonder if you're familiar with the history of similar actions by the UN... only where non-Muslims were attacking Muslims. Are you familiar with the massacre of Muslim Croats by Milosevec's troops in the Balkan region? The UN "interfered" in that one, and as in this case civilians were being slaughtered by those that considered themselves their own government. They had tried to gain their freedom and Milosevec was having none of it, and there were armed parties on both sides.

Was "interfering" wrong then?
In that case there boots on the ground. not just air strikes. Countries with troops there included the UK, French, US, Canada... many of the same players involved this time. Were the forces "crusaders" for doing that, or does that only count if they stop government sponsored murder in the middle east?

Question: Should we/they have allowed Milosevec to continue the slaughter of Muslim civilians without interference?

Last edited by robjones; 03-20-2011 at 03:39 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-20-2011, 04:17 PM
developer developer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 12-02-10
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
Developer - Since you've used the accepted muslim pejorative for anglo forces entering the middle east
I have not mentioned "Muslims" or "Islam". I'm simply against the intervention by the enemy (I say enemy because these guys are not their friends, we know what they did in the past).

If there is really a need for a an intervention there are plenty of nations in the region that have a military and can help out, they don't need the Americans/Europeans who majority of the time only cause havoc in the region.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
("Any criticism against the crusader is counter-attacked with "oh you are just Anti-American")... and subscribe to a conspiracy theory that absolves Muslims known to have made the 9/11 attack ("Should I be Pro-American government after taking down building 7 in New York?")... simple observation indicates you're more likely Muslim than Methodist.
We both believe in conspiracy theories, you believe that men in a cave have successfully hijacked planes using box cutters, and subsequently took down 3 building with 2 planes, and I believe that the USA done a false flag attack (not the first time).

Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
That leads me to wonder if you're familiar with the history of similar actions by the UN... only where non-Muslims were attacking Muslims. Are you familiar with the massacre of Muslim Croats by Milosevec's troops in the Balkan region? The UN "interfered" in that one, and as in this case civilians were being slaughtered by those that considered themselves their own government. They had tried to gain their freedom and Milosevec was having none of it, and there were armed parties on both sides.

Was "interfering" wrong then?
I don't know the details of the Milosevic incident, and I won't pretend to.

But in this case, I know what the Americans/Europeans have been doing, I already mentioned the false flag attack in New York, the Iraq lie, and the 10 year long war in Afghanistan, they have given Zionists billions of dollars, arms, perhaps nuclear weapons , if this is their history, then they are not to be trusted, I have every right to believe that something is up their sleeve, I can't trust these kind of people, they are an enemy as far as I'm concerned, and enemy is not to be asked for help.

Would you trust your enemy if he offers you help?
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-20-2011, 04:31 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Developer, I say this with great respect, but I am cautioning you only one time on this - please use care with your choice of words in this community. Here, we are just people, we are not the enemy. When you refer to Americans as the enemy, you are referring to a great many of the people in this community, myself included. While I support your right to your own beliefs, if you have trouble understanding how some can take great offense from your wording, you might want to consider refraining from political discussions here.

Thank you for understanding...
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-20-2011, 04:34 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
With recent events in the news, I think it is important that we take a moment to make sure our members understand where the fine line is between an open discussion vs. an inflammatory topic that may trigger hate type debates.

As an example, it is perfectly okay to have discussions concerning racism as a whole and how that has an impact on society. When it comes down to it, more often than not, communication is the key to finding solutions to many of the social issues in our lives today.

HOWEVER, it is not okay to have discussions which attack groups of people as a whole, incite hate, or uses personal opinion as fact to open a discussion.

For instance, we would not start a thread like this one . . .

Quote:
Why Do Purple People Hate, Kill, and Eat Green People?
Why don't we open topics in this manner?

(1) If you are assuming that all purple people, hate, kill, and eat green people based on one purple person (or a group of radical purple people) doing those things then that is not a fact for discussion. It's simply your personal bias concerning purple people.

(2) Because hate topics rarely do anything about actually finding solutions. They only increase the hate and further decrease communication.

Does that mean we are limiting your right to free speech?

Nope! You are 100% free to stand on the street corner and say whatever you want about what you believe. That is between you and your local law enforcement. You can write anything you want on your own blog. That's between you and your hosting company and perhaps Homeland Security.

But here in the community, the owners of the V7N and I get to choose where that line is drawn.


[YT]KQ0DXLm5pd4[/YT]

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandi
A reminder for us all....
http://www.v7n.com/forums/controvers...ry-topics.html
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-20-2011, 05:09 PM
developer developer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 12-02-10
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
Developer, I say this with great respect, but I am cautioning you only one time on this - please use care with your choice of words in this community. Here, we are just people, we are not the enemy. When you refer to Americans as the enemy, you are referring to a great many of the people in this community, myself included. While I support your right to your own beliefs, if you have trouble understanding how some can take great offense from your wording, you might want to consider refraining from political discussions here.

Thank you for understanding...
I was actually referring to the American government, not the general American population, I said this before more than once in other posts.

I will refrain from writing anymore posts on this thread now.
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-20-2011, 05:56 PM
dWhite dWhite is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 09-28-08
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Pentagon: Air Strikes in Libya Effective Against Gadhafi's Forces

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...118336654.html

Quote:
The U.S military said Sunday that the first airstrikes to enforce a U.N.-authorized no-fly zone over Libya have been effective. A top military officer in Washington told reporters that the United States and coalition forces would continue to target Libyan military positions, but not the residence of leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Navy Vice Admiral William Gortney said the U.S.-led military operation to enforce the no-fly zone has been successful. At a Pentagon news briefing, he said the air campaign had significantly degraded Libya's air defense capability.

Gortney said the allied coalition has also targeted government forces near the eastern city of Benghazi. " If [Libyan government forces] are moving and advancing onto the opposition forces in Libya, yes we will take them under attack," he said.
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-20-2011, 06:24 PM
C0ldf1re's Avatar
C0ldf1re C0ldf1re is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-19-10
Location: England. Hampshire.
Posts: 392
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I am content to remember the Crusaders as the good guys. Richard the Lionheart was one of our most noble Kings. It is good that the French have joined us this time.
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-20-2011, 11:42 PM
nightcrawler's Avatar
nightcrawler nightcrawler is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 09-20-09
Location: Love in Dubai
Posts: 672
iTrader: 0 / 0%
SSsshhhh... Keep the voices low... Cricket is on patrol.

I don't know, but I am having a strange feeling "France" leading the coalition forces. Allied forces should stop the action I don't know, but in the long run it will be same like Afghanistan. Once America supported Talibans back in 80s now they are fighting against them. Sooner or later same situation will arise. Why I am saying this because I know the nature of Muslims...
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-21-2011, 12:04 AM
robjones's Avatar
robjones robjones is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Once America supported Talibans back in 80s now they are fighting against them.
In the 80's the US provided material to the Afghan Mujahadeen in their fight to expel the Soviets, who'd invaded in '79. The Soviets left in '89. We were the to aid the fight, and when it ended, so did US involvement. The Taliban didn't come into being until the mid-1990's.

Last edited by robjones; 03-21-2011 at 12:10 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-21-2011, 12:17 AM
nightcrawler's Avatar
nightcrawler nightcrawler is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 09-20-09
Location: Love in Dubai
Posts: 672
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
In the 80's the US provided material to the Afghan Mujahadeen in their fight to expel the Soviets. The Soviets left in '89. The Taliban didn't come into being until the mid-1990's.
Later, those Mujahedeen become so called Talibans. Even Hilary Clinton accepted once in her speech that we created these people now we have to fight against them.

Mujhahedeen or So called "Talibans"... Maybe at this moment some of the Rebels welcome the allied forces in Libya, but in the long run they will become Mujahedeen.

Mujahid is Singular word and Mujhadeen Plural

Quote:
Mujahid is referred to a person fighting to save Islam or his country against the invaders.
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-21-2011, 12:24 AM
robjones's Avatar
robjones robjones is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
May have included some of the same personnel, but the Taliban still formed in '94. Even if they include some of the same personel it is a group that came into being after our involvement in the 80s.

My baseball team once played a group that included a couple of ex-members of the Texas Ranger ball club (we got beat like a drum). That said, I still can't say I scored a double against The Texas Rangers.
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-21-2011, 12:42 AM
nightcrawler's Avatar
nightcrawler nightcrawler is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 09-20-09
Location: Love in Dubai
Posts: 672
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
May have included some of the same personnel, but the Taliban still formed in '94. Even if they include some of the same personel it is a group that came into being after our involvement in the 80s.

My baseball team once played a group that included a couple of ex-members of the Texas Ranger ball club (we got beat like a drum). That said, I still can't say I scored a double against The Texas Rangers.
Not Some! The top leaders like Mullah Omer, Bin Laden, Amen Al zwarihi and others formed the Talibans who were once fighting against Soviets. They recruited more with the passage of time. They were using the same weapons provided by USA and leftover by Soviets. After Soviets they divided into two groups Shumali Itehad and Talibans. These you can never trust! Rob I live here in Pakistan we hate Talibans alot and you know you can pay them to do anything.

The best weapon they use is Islam and brainwashing!! Imagine the kids being brainwashed since they are born. At the age of 13 to 18 they become perfect Bombs in the shape of suicide bombers!

IMO, the best possible solution for Libya would be tough sanctions. Otherwise, I don't see good outcomes...
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-21-2011, 08:27 AM
robjones's Avatar
robjones robjones is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Yeah... agreed on the trust thing. First time I recall hearing the word "Taliban" was when they were blowing away huge 2000 year old statues of Buddha. I thought they were kinda nuts then, but they topped it shortly after 9/11 of that year when they were asked to hand over Bin Laden and their spokesman went on camera saying he was a "guest" and that wouldn't be the polite thing to do.

Over a short time as the pressure was stepped up the statements went something like this. These arent direct quotes, but a paraphrase I noted at the time in a discussion on the subject:
STATEMENTS BY THE TALIBAN ABOUT BIN LADEN:

- Immediately after WTC attack
He couldn't have done it. Besides, he's our guest. One doesn't ask a guest to leave.

- Later that week
He may have been involved. We're not turning him over. We defy your requests.

- Next Idiocy
We've lost him. We looked everywhere, even under the sofa.

- Still Later
By the way, the attacks were because of your shabby treatment of Muslims. Of course, we still have no idea who did it. (Anyone seen Bin?)

- And finally
We have asked him to leave voluntarily.
Meanwhile back on the topic... not sure what is going to happen in Libya
The US helped Afghanistan get rid of the Russians and got the heck outta there afterward... which is pretty much what I think everyone would hope we'd do as opposed to trying to impose our own stamp on the place.

The general consensus seems to be that we want to run other countries, but rather than it being seen as a good thing there was criticism that the US didn't stick around to help afterward. [Damned if ya do, damned if you don't. ]I still think helping them in the face of being invaded by the Soviets was the humane thing to do, but we didnt take them to raise and leaving *should* have been the best response. We were assisting them, not adopting them.

The Taliban formed as a response to the vacuum of power, cause the opium selling local druglords were making the place pretty dangerous. The Talibans focus on hardcore adherence to Sharia was a bit of a departure from our dealings with the Mujahadeen who had been more intent on getting the Russian troops off their doorstep than making sure girls didnt go to school and burkas were mandatory attire.

In Libya the coalition involved is apparently imposing a no-fly zone to take Ghaddaffi's military heat off the civilian populace so things can work out on a more level playing field. Muomar seems determined to make as many people as possible bleed before he'll step out of office, but it appears his people have had enough. What's left if he's gone is a question mark, and the takover of Afghanistan by the Taliban is a good example of how the law of unintended consequences works.

Last edited by robjones; 03-21-2011 at 09:14 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-21-2011, 02:44 PM
C0ldf1re's Avatar
C0ldf1re C0ldf1re is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-19-10
Location: England. Hampshire.
Posts: 392
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
SSsshhhh... Keep the voices low... Cricket is on patrol...
Get out the garlic and crucifixes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
... I don't know, but I am having a strange feeling "France" leading the coalition forces...
France did lead the first Crusade.
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-21-2011, 04:04 PM
ourscompany ourscompany is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-09-10
Posts: 200
iTrader: 0 / 0%
We all want peace, we all want happiness, we all want stability, we all want knowledge, we all want work.

Today we all should think about those helpless scared common citizen of Libiya who are so much scared and suffering and don't know really whats going on. They don't know whether they can see tomorrow morning or not.

I hope god will bring peace for all the human race. No-one like war, no one like blood, so lets pray this get over quickly in a peaceful manner.
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-22-2011, 02:22 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
"Dec. 20, 2007, quote from then-Sen. Barack Obama arguing, “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Is Obama's Libya offensive constitutional?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...27-503544.html

Is Obama going back on his own argument? Or, does he not see this as an act of war?
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-22-2011, 02:25 PM
robjones's Avatar
robjones robjones is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Well, it's safe to say either the way he did it is unconstitutional or he was wrong in the campaign quote. Both can't be right.
 
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-22-2011, 05:38 PM
C0ldf1re's Avatar
C0ldf1re C0ldf1re is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-19-10
Location: England. Hampshire.
Posts: 392
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ourscompany View Post
We all want peace...
Yes, everybody wants peace. Some people want peace right now. The other people want peace after one last war to set things their way before the peace.
 
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-23-2011, 01:56 AM
ourscompany ourscompany is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-09-10
Posts: 200
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by C0ldf1re View Post
Yes, everybody wants peace. Some people want peace right now. The other people want peace after one last war to set things their way before the peace.
I know what you mean, but I have a strong doubt with the concept of "last war" and war can bring peace in sort span of time, may be will take lots of time to get stable.

Anyways, i hope all these blood shedding, war should end quickly and common people get the benefit.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Libya Revolution Raises Concerns About .ly TLDs JakeMoore Internet Legal Issues 7 04-11-2011 03:06 AM
Google joins Hollywood bandwagon, eyes movie rentals Franc Tireur Google Forum 3 09-08-2010 06:57 PM
Bombing for Liberty Bernard Controversial Social Issues 4 03-24-2010 07:50 AM
Hi All....... Here joins another Newbeeeeee rose.fire New Member Introductions 7 12-29-2008 03:04 AM
2 year old with an IQ of 152 joins Mensa StrongInTheArm Forum Lobby 20 07-02-2007 04:54 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC