"Only Nixon could go to China "
Perhaps in this ever changing world, in which we're living. Makes you give in and cry ....
..... Say .. Trump is our Guy ! ( Guitar solo )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I have more good news for Trump - he has the support of another forreign leader!
Abu Omar Khorasani, one of the top IS leaders in Afghanistan says: "His absolute hate against muslims will make our job much easier, since we'll recruite thousands."
Perhaps the next Democrat president elected after him can again make a global apology tour like Obama (under whose watch the IS flourished btw) did early in his first term, in a bid to appease allies, critics and enemies of America. How did that go? In fear of triggering recruitment within the IS, might as well stop "going to the cafes."
Well, the US had a lot to apology er for after Bush jr's presidency- especially in the Middle East.
Do you seriously suggest that Obama's opologies is a more important case of the recent rise of terrorism and radicalism in the region (last 15 years or so) , and not Bush jr's invasjon of Iraq?
Theresa May has made a speech tonight, pointing out mainstream politicians have to
Listen to the millions of people who feel forgotten in the rich countries. ..... She must be
Reading my posts )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I have more good news for Trump - he has the support of another forreign leader!
Abu Omar Khorasani, one of the top IS leaders in Afghanistan says: "His absolute hate against muslims will make our job much easier, since we'll recruite thousands."
Perhaps the next Democrat president elected after him can again make a global apology tour like Obama (under whose watch the IS flourished btw) did early in his first term, in a bid to appease allies, critics and enemies of America. How did that go? In fear of triggering recruitment within the IS, might as well stop "going to the cafes."
Well, the US had a lot to apology er for after Bush jr's presidency- especially in the Middle East.
Do you seriously suggest that Obama's opologies is a more important case of the recent rise of terrorism and radicalism in the region (last 15 years or so) , and not Bush jr's invasjon of Iraq?
No, I don't think that's the cause, though the larger, underlying political ideology was, which was the false assumption that the US had to relax its foreign policy stance in the particular global context it was in, immediately after its extensive campaigns in the region, which, btw was signed off by both major parties including then Senator Clinton. What I think is stupid is the suggestion that the best candidate is the one who would be less upsetting to the IS, as if they are owed appeasement.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
No, being less upsetting to ISS does not make a better candidate. But reinforcing their world view because of raceism or exenophobia (spelling? Fear of the unknown) is bad policy. It reminds me of when the US invaded Afghanistan and Bush jr called it "a crusade". That was straight out of the Taliban and AQ's propaganda. It can be compared to if FDR had said in 1941 that they were going to war against Germany for jewish world domination. Confirming your enemys world view and propaganda for no good reason is stupid.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Yeah, but it goes on and on doesn't it? The US under Obama had no appetite for war after Bush, and Bush had formented the conditions for IS.
And for that reason, I hated Bush’s decision, but he did not make it on his own. I wonder how the world would be like today if Saddam, the lesser evil, was left in power despite the “moral” imperative to take him out for the sake of the Kurds, which must make me sound very selfish to say that.
But the claim that the IS flourished under Obama leaves out many aspects that surround the war in Iraq and Syria and I would have hoped that you wouldn't make such a bold claim out of context.
You know I love you too, Higgie Baby! I don’t claim to extensively know all the pertinent details of the IS. I understand the added complexity of the proxy war in Syria. But the fact remains that this was a “Junior Varsity” group when Obama entered office but has since grown significantly, and this did not happen outside of the current US foreign policy. If there are any other important elements that I’m missing, I sincerely would appreciate knowing what they are.
I have more good news for Trump - he has the support of another forreign leader!
Abu Omar Khorasani, one of the top IS leaders in Afghanistan says: "His absolute hate against muslims will make our job much easier, since we'll recruite thousands."
Perhaps the next Democrat president elected after him can again make a global apology tour like Obama (under whose watch the IS flourished btw) did early in his first term, in a bid to appease allies, critics and enemies of America. How did that go? In fear of triggering recruitment within the IS, might as well stop "going to the cafes."
Well, the US had a lot to apology er for after Bush jr's presidency- especially in the Middle East.
Do you seriously suggest that Obama's opologies is a more important case of the recent rise of terrorism and radicalism in the region (last 15 years or so) , and not Bush jr's invasjon of Iraq?
No, I don't think that's the cause, though the larger, underlying political ideology was, which was the false assumption that the US had to relax its foreign policy stance in the particular global context it was in, immediately after its extensive campaigns in the region, which, btw was signed off by both major parties including then Senator Clinton. What I think is stupid is the suggestion that the best candidate is the one who would be less upsetting to the IS, as if they are owed appeasement.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
No, being less upsetting to ISS does not make a better candidate. But reinforcing their world view because of raceism or exenophobia (spelling? Fear of the unknown) is bad policy. It reminds me of when the US invaded Afghanistan and Bush jr called it "a crusade". That was straight out of the Taliban and AQ's propaganda. It can be compared to if FDR had said in 1941 that they were going to war against Germany for jewish world domination. Confirming your enemys world view and propaganda for no good reason is stupid.
"Crusade" was a mistake in the then-new PC culture and yes, it is insensitive for Muslims, though I don't think there was malice in coming up with that term, just carelessness. To a casual Westerner who doesn't know their world history, "crusade" sounds cool, but does that make Batman and Robin evil? Propaganda is most effective when it causes even your enemy to change their political doctrine and war strategy.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
No, being less upsetting to ISS does not make a better candidate. But reinforcing their world view because of raceism or exenophobia (spelling? Fear of the unknown) is bad policy. It reminds me of when the US invaded Afghanistan and Bush jr called it "a crusade". That was straight out of the Taliban and AQ's propaganda. It can be compared to if FDR had said in 1941 that they were going to war against Germany for jewish world domination. Confirming your enemys world view and propaganda for no good reason is stupid.
To make my self clearer I want to add: I don't think Trump's statments are more upsetting to the ISIS than Hillary or Obama's positions. In fact ISIS said very clearly that they welcome Trump's statements because they are to their advantage.
The irony is that Trumo is ultra-rich. He has everything in common with the political/banking classes. Even if he had never served as a politician, he surely must have had dealings with politicians. And in office, he will represent bankers, business people and politicians first. Anyone who thinks that a billionaire can represent common people is naïve.
That's a sweeping generalization. By that reasoning, the Kennedys were incapable of serving the interests of their constituents and neither were Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc., to name a few.
I never said that a rich person cannot do anything for a poor person, however, if becoming rich is your top priority, everything else will come second. What is Trump's track record - we know he invested in gambling, something that may not be illegal, but it has lead many people into ruin, depression and suicide. Would you trust a tobacco baron to help the needy? And what is Trump's track record when it comes to charity?
You've been writing this kind of populist propaganda before and I've adressed to this in detail. Twice!
Repeating this makes you creepy as you are trying to fool people here.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You know I love you too, Higgie Baby! I don’t claim to extensively know all the pertinent details of the IS. I understand the added complexity of the proxy war in Syria. But the fact remains that this was a “Junior Varsity” group when Obama entered office but has since grown significantly, and this did not happen outside of the current US foreign policy. If there are any other important elements that I’m missing, I sincerely would appreciate knowing what they are.
Hello Superado,
well, it all started with GWB starting an offensive war against Iraq with false evidence and questionable reasons.
The UN could not stop him and he systematically weakened the UN's influence in that matter.
While I don't object that Saddam was evil, I doubt that it was the main intention to "free" the iraqui people from him.
Saddam had a personal guard of 150.000 that where better trained and equipped than the regular Iraqui Forces.
They all got unemployed over night and the GWB camp failed to neutralize them and giving them a better perspective.
Additional many muslim groups saw this as a cruisade, so that attack charged all the radical powers in the region and led to the radicalisation and brutal groups that are still be found there.That illegal war destabilized an entire region for a very long time and it could have been seen - just have a look at Afghanistan.
Those where the roots of the IS and that's how the IS rose during the second Iraq war.
If you remember, GWB claimed "Mission Accomplished" and would have widthdrawn US troops over time.
around 2008 the US people where war-tired and almost everybody agreed that this should be ended by pulling out troops.
Obama was finally electrd to do the job and yes- I accuse him and his people having underestimated the gap that this would lead to and that it would be immediately filled up by radical groups like the Taliban or IS, or other radical muslim groups.
And Saddam's former groups are large parts of what we know now as IS.
We all knew that this would happen - just just have to look at Afghanistan and how the Taliban grew after Russia pulled out in 1992.
Like you rightly say, the decision to reduce US troops in Iraq was backed by both parties but I blame Obama for leaving the gap prematurely.
But that must be embedded in the context how this mess all started - what the public opinion was in 2008 and who where backing up that decision. If you blame Obama for the gap, you should mention that this has been agreed by republicans and that they would have done the same.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
GWB was a fool. There has never in history been a totally successful campaign in the middle east, "mission accomplished" ??? yes if the mission was to further destabilise a complex region and produce a power vacuum! Overthrowing saddam opened the door to IS /ISIS/ daesh. Many of their prominent leaders were part of saddams regime. Like I've said before that was accomplished was to remove the cruel zoo keeper and let the dangerous animals free.....from a western view point.
You've been writing this kind of populist propaganda before and I've adressed to this in detail. Twice!
Repeating this makes you creepy as you are trying to fool people here.
What are you exactly chiding him for? It is no secret that what "sonny" Bush started Obama administration built upon, the facts are there to see for anyone willing to look for:
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about U.S. drone strikes (as of 22 February 2016):[6]
Total strikes: 423
Total killed: 2,497 - 3,999
Civilians killed: 423 - 965
Children killed: 172 - 207
Injured: 1,161 - 1,744
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 51
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 372
84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al-Qaeda[46]
A formerly classified Pakistani government report obtained in July 2013 by the BIJ shows details of 75 drone strikes that occurred between 2006-09. According to the 12-page report, in this period, 176 of the 746 reported dead were civilians.[47] According to the Long War Journal, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and the New America Foundation, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 had some of the highest civilian casualty ratios of any years.
If there is some other infraction of the rules, then say so. Just accusing someone of "propaganda" is not specific enough.
Oh, and another note: I would strongly support any move to ban religious discussions and politics from ajb boards altogether notwithstanding when it is in direct context of James Bond novels or movies. This thread is a very good example why I do not support free exchange of thoughts and ideas on all matters of life on public boards dedicated to common passion (JB that is). Sooner or later something comes up, which starts to eat away the feeling of togetherness. This time it would seem that the divisive force is the US election and politics, who knows what's it going to be next time and how harmful will it be to the open discussion on all things James Bond.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
yes, and you know what target these "drone strikes" are?
ISIS and Taliban leaders all kind of radical islamists - who are not necessary member of IS or Al-Quaida.
Sadly there are too many civillian victims during these airstrikes - but that's the price when you don't want to fight with boots on the ground.
Many civillian victims happen, because islamists tend to use "human shields" to protect themself and that explains a number of civilian victims.
And there are mistakes - mistakes happen but you can't compare drone strikes against islamic terrorists with an offensive war by just counting "oh, and there was an airstrike somewhere"!
I have no problem with numbers and stats, but they must be embedded in the context - and matter of fact is that Obama that way "cleans up" with GWB's "heritage" without putting boots on the ground - something that almost noone in the US wanted after 2008.
And you are comparing apples with oranges as until 2008 drone technology was not as common and advanced like it is today.
Interesting would be how many drones the US military had in 2008 and are having now.
Just see the frame below - it seems to me that drones where effectively available for that kind of war in 2008. So GWB simply did not have those prior to 2008.
What I particularly llike - and this is agitation!! - or propaganda- is that:
GWB was a fool. There has never in history been a totally successful campaign in the middle east, "mission accomplished" ??? yes if the mission was to further destabilise a complex region and produce a power vacuum! Overthrowing saddam opened the door to IS /ISIS/ daesh. Many of their prominent leaders were part of saddams regime. Like I've said before that was accomplished was to remove the cruel zoo keeper and let the dangerous animals free.....from a western view point.
Yep!
And everything that happened and still happens is a consequence out of this.
I am always amazed how shot people's memory is 8-)
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I would strongly support any move to ban religious discussions and politics from ajb boards altogether notwithstanding when it is in direct context of James Bond novels or movies. This thread is a very good example why I do not support free exchange of thoughts and ideas on all matters of life on public boards dedicated to common passion (JB that is). Sooner or later something comes up, which starts to eat away the feeling of togetherness. This time it would seem that the divisive force is the US election and politics, who knows what's it going to be next time and how harmful will it be to the open discussion on all things James Bond.
This has been a frequent source of discussion here, with opinions on both sides. It's our intention to allow discussion and constantly monitor the situation. We'd appreciate it if any posts which seem out of line are reported.
Perhaps we should move the discussion in a more constructive direction? I think many of us will agree there are serious divisions in American politics and perhaps the society too. I claim those pronlems are not limited to the two candidates in this election or to only one party. What are the problems, what are the root causes off the problems and what can be done to make things better?
It implies that only 84 of the 2379 victims are Islamist Terrorist - highly manipulative!
From your own source:
Those are the facts
Yes they are! And fortunately it is (as much as we know it) in public domain.
Let's have those number again:
Total killed: 2,497 - 3,999
Civilians killed: 423 - 965
Children killed: 172 - 207
Injured: 1,161 - 1,744
.....
84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al-Qaeda[46]
You maybe right, maybe it is that only 84 of the humans killed in these strikes were infact terrorists. Maybe the other 2200 (aprox) were only militants, or enemy fighters, or hostile gunmen, or vegetarians what ever; that list still makes a distinction between collateral damage like civilians and children and "legitimate" targets. It does not IMHO try to make the point that everybody else, except islamist terrorists were targeted. That is only your interpretation of that info.
Anyways, there is not much point in arguing which american prez is better. They all do act with only the advantage of ole' USofA in mind. It's just tempered with current internal political situation. Just look at what Obama admin has accomplished in the south shore of the mediterranean; why would it be that this new wave of "nation building" only hit countries with strong trade ties with France, Russia, Germany and Italy? None of the "oppressive regimes" with strong US ties were subjected to this phenomenon. It has nothing to do with freedom of the people or democracy. As a Finn, my feelings towards Russia are lukewarm at best, but maybe Europe should side with Putin, before we get Trumped and we find find ourselves alone with China, US, India and Russia.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
It's still manipuilative pointing out the members of Al Qaeda!
Isis and other islamist terrorists are the bigger problem, so randomly picking that number is manipulative as it leads to the said conclusuions for those who only read oneliners - which seem to be pretty common in that kind of discussions.
It's like picking out 2 airstrikes in 2006 with 1 militant dead and 83 civilians under GWB.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I would strongly support any move to ban religious discussions and politics from ajb boards altogether notwithstanding when it is in direct context of James Bond novels or movies. This thread is a very good example why I do not support free exchange of thoughts and ideas on all matters of life on public boards dedicated to common passion (JB that is). Sooner or later something comes up, which starts to eat away the feeling of togetherness. This time it would seem that the divisive force is the US election and politics, who knows what's it going to be next time and how harmful will it be to the open discussion on all things James Bond.
This has been a frequent source of discussion here, with opinions on both sides. It's our intention to allow discussion and constantly monitor the situation. We'd appreciate it if any posts which seem out of line are reported.
Just my opinion for what it's worth, but I have nothing against these discussions or any discussion if they are engaged in a respectful manner, personal abuse or wholly inappropriate posts should be removed and the member banned, sure things get heated but no one forces participation. We are all James bond fans and as such have things in common and when this forum works well it works very well, members look out for each other and there is a huge wealth of knowledge on here.
Fall outs, insults and abuse have happened on a lot of threads not just ones like this. I know it must be harder work for Sir Miles and Barbel when political or religious threads pop up as they are more likely to incite trouble but if we all help by reporting offending posts things will be dealt with....the mods do a great job on here which is why there is such a friendly atmosphere. God bless you one and all. -{
It's still manipuilative pointing out the members of Al Qaeda!
No it's not. It is only what it is: information that 84 targets were identified as Al Q. And you know "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that does not make that statement, or the info presented, malicious.
What you are doing here is more akin to what you suggest that report does, you take what is presented, and then claim that what is not presented is for the reason of manipulating the readers. It's like the Pope and brothels of New York; you know the story, it went something like: Pope visited New York, on airport a reporter asked from the Pope what was his reaction to the brothels in New York. The Pope said "What? there are brothels in New York?" Next days newspaper reported that "The first thing pope asked for when he landed was that if there were brothels in New York"
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
None of the figures being quoted here can be taken as wholly accurate "estimated" on what basis and where has new America got those figures from? There are likely to be discrepancies. But still in the areas being targeted by drone strikes the on the ground situation is not known so any stats can be read differently for different purposes. I'll add a separate slant, if everyone of the suggested Al queda targets terminated wemt on to commit a terrorist attack in the absence of drone strikes and killed innocent civilians would the argument for them be different? Or are we all happy for collateral damages in our own countries? Obama inherited a legacy.... It's the ailments of all incumbent governments to be blamed.
He's going to build a wall along Mexico. Some are sniping that actually parts of it may be a fence. Personally I think there's no distinction really. A fence with barbed wire across the top is harder to get over than a simple wall you can mount. That said, I can't quite envision it. I mean, will the wall have guards along it, like Hadrian's Wall in Roman times, or watchtowers and search lights? No use just having a wall there by itself obviously, a grappling hook and you're over. How high is this wall anyway?
Some say it's like the Berlin Wall and therefore a bad thing, but this is false logic in my view. Not all walls are bad.
Then there's his deportation of - ahem - 2 million illegal Mexicans. Now, how does one go about that? If these are just the prisoners, the bad guys, well, I imagine we're going to get a lot of law-abiding Mexicans in the next few years! Now, otherwise he say's they'll be incarcerated. How does that work? You're gonna need a huge prison to hold 2 million people. How are you going to build that? Or are we looking at concentration camps? As in, a concentration of numbers - not implying gas chambers or anything.
Total strikes: 423
Total killed: 2,497 - 3,999
Civilians killed: 423 - 965
Children killed: 172 - 207
84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al-Qaeda[46]
That's what people are reading from your numbers (which are not complete because there is no mentioning of ISIS and other Islamist Fighters).
And the lack of background (I gave it to you already)
- who started the offensive war
- what where the motives?
- how did that destabilize the entire regoin, regimes, nations
- how many US citizens don't want troops there
- etc
No it's not. It is only what it is: information that 84 targets were identified as Al Q. And you know "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that does not make that statement, or the info presented, malicious.
You mean just like the announcement that further emails are being investigated just 1 week prior to the election and the entire conservative wing screamed "bigger that Watergate"?
What you are doing here is more akin to what you suggest that report does, you take what is presented, and then claim that what is not presented is for the reason of manipulating the readers. It's like the Pope and brothels of New York; you know the story, it went something like: Pope visited New York, on airport a reporter asked from the Pope what was his reaction to the brothels in New York. The Pope said "What? there are brothels in New York?" Next days newspaper reported that "The first thing pope asked for when he landed was that if there were brothels in New York"
You exactly say how those isolated stats that you and Cheld have posted without context - work!
I take this as confirmation of my stance: Manipulation because incomplete figures and out of context {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
A wall maybe like this
Which already exists and has random patrols along its length. Smacks of rhetoric to me, I've heard the Canadians are planning to build a wall of there own, to stop all the Americans fleeing north.
The recent movement of refugees from Northern Africa and the Middle East shows, that people that have nothing to lose* are not stopped by the outlook of losing their lifes by entering boats to cross the Mediterranian Sea - I doubt that a wall can stop people in a similar situation in Mexico
*and let's not forget: The destabilisation of the region has been done by the US and the people from Africa suffer because we exploit their countries, ressources and workforce.
So they must leave because of the consequences of western politics
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Even I am getting a bit tired of this thread now. Even though I'm sure it will pass, the Mods would probably say this is a "canary in the cole mine" situation
Take a break! Go post unsafe-for-work photos in the Izabella thread, specualte what the title of the next Bond will be, watch "The Searchers" again, cut down a three with your chainsaw, have a drink at SABS etc.
I am also fully aware that I am very persistent here and annoying to many - honestly I don't care.
My nation has a history with people "that felt left alone by the establishment",not trusting anyone anymore - and where opting for a shouting man with much hate and simple "facts"
I promised myself, that I'll always stand up if that kind will happen again and the rise of populism with out-of context, manipulative and suggestive stats and info bits is exactly that!
I won't let fly that in public.
And just before people are jumping at me:
I am not calling Trump a Nazi or new Hitler, but certain "modus of operandi" are scaringly similar.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
Perhaps in this ever changing world, in which we're living. Makes you give in and cry ....
..... Say .. Trump is our Guy ! ( Guitar solo )
Well, the US had a lot to apology er for after Bush jr's presidency- especially in the Middle East.
Do you seriously suggest that Obama's opologies is a more important case of the recent rise of terrorism and radicalism in the region (last 15 years or so) , and not Bush jr's invasjon of Iraq?
Listen to the millions of people who feel forgotten in the rich countries. ..... She must be
Reading my posts
No, I don't think that's the cause, though the larger, underlying political ideology was, which was the false assumption that the US had to relax its foreign policy stance in the particular global context it was in, immediately after its extensive campaigns in the region, which, btw was signed off by both major parties including then Senator Clinton. What I think is stupid is the suggestion that the best candidate is the one who would be less upsetting to the IS, as if they are owed appeasement.
And for that reason, I hated Bush’s decision, but he did not make it on his own. I wonder how the world would be like today if Saddam, the lesser evil, was left in power despite the “moral” imperative to take him out for the sake of the Kurds, which must make me sound very selfish to say that.
You know I love you too, Higgie Baby! I don’t claim to extensively know all the pertinent details of the IS. I understand the added complexity of the proxy war in Syria. But the fact remains that this was a “Junior Varsity” group when Obama entered office but has since grown significantly, and this did not happen outside of the current US foreign policy. If there are any other important elements that I’m missing, I sincerely would appreciate knowing what they are.
No, I don't think that's the cause, though the larger, underlying political ideology was, which was the false assumption that the US had to relax its foreign policy stance in the particular global context it was in, immediately after its extensive campaigns in the region, which, btw was signed off by both major parties including then Senator Clinton. What I think is stupid is the suggestion that the best candidate is the one who would be less upsetting to the IS, as if they are owed appeasement.
"Crusade" was a mistake in the then-new PC culture and yes, it is insensitive for Muslims, though I don't think there was malice in coming up with that term, just carelessness. To a casual Westerner who doesn't know their world history, "crusade" sounds cool, but does that make Batman and Robin evil? Propaganda is most effective when it causes even your enemy to change their political doctrine and war strategy.
To make my self clearer I want to add: I don't think Trump's statments are more upsetting to the ISIS than Hillary or Obama's positions. In fact ISIS said very clearly that they welcome Trump's statements because they are to their advantage.
I never said that a rich person cannot do anything for a poor person, however, if becoming rich is your top priority, everything else will come second. What is Trump's track record - we know he invested in gambling, something that may not be illegal, but it has lead many people into ruin, depression and suicide. Would you trust a tobacco baron to help the needy? And what is Trump's track record when it comes to charity?
Umm.... set up a "charity" to run a pay-to-play scheme to sell weapons to some of the most repressive regimes on earth?
Obama bombed 7 countries; Bush 4.
You've been writing this kind of populist propaganda before and I've adressed to this in detail. Twice!
Repeating this makes you creepy as you are trying to fool people here.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Hello Superado,
well, it all started with GWB starting an offensive war against Iraq with false evidence and questionable reasons.
The UN could not stop him and he systematically weakened the UN's influence in that matter.
While I don't object that Saddam was evil, I doubt that it was the main intention to "free" the iraqui people from him.
Saddam had a personal guard of 150.000 that where better trained and equipped than the regular Iraqui Forces.
They all got unemployed over night and the GWB camp failed to neutralize them and giving them a better perspective.
Additional many muslim groups saw this as a cruisade, so that attack charged all the radical powers in the region and led to the radicalisation and brutal groups that are still be found there.That illegal war destabilized an entire region for a very long time and it could have been seen - just have a look at Afghanistan.
Those where the roots of the IS and that's how the IS rose during the second Iraq war.
If you remember, GWB claimed "Mission Accomplished" and would have widthdrawn US troops over time.
around 2008 the US people where war-tired and almost everybody agreed that this should be ended by pulling out troops.
Obama was finally electrd to do the job and yes- I accuse him and his people having underestimated the gap that this would lead to and that it would be immediately filled up by radical groups like the Taliban or IS, or other radical muslim groups.
And Saddam's former groups are large parts of what we know now as IS.
We all knew that this would happen - just just have to look at Afghanistan and how the Taliban grew after Russia pulled out in 1992.
Like you rightly say, the decision to reduce US troops in Iraq was backed by both parties but I blame Obama for leaving the gap prematurely.
But that must be embedded in the context how this mess all started - what the public opinion was in 2008 and who where backing up that decision. If you blame Obama for the gap, you should mention that this has been agreed by republicans and that they would have done the same.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What are you exactly chiding him for? It is no secret that what "sonny" Bush started Obama administration built upon, the facts are there to see for anyone willing to look for:
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about U.S. drone strikes (as of 22 February 2016):[6]
Total strikes: 423
Total killed: 2,497 - 3,999
Civilians killed: 423 - 965
Children killed: 172 - 207
Injured: 1,161 - 1,744
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 51
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 372
84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al-Qaeda[46]
A formerly classified Pakistani government report obtained in July 2013 by the BIJ shows details of 75 drone strikes that occurred between 2006-09. According to the 12-page report, in this period, 176 of the 746 reported dead were civilians.[47] According to the Long War Journal, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and the New America Foundation, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 had some of the highest civilian casualty ratios of any years.
If there is some other infraction of the rules, then say so. Just accusing someone of "propaganda" is not specific enough.
Oh, and another note: I would strongly support any move to ban religious discussions and politics from ajb boards altogether notwithstanding when it is in direct context of James Bond novels or movies. This thread is a very good example why I do not support free exchange of thoughts and ideas on all matters of life on public boards dedicated to common passion (JB that is). Sooner or later something comes up, which starts to eat away the feeling of togetherness. This time it would seem that the divisive force is the US election and politics, who knows what's it going to be next time and how harmful will it be to the open discussion on all things James Bond.
-Mr Arlington Beech
ISIS and Taliban leaders all kind of radical islamists - who are not necessary member of IS or Al-Quaida.
Sadly there are too many civillian victims during these airstrikes - but that's the price when you don't want to fight with boots on the ground.
Many civillian victims happen, because islamists tend to use "human shields" to protect themself and that explains a number of civilian victims.
And there are mistakes - mistakes happen but you can't compare drone strikes against islamic terrorists with an offensive war by just counting "oh, and there was an airstrike somewhere"!
I have no problem with numbers and stats, but they must be embedded in the context - and matter of fact is that Obama that way "cleans up" with GWB's "heritage" without putting boots on the ground - something that almost noone in the US wanted after 2008.
And you are comparing apples with oranges as until 2008 drone technology was not as common and advanced like it is today.
Interesting would be how many drones the US military had in 2008 and are having now.
Just see the frame below - it seems to me that drones where effectively available for that kind of war in 2008. So GWB simply did not have those prior to 2008.
What I particularly llike - and this is agitation!! - or propaganda- is that: Agitation, why? because it leaves out the amount of killed ISIS members and other radical islamist groups!
It implies that only 84 of the 2379 victims are Islamist Terrorist - highly manipulative!
From your own source:
Those are the facts
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yep!
And everything that happened and still happens is a consequence out of this.
I am always amazed how shot people's memory is 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
This has been a frequent source of discussion here, with opinions on both sides. It's our intention to allow discussion and constantly monitor the situation. We'd appreciate it if any posts which seem out of line are reported.
Yes they are! And fortunately it is (as much as we know it) in public domain.
Let's have those number again:
Total killed: 2,497 - 3,999
Civilians killed: 423 - 965
Children killed: 172 - 207
Injured: 1,161 - 1,744
.....
84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al-Qaeda[46]
You maybe right, maybe it is that only 84 of the humans killed in these strikes were infact terrorists. Maybe the other 2200 (aprox) were only militants, or enemy fighters, or hostile gunmen, or vegetarians what ever; that list still makes a distinction between collateral damage like civilians and children and "legitimate" targets. It does not IMHO try to make the point that everybody else, except islamist terrorists were targeted. That is only your interpretation of that info.
Anyways, there is not much point in arguing which american prez is better. They all do act with only the advantage of ole' USofA in mind. It's just tempered with current internal political situation. Just look at what Obama admin has accomplished in the south shore of the mediterranean; why would it be that this new wave of "nation building" only hit countries with strong trade ties with France, Russia, Germany and Italy? None of the "oppressive regimes" with strong US ties were subjected to this phenomenon. It has nothing to do with freedom of the people or democracy. As a Finn, my feelings towards Russia are lukewarm at best, but maybe Europe should side with Putin, before we get Trumped and we find find ourselves alone with China, US, India and Russia.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Isis and other islamist terrorists are the bigger problem, so randomly picking that number is manipulative as it leads to the said conclusuions for those who only read oneliners - which seem to be pretty common in that kind of discussions.
It's like picking out 2 airstrikes in 2006 with 1 militant dead and 83 civilians under GWB.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Just my opinion for what it's worth, but I have nothing against these discussions or any discussion if they are engaged in a respectful manner, personal abuse or wholly inappropriate posts should be removed and the member banned, sure things get heated but no one forces participation. We are all James bond fans and as such have things in common and when this forum works well it works very well, members look out for each other and there is a huge wealth of knowledge on here.
Fall outs, insults and abuse have happened on a lot of threads not just ones like this. I know it must be harder work for Sir Miles and Barbel when political or religious threads pop up as they are more likely to incite trouble but if we all help by reporting offending posts things will be dealt with....the mods do a great job on here which is why there is such a friendly atmosphere. God bless you one and all. -{
No it's not. It is only what it is: information that 84 targets were identified as Al Q. And you know "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that does not make that statement, or the info presented, malicious.
What you are doing here is more akin to what you suggest that report does, you take what is presented, and then claim that what is not presented is for the reason of manipulating the readers. It's like the Pope and brothels of New York; you know the story, it went something like: Pope visited New York, on airport a reporter asked from the Pope what was his reaction to the brothels in New York. The Pope said "What? there are brothels in New York?" Next days newspaper reported that "The first thing pope asked for when he landed was that if there were brothels in New York"
-Mr Arlington Beech
He's going to build a wall along Mexico. Some are sniping that actually parts of it may be a fence. Personally I think there's no distinction really. A fence with barbed wire across the top is harder to get over than a simple wall you can mount. That said, I can't quite envision it. I mean, will the wall have guards along it, like Hadrian's Wall in Roman times, or watchtowers and search lights? No use just having a wall there by itself obviously, a grappling hook and you're over. How high is this wall anyway?
Some say it's like the Berlin Wall and therefore a bad thing, but this is false logic in my view. Not all walls are bad.
Then there's his deportation of - ahem - 2 million illegal Mexicans. Now, how does one go about that? If these are just the prisoners, the bad guys, well, I imagine we're going to get a lot of law-abiding Mexicans in the next few years! Now, otherwise he say's they'll be incarcerated. How does that work? You're gonna need a huge prison to hold 2 million people. How are you going to build that? Or are we looking at concentration camps? As in, a concentration of numbers - not implying gas chambers or anything.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's what people are reading from your numbers (which are not complete because there is no mentioning of ISIS and other Islamist Fighters).
And the lack of background (I gave it to you already)
- who started the offensive war
- what where the motives?
- how did that destabilize the entire regoin, regimes, nations
- how many US citizens don't want troops there
- etc
is manipulative. sorry.
You mean just like the announcement that further emails are being investigated just 1 week prior to the election and the entire conservative wing screamed "bigger that Watergate"?
You exactly say how those isolated stats that you and Cheld have posted without context - work!
I take this as confirmation of my stance: Manipulation because incomplete figures and out of context {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Which already exists and has random patrols along its length. Smacks of rhetoric to me, I've heard the Canadians are planning to build a wall of there own, to stop all the Americans fleeing north.
*and let's not forget: The destabilisation of the region has been done by the US and the people from Africa suffer because we exploit their countries, ressources and workforce.
So they must leave because of the consequences of western politics
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Take a break! Go post unsafe-for-work photos in the Izabella thread, specualte what the title of the next Bond will be, watch "The Searchers" again, cut down a three with your chainsaw, have a drink at SABS etc.
I am also fully aware that I am very persistent here and annoying to many - honestly I don't care.
My nation has a history with people "that felt left alone by the establishment",not trusting anyone anymore - and where opting for a shouting man with much hate and simple "facts"
I promised myself, that I'll always stand up if that kind will happen again and the rise of populism with out-of context, manipulative and suggestive stats and info bits is exactly that!
I won't let fly that in public.
And just before people are jumping at me:
I am not calling Trump a Nazi or new Hitler, but certain "modus of operandi" are scaringly similar.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!