French hostages

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 30, 2004, 10:55 pm

Ok, lets leave aside that everyone hates the French..

While I agree that one shouldn't give concessions to terrorists to gain hostages freedom, do you all think banning the burkah is worth lives?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 30, 2004, 11:06 pm

I don't know anything about this situation. Can you give a biref article so I don't have to root around to find it out?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 30, 2004, 11:09 pm

Do you think Wearing a Burkah is worth killing some one?

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 30, 2004, 11:12 pm

Two French journalist where kidnapped in Iraq and their abductors demand that France rescind their law against wearing head coverings in school.

Here's an article from CNN.
Link

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » August 30, 2004, 11:20 pm

Yeah. That's a great way to get your point across. Kidnap the people who write about what's going on in the world. I guess that just goes to show exactly how much these guys are fucked up.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » August 31, 2004, 12:00 am

I'm curious to see how GWB will get blamed for this one.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 31, 2004, 1:14 am

I don't hate the french

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 1:55 am

It just shows how extreme people are.....I would not in a million years change any law or policy for any situation like this unless you want it to be more common place.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 2:30 am

Would you give into local american terrorists that kidnap and hold a few americans hostage demanding the pledge of allegiance be stopped at all schools in the United States or demand that Kerry stop running for president?

Never ever ever give into terrorists. All it will do is encourage more terrorism and hostage situations. Whatever the terrorists are demanding, no matter how honorable it may seem, is negated by their cowardly decision to take innocent people hostage.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 31, 2004, 2:53 am

Ok, so what about if they demand a pack of twinkies and a 6 pack? Where do you draw the line?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 3:05 am

Totally different, but under open principle Id maybe not do that aswell(maybe if was under radar)...Because it would cause the terrorist to get fat and unhealthy and then they'd call John Edwards and Sue there Doctors, Hostess Twinkies and Rolling Rock for 20+ million in Edwards pockets alone.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 31, 2004, 3:10 am

hahahahaha you make a lot of sense Sirton, I can't believe how stupid I have been calling you a moron since before I joined Celestial Tomb. Seriously though - If you took the time to research John Edwards trials, and saw that he actually had a point in all of them for what was believed to be true medically at the time, you would know what a moron you are.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 3:22 am

Heheh Thess you not seeing the insides of the AMA and not having your father being the President of the largest county of doctors in the medical society in the USA and not knowing previous presidents of the AMA ...have no fkin clue in hell what your talking about. I have those credentials. So you are the moron. I was making a jk and about his use of unproven science to sue doctors and run many OBGYN doctors out of North Carolina to were they have a slight crisis on delivering babys...Hell the party for Women....

If you want me to post proof on my credentials, I will do so

The AMA and Chamber of Commerce are about to pour adds out on Kerry/Edwards right after the convention...Chamber of Commerce normally stays basically neutral in the adds.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 31, 2004, 3:27 am

I wish I too could write run-on sentences that prove nothing in particular but use so many prepositions without any form of punctuation so as to become in the most part meaningless and then laugh at how uninformed and ignorant everyone else is!

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 3:38 am

Is this a serios post a buisness letter a term paper? I write this and many of my other post........like my emails you idiot.....Your just another moron with not much education and can't counter on the topic at hand, so you beliitle those that do, because your stupidness is all that it allows.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 31, 2004, 3:46 am

I think the French are being idiots. Its not like having to pull troups out or something. If I were France, I would announce that I was recinding the law, get my people back, then tell the terrorists that I was lying. Its not like that would really put them out of anything, and I think lying to them makes a lot more sense then "not giving in" honestly.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » August 31, 2004, 3:56 am

Aaeamdar wrote:I think the French are being idiots. Its not like having to pull troups out or something. If I were France, I would announce that I was recinding the law, get my people back, then tell the terrorists that I was lying. Its not like that would really put them out of anything, and I think lying to them makes a lot more sense then "not giving in" honestly.

Then you force their hand, they will most likely do the deed with someone else or worse due to them lying....

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 31, 2004, 4:05 am

Aaeamdar

I see your point..Only thing like Trek said they would just kill them then.

No chance in them getting to know the people and letting em go......Notice that about 50+% of the hostages in Iraq have been let go by these fundys for different reasons.

Once you lie like that...then the rest there are dead. Then you may also provoke protest in your country..and it maynot be legal.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 31, 2004, 4:30 am

Sirton wrote:Is this a serios post a buisness letter a term paper? I write this and many of my other post........like my emails you idiot.....Your just another moron with not much education and can't counter on the topic at hand, so you beliitle those that do, because your stupidness is all that it allows.

No man.. unlike most people who defend their poor grasp of the english language with, "You know what I meant!!", I had no clue what the hell

you not seeing the insides of the AMA and not having your father being the President of the largest county of doctors in the medical society in the USA and not knowing previous presidents of the AMA

was supposed to mean/prove.

Hence; I don't find your rambling blather a counterpoint...

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 31, 2004, 4:32 am

Trek wrote:
Aaeamdar wrote:I think the French are being idiots. Its not like having to pull troups out or something. If I were France, I would announce that I was recinding the law, get my people back, then tell the terrorists that I was lying. Its not like that would really put them out of anything, and I think lying to them makes a lot more sense then "not giving in" honestly.

Then you force their hand, they will most likely do the deed with someone else or worse due to them lying....

I dread to think of what both qualifies as an execution and worse than having your head hacked off w/ a combat knife...

I did wonder about that though, "Ok, we'll recind the law". Then it's proposed again a month later and passes again because, sorry, but it's a democracy.. Not really a lie.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 31, 2004, 9:24 am

Zaelath wrote:
Sirton wrote:Is this a serios post a buisness letter a term paper? I write this and many of my other post........like my emails you idiot.....Your just another moron with not much education and can't counter on the topic at hand, so you beliitle those that do, because your stupidness is all that it allows.
No man.. unlike most people who defend their poor grasp of the english language with, "You know what I meant!!", I had no clue what the hell
you not seeing the insides of the AMA and not having your father being the President of the largest county of doctors in the medical society in the USA and not knowing previous presidents of the AMA
was supposed to mean/prove.

Hence; I don't find your rambling blather a counterpoint...

He is saying he has l33t inside infoz about things in the AMA that is not released to every schmoe that slaps ink on a newspaper.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 31, 2004, 11:37 am

Sirton, with emphasis by Sylvus, wrote:Is this a serios post, a buisness letter, a term paper? I write this and many of my other posts~~........~~ like my emails, you idiot.....You're just another moron with not much education and can't counter on the topic (huh?) at hand, so you beliitle those that do (counter on the topic at hand?) , because you're stupidness is all that it (what?) allows.

Supposing that your father is indeed "the President of the largest county of doctors in the medical society in the USA" (which county is that? how did they elect him President?!), I'm guessing you were either adopted, raised solely by your mother or the victim of medical experiments by your father when you were younger. Which is it? This will be a fascinating look into nature vs. nurture!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 11:40 am

You forget he has direct links to the White House and has l33t, special inside infoz he gets during sekretz meetings with the Bush family!

Trek · Post by **Trek** » August 31, 2004, 12:45 pm

Zaelath wrote:I did wonder about that though, "Ok, we'll recind the law". Then it's proposed again a month later and passes again because, sorry, but it's a democracy.. Not really a lie.

Its difficult to think like someone that would take hostages and hack their heads off for burkas, but I am just stabbing in the dark that bringing the law back after they released their captives would make them try something worse without making any sort of demand. They arent going to care that its a new law, it makes no difference.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 31, 2004, 1:05 pm

"We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalis who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians...believing in Buddha as their God," said the statement by the military committee of the Army of Ansar al-Sunna.

The group posted a series of photographs showing the killing as well as a video.

The recording showed two masked men, one in camouflage, holding down a hostage. One of the men then used a knife to behead the hostage and then hold his head aloft.

The video then showed a group of hostages lying face down and being shot by a man using an automatic rifle. It then showed bodies splattered with blood and bullet wounds.

John F. Kerry thinks we should take a more sensitive approach to the war on terror...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... nm/iraq_dc

Post by **Sylvus** » August 31, 2004, 1:35 pm

Metanis wrote:John F. Kerry thinks we should take a more sensitive approach to the war on terror...

Oh yeah? Specifically what has he said in regard to that?

I would also like to pose the question of what you think we should do in the war on terror. I contend that there are only two ways that we can stop the terror: change the way that they think about us or kill everyone who shares their belief system. I don't really feel that killing all of them is the right way to go, so I'd go with option one. Sensitivity is one way to try and change the way that the think about us, I know that I've seen a lot more kidnappings and beheadings since we invaded Iraq, so perhaps an aggressive stance that some may perceive as anti-Muslim only galvanizes their opinion of us. Can you suggest an alternative to sensitivity that might work?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 31, 2004, 2:10 pm

Slyvus, shh...

A vote for Kerry means that you're an estrogen snorting pansy.

Real men vote Bush. Fuck all that sensitivity and understanding shit.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » August 31, 2004, 2:19 pm

wouldn't voting for Bush mean that your snorting stuff ...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 31, 2004, 2:29 pm

Drasta wrote:wouldn't voting for Bush mean that your snorting stuff ...

Clinton hoovered all that stuff up before he left.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 31, 2004, 3:44 pm

Can the French really be considered hostages when they willingly give themselves up at every oppurtunity?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » August 31, 2004, 4:52 pm

These guys think they have the French on the ropes. If the French concede here then they are in for a world of hurt. I agree with them pulling out of Iraq, but if they buckle here they may as well appoint a local muslim cleric as the president and prepare for women to become 6th class citizens again.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 31, 2004, 4:55 pm

The headscarf ban kind of sucks anyways. But yeah they shouldn't give in. I can't believe that those people took hostages over THAT though....

-=Lohrno

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 4:57 pm

Shouldn't be called a headscarf ban. It is a ban on any large religious items.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 31, 2004, 5:01 pm

Yes true, but it's been said that that's what they were targetting with it. I also dislike their rabid censorship of 'hate speech.' Not because I'm a skinhead, but because I dislike censorship in general. Oh well, who the fuck am I to tell them how to run their country right?

-=Lohrno

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 31, 2004, 7:36 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Metanis wrote:John F. Kerry thinks we should take a more sensitive approach to the war on terror...
Oh yeah? Specifically what has he said in regard to that?

I would also like to pose the question of what you think we should do in the war on terror. I contend that there are only two ways that we can stop the terror: change the way that they think about us or kill everyone who shares their belief system. I don't really feel that killing all of them is the right way to go, so I'd go with option one. Sensitivity is one way to try and change the way that the think about us, I know that I've seen a lot more kidnappings and beheadings since we invaded Iraq, so perhaps an aggressive stance that some may perceive as anti-Muslim only galvanizes their opinion of us. Can you suggest an alternative to sensitivity that might work?

John F. Kerry, August 5, 2004 wrote:I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

My point is very simple. I don't want to be sensitive to the terrorists. I want to see them killed. Simply, quickly, effectively, proactively. This isn't a game. I don't give a rats ass about their rights. I don't give a rats ass about their gripes. I want them dead. Now.

John Kerry is not the man for that job. George W. Bush is.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 31, 2004, 7:43 pm

Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your ignorance.

This is what Kerry said in your quote:

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

Sensitive: As in not bombing a country back to the stone age for no reason against the will of most of the world. You seriously think that made countries want to cooperate with the US?

Sensitive: He says he wants to bring countries TO YOUR SIDE as allies. Like before Afghanistan. Unlike before Iraq. The only way you will have a chance to make ANY advances in the war on terror is to cooperate with others.

Sensitive: As in not using the Axis of Evil type of comments that has made Bush not only look like an idiot, but to alienate countries completely.

Not ANYWHERE in that quote did Kerry say to be sensitive towards terrorists.. to be soft on them.. But of course as the Bush asslicker you are you read things (again I might add) into Kerry's comments that were never there.

Man you are pathetic.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 31, 2004, 7:48 pm

Fuck 'em, let them form a coalition in the UN and fix the problem.

If Paris is nuked tomorrow over it, I will feel the same way. They decided to take a stand, now they can live with it. They restrict religion, language and culture and then consider themselves morally superior? Fuck 'em.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » August 31, 2004, 8:53 pm

Kelshara wrote:bombing a country back to the stone age

To quote Robin Williams...

Upgrade!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 1, 2004, 2:05 am

Kelshara wrote:Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your ignorance.

This is what Kerry said in your quote:
I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.
Sensitive: As in not bombing a country back to the stone age for no reason against the will of most of the world. You seriously think that made countries want to cooperate with the US?

Sensitive: He says he wants to bring countries TO YOUR SIDE as allies. Like before Afghanistan. Unlike before Iraq. The only way you will have a chance to make ANY advances in the war on terror is to cooperate with others.

Sensitive: As in not using the Axis of Evil type of comments that has made Bush not only look like an idiot, but to alienate countries completely.

Not ANYWHERE in that quote did Kerry say to be sensitive towards terrorists.. to be soft on them.. But of course as the Bush asslicker you are you read things (again I might add) into Kerry's comments that were never there.

Man you are pathetic.

You think you are schooling me, but I understood Kerry's comments just fine. A man that can articulate that position doesn't need to be the President of my country. It is indicative of his approach and his mental processes. There's already enough political correctness in this world... we need less sensitivity and more asskicking. When the terrorists are dead and gone we will go back and make amends for the hurt feelings. In the meantime cry me a river.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 1, 2004, 2:20 am

Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your ignorance.

This is what Kerry said in your quote:
I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.
Sensitive: As in not bombing a country back to the stone age for no reason against the will of most of the world. You seriously think that made countries want to cooperate with the US?

Sensitive: He says he wants to bring countries TO YOUR SIDE as allies. Like before Afghanistan. Unlike before Iraq. The only way you will have a chance to make ANY advances in the war on terror is to cooperate with others.

Sensitive: As in not using the Axis of Evil type of comments that has made Bush not only look like an idiot, but to alienate countries completely.

Not ANYWHERE in that quote did Kerry say to be sensitive towards terrorists.. to be soft on them.. But of course as the Bush asslicker you are you read things (again I might add) into Kerry's comments that were never there.

Man you are pathetic.
You think you are schooling me, but I understood Kerry's comments just fine. A man that can articulate that position doesn't need to be the President of my country. It is indicative of his approach and his mental processes. There's already enough political correctness in this world... we need less sensitivity and more asskicking. When the terrorists are dead and gone we will go back and make amends for the hurt feelings. In the meantime cry me a river.

So how exactly do we get rid of all the terrorists? Let’s see there are terrorists in Chechnya, there are some in Spain, some in Ireland, countless in the Middle East and some more in Africa. Now don't get me wrong I'm all for kicking ass that needs to be kicked, but to quote one of my favorite games "They're Everywhere!" How exactly do you propose that we get the man power to get rid of all the terrorists, unless you’re advocating using our nuclear arsenal on all the countries where terrorists can be found? I'm sure that would get rid of all the terrorists of course then we'd have a whole world of hurt. Or maybe we should start using the armies of the countries we've conquered after all Rome had that practice when they themselves found that they just didn't have enough man power to fight their wars.

Honestly we need the help of other people to fight a war that we have not even begun to understand. The terrorists are a decade ahead of us in this war and each country is fighting independently because there is no leader in this time that can unite them. We need a united front, but our current administration has shown time and time again that they lack the ability to do so. It's not political correctness to ask humbly for help. Humility has been lost in this day and age and I am fearful of the number of lives that will be lost because of it. Without the leading nation of the free world there to help unify the world against terror there is very little chance that we will make much progress against it.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 10:29 am

I'm not worried about our needing to form more allies.

As other countries are attacked by terrorists they'll come to join us in action.

It will be a generational and active front. It won't be over in 5 years. I will take swift and consistant offense for a couple of decades before the mentality of terror is proven to provide more woe than benefit for those who use it.

The more terror hits, the more allies form against it.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 1, 2004, 11:29 am

You think you are schooling me, but I understood Kerry's comments just fine. A man that can articulate that position doesn't need to be the President of my country.

Not enough talk about killing all towelheads for you, eh? The more I read comments from people like you the more worried I get about the future of the world.

As other countries are attacked by terrorists they'll come to join us in action.

Other countries have been dealing with terrorists for decades before 9/11. There is a world outside of your own borders, and they have a lot more experience with these things than Americans do. Unless you count the funding of terrorists that the US have done as experience..

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 1, 2004, 11:52 am

Kelshara wrote:
You think you are schooling me, but I understood Kerry's comments just fine. A man that can articulate that position doesn't need to be the President of my country.
Not enough talk about killing all towelheads for you, eh? The more I read comments from people like you the more worried I get about the future of the world.

Excuse me for trying to have a dialog. Grats for showing you are as hate-filled as the rest of your kind.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 1, 2004, 12:10 pm

No your kind of conversation was "I know what he said! It wasn't what he said, what he really said was....!" You got the reply you deserved which fit with your response. Guess the truth hurts eh?

Alfan · Post by **Alfan** » September 1, 2004, 12:16 pm

Modern terror was practically invented in Europe. In fact, it started the last great era in modern history (the assassination of Franz Ferdinand). Ireland has been bombing its own country and England for decades. Spain was also bombed this year, as were countries in the Pacific.

And if anyone has been watching the news, the Russians are perhaps closer to terrorism than anyone but Israel.

South America: Columbia has one of the highest terror crime rates in the world. A famous drug lord there once blew up an entire plane to kill one person. Mexico experiences the same kinds of terrorism as Columbia.

Africa: This continent seems to be founded on terror. Political assassinations, bombings, opening up on tourist destinations with machine guns, genocide. Heck, they have it all.

And, of course, the Middle East. I'm pretty sure Saudi's were killed by terrorists trying to attack westerners there.

There are many places in this world that are more intimate with terror than the United States. We only trump them that in the act of terror we were dealt was far more devestating than any single act of terror before. I agree that we should deal with terrorists harshly and swiftly, but I fail to see how George W. Bush is the better person for this job.

Quite frankly, and I'm sure you realize this, but most of the terrorist hunting activities are left to the people that know how to do it best. That would be our military, intelligence departments, etc. The closest the President ever gets to the action would be his daily report. And it's his highest priority. I'm positive it would be any President's highest priority. As long as you keep the job in the right hands and the money flowing, there will be some "ass kicking".

And if you believe Bush is better because he would be willing to do whatever (invade a country) to stop terrorists, how could you not see his initial effort at this as a failure? Terrorism has not dropped off, I haven't been shown any concrete evidence that they were helping terrorists out, and finally they cloaked the entire deal with some BS about WMD.

I suppose I'm a firm believer that history is filled with contingencies and some people just fail to see the right path. Bush has demonstrated this and, oddly, I do not fear Kerry's courage to do what needs to be done if has to.

Just my feelings.

-Alfan

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 1, 2004, 12:25 pm

Metanis wrote:we need less sensitivity and more asskicking.

Nonsense...this is typical stoneage thinking...it works very well with a unitary, centralized C&C enemy...but when the enemy is hundreds of thousands of potentially autonomous entities it's a ridiculous supposition...All your asskicking will accomplish is a continual replenishment of people who think we are out to annihilate them (because you and your ilk are)...The only way this "war" will be resolved is through dialogue and gradual encorporation through development of mutual trust and understanding...

The WWII "peace through superior firepower" tactic never has and never will work on extremely diffuse, decentralized enemies (remember Vietnam?...we lost...)...Yet the same approach is being employed on an enemy far less centralized and far more diffuse enemy?...

If the Soviet Union had invaded the US do you suppose we would have rolled over in a generation?...2 generations...These people have been at war continuously since the British attempted to impose rule on them...And how superior was the british firepower at that time?...

So why do we keep employing the same tact insisting that it can ever work?...It's what used to work?...We are angry and wish to retaliate?...It profits the military/industrial interests transiently?...I would venture #2 initially...and #1 for a bit after that...#3 certainly perpetuates it...

We will never win this game through force of arms...And anyone who doesn't see that I will take great pleasure in destroying at chess...The endgame here is very very clear...

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 1, 2004, 12:38 pm

Kelshara wrote:No your kind of conversation was "I know what he said! It wasn't what he said, what he really said was....!" You got the reply you deserved which fit with your response. Guess the truth hurts eh?

Truth? You cannot even characterize my comments correctly. Grats you comprehension. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 1, 2004, 12:42 pm

To quote something you said: You think you are schooling me, but I understood your comments just fine.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 1, 2004, 12:46 pm

Alfan wrote:Bush has demonstrated this and, oddly, I do not fear Kerry's courage to do what needs to be done if has to.

There is the fallacy in your thinking. John Kerry doesn't know what needs to be done and is likely to surround himself with other typically clueless advisors.

You are saying that John Kerry would be well-intentioned. I will give you that mark. I've never felt that John Kerry would be a traitor... However, that isn't the issue... he is not the man for the job. His leadership would not inspire confidence.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 1, 2004, 12:53 pm

Metanis wrote: John Kerry doesn't know what needs to be done and is likely to surround himself with other typically clueless advisors.

Ermmm ok...a decorated war veteran...versus W...who would you say offhand has better qualifications? and please don't just assert, state the basis of your rhetoric...

Clearly Kerry's advisors might well include Gen Wesley Clarke..who certainly knows a bit about conducting a campaign in the middle east don't ya think?

So lets knock off the baseless BS eh?..

...I don't particularly like Kerry...but clearly you are basing your conclusions on air...

(edit: punctuation for clarity)