MUSLIMS ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING

[B.O.B DOLE]

I can understand these people they are being taken over by capitalism
now if you where being taken over by communism you would do the same thing as they are fighting for a cause it is so easy for are cronies to call it terrorism but think about it is it i don't think so. in there own minds are fighting there own cause and i cant blame them the yanks go into afgan for bin laden and bush was ask if he had iraq in is sites and he said no. They say iran is carring on with there nuclear plant operations this seems to be a nice excuse to invade .ITS all about oil they are running out and this is being covered up by the yanks

And another thing in the second world war there where english resistance
and where ready to take out anyone if the germans invaded england so is that not terroisim

 

[Freddie]

Been over and over and over this time and time again Bob--America doesnt need the middle east oil

As for muslims they can go back to a muslim country if they dont like a western cultered one, no one forces them to stop in a western country--they must like it here or our way of life---i notice they dont go to Israel and make the same demands they make here--wonder why?

 

[kendor]

Been over and over and over this time and time again Bob--America doesnt need the middle east oil

and you say others live in fairy land??!??!!

 

[Nige F]

.ITS all about oil they are running out and this is being covered up by the yanks

And another thing in the second world war there were english resistance
and were ready to take out anyone if the germans invaded england so is that not terrorism......Oil yes.....terrorism No...War had been declared

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1) It is about oil, and it has always been about oil and strategic geographical interests. "We" have interfered with the politics of the Middle East for 70 years, and in return for stable oil supplies and military bases we have permitted and assisted brutal tyrants to subjugate their own people and to ruthlessly suppress all forms of democratic opposition.

What has happened is that the only opposition left standing are the extremists, who despise moderate Muslims and the corrupt leaders of Islamic countries as much as they do "us", if not more. Far from being involved in "terror", Saddam Hussein had far more to fear from al-Qaeda than we ever did.

2) It is not about being anti-Islam. The people making the decisions about the oil don't give a toss about the religion of the countries involved - that they are predominantly Islamic is pure coincidence. They would be doing the same - interfering, bombing, invading etc if the locals were Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Zoroastrian...

3) Terrorism? It's a bit trite, but not entirely inaccurate, to say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It wasn't that long ago that Americans were openly giving money to the IRA.

For a less emotive example, go back half a century. In 1956 you could have read in the papers, more-or-less at the same time, about the freedom fighters in Hungary and the terrorists in Cyprus. (The Russians, BTW, regarded these freedom fighters as insurgents, mounted a massive air and land assault on Hungary, and killed 30,000 civilians in Budapest alone. Sound familiar?) You might or might not have been able to read a great deal about the fact that we and France were dropping bombs on the Egyptians because they had nationalised the Suez Canal.

4) Fighting for a cause? At least, in their minds, they are fighting for a cause. However misguided it is, however unreasonable it is, at least they don't lie about why they are doing it.

When the Air Force drops bombs on a city like Baghdad or Fallujah, whilst they may not "deliberately target" civilians in the sense of having particular ones in their sights, they are not so stupid as to think that they are not inevitably going to kill civilians. In a way that makes them worse. A terrorist who targets civilians in order (in his mind) to achieve his aims is being brutally honest - he understands the significance of what he is doing - he is doing it because he hopes that his enemy will find civilian casualties so unacceptable that they will accede to his demands. On the other hand a soldier/pilot/military planner who is prepared to kill civilians by the thousand as a side effect of some other action seems to have very little respect for the value of those lives. He is saying that these people, ordinary people like you and me - men, women, children, people with jobs, hopes, fears, loves, hates, lusts, careers, plans - these people's lives are of such little value that they can be snuffed out by the thousand because what he's doing is more important than their lives.

"Shock and Awe" tactics BTW were invented by the Nazis - they called it Blitzkrieg.

 

[Slogger]

and so he is and if they wanted to be safe they could have evacuated the city **** them one and all i and you want the oil at any price dont lie about it


whos side you on ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not yours.

 

[Freddie]

OK take one thing at a time and the main thing which crops up all the time---now this is about America only not Europe or China.

America produces almost as much oil as she consumes, with Canada she would be basically self sufficient.

Alternative fuels---rape seed oil and grain for alcahol ( which Bush mentioned recently ) America and Canada could easily make up any loss from the middle east if that supply was cut off as the agricultrial area is so vast it could more than supply the fuel needs but of course the economics of cheap oil from the middle east have always knocked that on the head, but if push come to shove i cannot see where the Americans rely on working some fantasy deal to get their hands on some countries oil in the middle east.

Of course other countries need that oil which keep the world economic factory working but America is lucky in that case that IT does not need middle east oil for its fuel

 

[Slogger]

Not yours.

so be it but stop deleteing my posts who ever is doing it most of them have no mention of scum in them

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK take one thing at a time and the main thing which crops up all the time---now this is about America only not Europe or China.

America produces almost as much oil as she consumes, with Canada she would be basically self sufficient.

But not for very much longer.

i cannot see where the Americans rely on working some fantasy deal to get their hands on some countries oil in the middle east.

It's worked for the last 70 years - why should they break the habits of a lifetime?

 

[Freddie]

OK take one thing at a time and the main thing which crops up all the time---now this is about America only not Europe or China.

America produces almost as much oil as she consumes, with Canada she would be basically self sufficient.

But not for very much longer.

i cannot see where the Americans rely on working some fantasy deal to get their hands on some countries oil in the middle east.

It's worked for the last 70 years - why should they break the habits of a lifetime?

OK smart little quips anybody can do that--can you produce any facts to back up your claims--i am well awhere what America did in the past but all i refer to is the fuel required by each nation mentioned and their ability to produce other fuel to compensate

 

[oilman]

Alternative fuels---rape seed oil and grain for alcahol ( which Bush mentioned recently ) America and Canada could easily make up any loss from the middle east if that supply was cut off as the agricultrial area is so vast it could more than supply the fuel needs..............

Let's have your figures then. I have done a quick calc, and my figures show you need more than 100acres of oilseed rape to get a road tanker full of oil, and it hasn't been converted to bio-diesel yet. Course, I could be wrong.

 

[Freddie]

Alternative fuels---rape seed oil and grain for alcahol ( which Bush mentioned recently ) America and Canada could easily make up any loss from the middle east if that supply was cut off as the agricultrial area is so vast it could more than supply the fuel needs..............

Let's have your figures then. I have done a quick calc, and my figures show you need more than 100acres of oilseed rape to get a road tanker full of oil, and it hasn't been converted to bio-diesel yet. Course, I could be wrong.

I think at the present production of rapeseed oild -Oilman you will need 12 acres of rapeseed for the fuel for an average car doing average milage in Briton which is around 250 miles per week--on that basis the UK wouldnt have a chance.

The Brazilians and soon to be Australians use sugar cane to produce alcahol and use the waste as fuel in the distilling process so all of the fuel used doesnt add to greenhouse gass's as the cane absorbs the same amount of CO2

I dont know the rate of alcahol for cars per acre or if it was made from grain but the USA has 250 million people on the same ratio of cars per people as the UK that would mean around 100 million cars so on the rapeseed oil at todays per acre you would need around 1200 million acres of land something easily done with America and Canada if they were solely to rely on that as car fuel but that isnt what i was implying i was implying to replace any shortfall in crude oil disapearing for any reason.

Of course financial reasons come into account and the rape and alcahol methods of semi replacement only apply when the crude price rises and stays above a certain level

 

[Moz]

Much of the US Owned/Occupied Oil fields in friendly Middle Eastern countries will run dry by 2030 an at The Kyoto (sp?)Summit USA was TOLD LOUD an CLEAR they needed to reduce fossil fuels emissions

(as any plumber will tell you UK has been shOt hot on Gasboiler emissions ..)

an stop with the Greenhouse gases but do them big fat Yanks listen ,NO they got them Gas Guzzling SUVs,an dont give a flying F88k about climate change ...

 

[Slogger]

Alternative fuels---rape seed oil and grain for alcahol ( which Bush mentioned recently ) America and Canada could easily make up any loss from the middle east if that supply was cut off as the agricultrial area is so vast it could more than supply the fuel needs..............

Let's have your figures then. I have done a quick calc, and my figures show you need more than 100acres of oilseed rape to get a road tanker full of oil, and it hasn't been converted to bio-diesel yet. Course, I could be wrong.

I think at the present production of rapeseed oild -Oilman you will need 12 acres of rapeseed for the fuel for an average car doing average milage in Briton which is around 250 miles per week--on that basis the UK would have a chance.

The Brazilians and soon to be Australians use sugar cane to produce alcahol and use the waste as fuel in the distilling process so all of the fuel used doesnt add to greenhouse gass's as the cane absorbs the same amount of CO2

I dont know the rate of alcahol for cars per acre or if it was made from grain but the USA has 250 million people on the same ratio of cars per people as the UK that would mean around 100 million cars so on the rapeseed oil at todays per acre you would need around 1200 million acres of land something easily done with America and Canada if they were solely to rely on that as car fuel but that isnt what i was implying i was implying to replace any shortfall in crude oil disapearing for any reason.

Of course financial reasons come into account and the rape and alcahol methods of semi replacement only apply when the crude price rises and stays above a certain level

my my i didnt have a clue so we will all be ok for fuel of a sort in the future thanks freddie