Attempt to move the debate within the discussion create by Joost here out of respect. I will copy my last post to continue the discussion.

I have to point out that, as usual, the people against war, or killing, or violence to solve violence are pretty good at pointing out weaknesses and flaw in plans of war and infiltration. But none of you have offered your own solutions. So ok, we decide to be peaceful, and not go after the terrorists heads. What do we do then. Hmmm, I guess placing them in jail would be a better plan. So, we walk up to a small building, a camp of terrorists, wicked men, ready to kill anyone and not caring about their own death, guns ready to fire. And we say, "hey, you are under arrest, but we wont try and shoot you, cause killing doesnt solve killing, so please walk out into our handcuffs". I think not. Or how bout this, debating with other nations at the UN. I'm sure a bunch of rich politicians "talking" is going to solve the problem of terrorism. So, if not some form of war, large, or small scale as Paws refers to. What is your solution?? I'd like to hear it.

Its nice to be against violence, it really should be the last resort. The last, but sometimes the only way. What if you were walking down the street with a loved one and someone jumps your wife or gf or whatever, someone u see that you have to opportunity to take out. Do you just stand there and think, well I better not stop this violence with more violence, that just wouldnt solve the problem. Or do you take the opportunity to save your loved one.

And Matthew, Paws seems to be very articulate, well read, and experienced in the topic. The only naive statements I've seen here are one like "...isnt that what they are doing? In every war? Just shooting anyone?" Sometimes violence is the only way. Please let me know of others if you have them.

The war on terror is not conventional warfare. Conventional warfare does follow rules & guidelines as silly as that sounds, those rules are followed by professional soldiers & army units.

Even in conventional warfare you do not as a soldier shoot everyone & anyone, you can only engage combatants. Though to the untrained eye or casual onlooker that is what it seems like. So I can appreciate it seems very blood thirsty & the uproar it causes.

Fighting or dealing with terrorists requires a whole new approach because of the nature of that style of warfare. These people are happy to hide amongst civillians, have no issue about hiding in a church or mosque while sniping at peace keeping forces then raise holy hell when that building is tactically neautralized. Putting it in laymans terms it is a back street bare knuckle fight where one side is playing by the Marquis of Queensbury's rules & the other side isn't. If you can capture/detain a terrorist you have to bear in mind this person is more than happy to strap C4 to themselves & walk into a busy train station & blow themselves & everyone within a certain distance up, or talk a 12 year old child into doing the very same. So as you can imagine, sometimes that is like trying to difuse a ticking bomb by offering it a cup of coffee & wanting to chat about it's issues when all the time the numbers are rolling down to the big bang.

Now don't get me wrong, I did not join the forces to shoot people & have a jolly going to war, I joined to become a peacekeeper & "do my bit" trying to make the world a safer place, not just for my own country but others as well. My opinions on this matter may seem rather blunt & brutish to some, or downright blood thirsty to others. But when you have seen the type of people you are dealing with & see how they respond to the nicey nice approach & the civillized way, & when most other normal channels of dealing with them are ignored or abused, there are only so many times you can stand by hearing or seeing another terrorist attack that killed hundreds of innocent people who had nothing to do with a war or the cause they were killed for before you want something doing about it that will actually work. Seeing the futility of the politicians efforts & then knowing they are going to try the same approach again but worded differently does not make the grade as a solution.

As it stands terrorists are now influencing politics & voting by using their methods, they are getting their way or getting around things & their methods are working, the general placid approach to them is not. It is a war we will loose if we carry on treating them with kid gloves & by turning the other cheek.

In an ideal world yes we should all be able to sit around a table & resolve all our issues by having a chat & talking through to a peaceful conclusion where all parties are happy, but we have never lived in an ideal world, crisis situations require crisis tactics & the global trend for terrorism is becoming a crisis situation every country faces on a daily basis.

Noob, you raise a very good point about the UN, while in theory that is a great council, in practicality these days it is weak. It is now so wrapped up in red tape that it is neither use nor ornament. They lack the courage to do things that should be done & instead place sanctions or resolutions on people that they know will be ignored. It is a great shame that it has deteriorated into what it has. :(

I am looking forward to hearing some peoples views on ending the trend in terrorism or stopping terrorism in a peaceful, non combatative way though. =]

The debate as always seems very black and white and that is what bugs me - the world is not that simple. There is no easy answer.

I notice that you Anthony, and to a certain extent you Taz seem happy to polarise things. phrases like "So ok, we decide to be peaceful, and not go after the terrorists heads" and "carry on treating them with kid gloves & by turning the other cheek" really don't help. I've never advocated going soft on terrorists - I'm quite happy to shoot them. I don't understand why it is that just because I don't endorse a 'let's go and kill them all' strategy you then assume that I am some sort of terrorist-lover.

In an earlier post I said "The terrorists are not the problem - they are the symptom" Matthew (Beowulf) also echoed this sentiment with his analogy with the bandaid. Hunting down terrorists is just a stop-gap solution - it doesn't address the root cause. Of course security services should be on alert. Of course they should do their utmost to stop future attacks. I've no problem with them taking out known terrorists. If they discover a plot or a bomb-factory, fine - take them down. If they resist, shoot them. I don't have a problem with that.

However, it doesn't address the issues that are causing the terrorists to launch their attacks. To stop terrorism you need to cut the ground out from under them - dry up their recruitment by taking away the issues that they prey on. Sorry, but you can't do that by shooting people. Like I said above, that is just a containment policy - it doesn't actually solve anything, it just limits any damage as much as possible. Not only that but the longer such a strategy prevails the more fuel you give to such fanatical causes. When you kill fanatics, you cut the head off of a hydra - you create more enemies to fight.

If I can be cynical for a moment, this whole thing is just the same old political power game that's been played out for centuries (if not longer). The whole 'war-on-terrorism' thing is just the latest manifestation, the latest spin on a very old theme and you guys are playing right into it. As for 'solutions', I'm not sure there are any. I sincerely doubt that even if a decent solution was put forward that anybody has the political will or the coercive muscle to move it forward.

Agree with you, completely, you arent who my post was refering to.
"If they discover a plot or a bomb-factory, fine - take them down. If they resist, shoot them. I don't have a problem with that."
You obviously arent against violence to solve violence, I guess my post was more referring to liquidguitar or beowulf, agree that we need to change our ways, I dont completely agree with all of the actions of my government either. Meanwhile there are terrorists out there at large, and some of them their locations are known, and they need to be taken out, by whatever means neccessary.

Maybe I do see things in black & white becuase im my eyes you are either a terrorist or you are not, if you are you need sorting out, if not you are fine.

As I mentioned earlier though if a global stance/position is taken that by being a terrorist you will be hunted down & brought to justice one way or the other & that is something that is actively followed up on, I assure you less & less people are going to be willing to join these terrorist cells & factions because they will see they have a life expectancy that is gonna be very short or spend it in some hell hole prison, & one where the rules & lifestyle are so much tougher than normal "civillian" prisons they will wish that the SF troops that caught them slotted them on sight.

I agree to some extent, but I think you are still being simplistic. Of course terrorists should not be tolerated, but where do you draw the line on how you define a terrorist? Governments across the world have long used the excuse of 'terrorism' to deal with political dissidents.

If someone is actively engaged in an activity that is obviously terroristic then fine, take them down. But as I said, it is not always so easy to define it. That in part is my objection to the 'let's take out the terrorists' strategy. Who are they? How do you identify them? (and I'm not talking about the actual logistics of surveillance, I mean how do you define them - when does somebody step over the line and become a 'terrorist')

As for the deterrance agrument, I don't see how that would work. Many if not most of these young men and women don't give a damn about their lives. Do you think that somebody who is prepared to strap on a bomb and detonate it will worry about the prospect of being shot or going to prison? I don't think they join up expecting it to be like the boy scouts.

I can't see how your viewpoint is anything other than a short term stop-gap.

I defined what a terrorist is alread, both the dictionary version & my own.

Another rule of thumb for them = those who are willing to blow themselves up for whatever cause = terrorist

so they can be shot on sight. >:]
(that was very tongue in cheek btw)

& the point about " I don't see how that would work. Many if not most of these young men and women don't give a damn about their lives. Do you think that somebody who is prepared to strap on a bomb and detonate it will worry about the prospect of being shot or going to prison?"

So shooting them is no big deal then is it, so long as they don't get the chance to walk into some train station or whatever, it's all good. That stance works both ways, they cannot be reasoned with, they have a sole intent, so be it a round between the eyes or they kill innocents I opt for the 5.56mm betwen the eyes please, or lock them in a room still attached to a bomb & let's see a politician go in there & talk them out of it & preach on about the error of their ways, hehehe.

" Maybe I do see things in black & white becuase im my eyes you are either a terrorist or you are not, if you are you need sorting out, if not you are fine. "

Just because you are *not* a terrorist doesn't really mean you are fine. You can definitly be contributing to the root cause that engenders terrorists. That's why I talk about not only dealing with the terrorists, but dealing with the deeper issue of changing ourselves so that terrorism isn't engendered in the first place.

I define the foot soldiers, the planners, the funders & organizer in the same barrel. & I would beat them all with the same stick.

You think I mean just take out the morons running around with bombs strapped too them? Nooooo, you grab them numpties, interrogate them then start proceeding up the chain of command untill the cell has been dealt with, then the regional command & onwards & upwards till the machine cannot operate no more because the parts have all been dealt with or destroyed. I thought that was pretty much implied with what I said already, no?

Ok Anthony. ..First thanks for not COMPLETELY bashing on everything that i had said.

Secondly I'm sorry that being peacful doesn't acure to you. I guess you haven't heard of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. If you dont know he helped stop a huge problem with racism against blacks. Obiously terrorism is a little bigger than racism. And you obiously arent going to do what you said in your first comment sarcasticly. ..and in your last paragraph layed out a very good example. ...I wasn't saying that we wouldn't go to war for what we did. ..I was just saying that i don't think they are doing much about completely wiping out the terrorists. ..and i was saying that i can't UNDERSTAND how someone can say killing is wrong and go around and kill someone. and as I said before i would much rather have a terrorist die than an innocent child. ..but all in all I don't think anyone should die.

All in all it's just another brick in the wall

All in all you're just another brick in the wall..

Agree with Matthew again.

Did you ever think of why the terrorists hate us so much? ..and why is America always getting into others buissness? .. i have to go ill explain when i get back. Think about that.

lol sorry for bashin ya Sean, just thought your one comment would be a good place to start my point :-p

I understand the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King, but these do not apply in the world of terrorism. Try camping in a terrorist nation and saying you arent going to leave until they are accepting of your ways...

And like I said before, we do need to change our ways, there is obviously a problem if we are so offensive to other nations. But this doesnt change the fact that the terrorists out there planing attacks as we speak dont need to be brought down, quickly, and by any means.

It's not just about America though, it's a global thing.

Ok, good point Anthony. And Taz, maybe that is true but most of the rest of the war disagrees with this war and very much dislikes our contry.

Disputing terrorism over conventional war is a redundant thing; neither one has much to do with the other. Most war is based on the on the need to expand for economic growth or the need to control. Other wise power and holding on to one’s place in an
ever-changing environment, or at the least fear or the misunderstanding of a neighbor or a growing threat. Terrorism is usually a last tactic toward an aggressor that has over taken a societies rights away or has subjected the culture to horrendous environments.

"Terrorism is usually a last tactic toward an aggressor that has over taken a societies rights away or has subjected the culture to horrendous environments"

do you believe that the US is responsible for these type of actions, thus causing terrorism in this way?

" Disputing terrorism over conventional war is a redundant thing; neither one has much to do with the other."

Except we fight one with the other, so hardly redundant.

"Taz, maybe that is true but most of the rest of the war disagrees with this war and very much dislikes our contry."

Again, it's not just America fighting this battle or involved in the war, thus not just Amreica that is unpopular because of it.

Then again when the towers got hit it was not just Americans who died, so it should not just be left to America to deal with. The terror attacks are not just happening in America, they are happening around the globe.

I believe prism is correct in his statement "Terrorism is usually a last tactic toward an aggressor that has over taken a societies rights away or has subjected the culture to horrendous environments". Or at least this is how my professor has explained it to me. I think a lot of the turmoil going on now was caused by WWII which may see out there, but it prolly even goes back further than that. Dislike for America and even other European countries stems from this. We royally screwed this area over in that war. First we got them to fight with us and then turned our backs and attacked them. I cant remember the exacts, but i wish i could. Then in the treaty at the end of the war we effectively divied? up there land and the peoples there causing much turnoil. And i believe that this land has been in that situation for years. I mean with the crusades we went after there land. It is no wonder that they distrust us given the past and all that they have been thro with foreign neighbors. And i hope that by giving the government over there back over to its people they will try and trust us again but it will take a long time to change such situations over there and a joint effort on both sides. Please excuse me if some of this isnt clear but i have a lot i want to say and not sure i got it out right.

opps (i think you got this but) I meant world not war.

I think you expressed that in a rather confused fashion (Gabi), but you are basically correct. As I said earlier, this latest thing is just a new trend in the ever raging battle between the haves and the have nots. Every so often you have a paradigm shift or a new strategy or whatever, but it's the same old thing.

Certainly you can trace back various events in the late 19th and then 20th centuries that have brought us here. But that's just one thread of many.

Just thinking about it makes me despondent - never mind individual countries, the whole human race just seems good at f*cking things up. What's that military slang, Taz - SNAFU? Seems to sum it up quite nicely.

I'm constantly amazed at how little most people know or care about historical events. I speak to people here (in the UK) and they know nothing (to take a random event) about the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or anything else. Perhaps worse than that, they don't seem to care. I sometimes think people are more concerned about what's on TV this evening or what the latest mobile phone is or how to get laid or whatever. Perhaps they should set up an organisation called Apathetics Anonymous or something (but noone would turn up!)

Anyway I'm depressing myself way too much thinking about this, I'll take a lesson from their book and just shut up and not think about it.

Situation Normal, All F*cked Up

yep.

exactly man. No one knows their history. ..no bare FACTS to back up their point. ..am I still learning my history so you can't expect me to back myself up to an extreme (for I am only 12) but still I know more than the mobile phone people. ..Agree completely.

i've never been a history fan

saying everyone should learn history because its important is like saying everyone should learn chemistry cause its important

people have their tastes and choice in knowledge that they decide to master

Ouch, Noob... You are perhaps correct about not needing to know history to a certain extent, but there are some concepts you should be familliar with or at least be able to recognize. Just as you should grasp enough chemistry to know not to mix bleach and drain cleaner in your sink. :)

good point, they teach you the basics in all subjects including history throughout school, but asking everyone to keep a record of random historical facts in their head may be pushin it a bit.

"I speak to people here (in the UK) and they know nothing (to take a random event) about the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or anything else."

I hear what you are saying.

It just bugs me when people sound off about various contemporary happenings when they know nothing about the events that led up to them. I don't understand how anyone can debate an issue without knowing anything about it (mind you, that would be most politicans out of a job...)

Yeah thats right Mike.

"saying everyone should learn history because its important is like saying everyone should learn chemistry cause its important "

That was a bad example.They are TOTALLY different things. ..chemistry is ..well science and history are facts of events that have happened ...and I think knowing what has happened is a little more important that chemistry.

"asking everyone to keep a record of random historical facts in their head may be pushin it a bit."

How is asking you do to that. ..and I'm not saying you should know every little thing but just a little more than the basics. Every intellegent person should.

I would say since chemistry is the study of what constitutes all matter, inorganic, or organic, thats puts it pretty high up there on the importance level. The fact that you dont see chemistry as important, and I dont see history as important as other studies, makes it a perfect analogy.

yeah you're probably right but I still think every intellegent person should know their history ..as well as chemistry ..I haven't taken my chemistry classes yet. ..im still in Junior High. haha.

I think with youth, the world is becomming more and more informed, and tolerant. I think my generation, and more importantly your generation, will bring a bright future to our world.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it ...

As Matthew and gabi pointed out, I think the past is doomed to repeat itself in one way or another regardless of our memory :-p

Anthony: Sadly, I believe this is not the case, most students I know are forced into taking classes, classes they have no interest in and have no intention on learning it...Therefore although the information may and is there, we don't really care and don't learn it...pity :(

History--
Terrorism's roots are actually further back than most would think...basically terrorism is unconventional warfare, where the enemy is seen as an oppressor and where the 'terrorist' will do anything 'pillage'/'slaughter'/'rape' and whatnot. The world's history is full of such acts...from ancient Rome to Medieval Europe to the Vietnam War and even to the American Revolution...this is not a new idea...it's just been intensified as everything else has by technology.
The problems in the Middle East are due to a combination of forces, mainly that that area of the world has been looked to as a wasteland for much of it's existance. It wasn't until the major oilfields did it actually gain some foothold of importance and it was then that foreign nations 'invaded' the area mainly just to exploit the oil.

On topic--
In my opinion, terrorism and crime are very closely linked. Both are the unjustly-treated's way of fighting against oppressors. And like crime, I sincerely believe that terrorism will never go away completely, and there will always be the threat of terrorism no matter how many freedoms you plan on taking away. That being said, it's a problem in all nations...remember Oklahoma City...
As for my views on how to solve the 'problems' in the Middle East, I view the problem in a nationalistic way. If all nations individually work to end terrorism in their own countries the problem will become much less organized or at least lessen in intensity. That being said, I honestly couldn't care less if there is terrorism in other countries but my own, although it is a 'sad' act(If I could assist to help them 'get back on their feet again' I would), but it really doesn't matter to me...to crush opposing views just slows the problem it doesn't stop it.

Basically, I'm saying violence will always exist, so it really doesnt' matter how you solve it because it will always exist.

If you take a culture and submit your will on them you will eventually see a rebellious act come from that culture. If you know anything at all about history, you will find that several cultures have been obliterated from the face of the planet do to prejudice and the economic needs of another. If you see know need for history’ how will you ever know the truth about the beginnings of cultures, mythology or even the beginnings of your own culture comes from. How will you ever understand where they are coming from in there needs? As far as terrorism I have said it before it is a pour mans nuclear weapon. It is last resort of peoples who would like to be accepted and to choose their own destiny. I live in a country which it’s own history is founded on violence and the progression of a conquering race.

hmm tend to agree and disagree. I think that violence will probably always remain, it is part of our nature as humans. But I think it still requires our attention. I think you should care about other countries outside of your own because in this global community, each society is closely related. Also, most of the terrorists attacks in the US recently were not organized US citizens.

Also agree that the youth are sometimes forced into learning some things, and a good portion either dismiss it, or learn enough to "get by" and forget about it later. But if you look at trends, the harder subjects in schools are being taught earlier and earlier, children along with the rest of society because of the internet and TV and other media are becomming more aware of the world around them. I'm always impressed and sometimes surprised by some of the youth today and I'm only 20 yrs young myself. Sean is a prime example of today's youth having more aptitude and being more aware. How many of us had the nerve to debate about political hot topics on an open forum when we were 12?

Clayton, I did not intend to say there was no need for history, just that this need is of greater importance to some than others. Going back to my previous analogy, some of us are meant to learn about history and politics and potentially better our cultures and societies in this way, while some people were meant to learn of sciences and mathmatics and bring forth new technologies and comforts to the human race, while some were meant to flourish in the arts and bring interest and dynamics to our way of life. Not everyone need be a history expert, and this shouldnt be expected of us. To some this area of knowledge may have little affect on their purpose in this world at all. This is all I was trying to convey before.

" It wasn't until the major oilfields did it actually gain some foothold of importance and it was then that foreign nations 'invaded' the area mainly just to exploit the oil. "

So the Crusades were just a sunday day out for the troops I take it then? ;)

"If all nations individually work to end terrorism in their own countries the problem will become much less organized or at least lessen in intensity."

Great idea but with at least one drawback I can see, outside countries funding these terrorist organizations makes that a much harder task. For example, Americans helping to fund the IRA.
Stamping out a fire in your own country is a task enough, but when fuel is being poured in from places you cannot do anything about it makes it a much harder & impractical task.

I agree we as countries need to work together as humans. ..and as brothers and sisters of the world. We all live here doesn't matter what country you live in.

As for "It wasn't until the major oilfields did it actually gain some foothold of importance and it was then that foreign nations 'invaded' the area mainly just to exploit the oil."

There has been invading and violence since the begining of time.

and I agree with you Brett on basicly all you said.

Personally I think it should be called the United Nation. Not the United Nations. Which in hence means to remove the boarders after all you can’t see any lines from space.

i dunno, in NA you have countries, in the US states, in the states counties, in each county different cities. In every separation there is some kind of local gov that gets smaller and smaller. The separation is there for a reason, it makes things easier to govern when its done locally. Think of how difficult it would be to have a central world wide government, its hard enough just to run one country...

Good point. But I was refering to not actually seperating people like you seprate different speices ..the way people think of seperation. Like saying blacks aren't good enough and they should be slaves. Just one example. But things like that. ..i explained that really bad ..couldn't find a way to say it sorry.

Countries should settle their differences without any bloodshed. If they felt fighting it out was the only solution, then let them duke it out in a virtual war in Socom or a similar game. Think of all the money saved on weapons that could go to education and healthcare. No more lost lives and no more disabled veterans.

Conflict has been part of human civilization since the beginning. The only way that the world would peacefully unite in brotherhood is if we were threatened by beings from another planet.

I would deffo go for the way they had it going in the old film Robot jox, now that would do just nicely. =]

& I concur, we need E.T to come down for a rumble. That would help, but do you think it would be just a temporary measure or would mankind be doomed to keep on repeating the mistake of killing each other once all the alien slime or whatever had been dealt with....

& the way military R&D is going they are actually trying to bring out technology where troops would no longer have to enter a battlefield, but instead would control mechs on the battlefield from a rear echelon position through VR type equipment, everything from UAFV's to crack infantry robot soldiers.

Vehicles mounted with technology such as Metal Storm would only make war a much messier business but one that wouldn't last long before there were no more troops left to fight.
http://www.roger-raymond.tmfweb.nl/metal.jpg
Firing power = 1 million rounds per minute.
Can be programmed to fire different types of ordanance in various styles/patterns for maximum devastation.

Read more about it & become very scared here.
http://www.metalstorm.com/
The video section is jaw dropping stuff.
That thing alone made me glad I got out of the military when I did.

good call Tom

The pentagon have been investing money into exoskeletons for some time now. Thing is, there will always be a counter-measure. I can just imagine these exoskeletons walking along with their human operators inside and then someone lets off an EMP!

I seem to remember an episode of Star Trek when there was a virtual war going on. When an area of the city had been deemed to be destroyed by a missile strike, the residents had to go to an extermination chamber to be killed. That way, they didn't have to keep rebuilding the infrastructure or lose old architecture, art, etc. It was very odd.

Agree completely Piner!

And Taz that is not a bad idea.

What isn't? 0-o

& the way military R&D is going they are actually trying to bring out technology where troops would no longer have to enter a battlefield, but instead would control mechs on the battlefield from a rear echelon position through VR type equipment, everything from UAFV's to crack infantry robot soldiers

Great for us that can afford the stuff, not for those who cannot & are sending men & boys out onto the battlefield to fight them...

It would be like King Arthurs knights trying to take on Challenger II tanks & Longbow Apaches...

See man has evolved so far that now to do his favourite past time he has to be careful because he has got so smart he is too destructive...

No country is daft enough to screw the world up with a full on nuke attack, they have to find other less deadly ways of showing their superiority with toys that are just as lethal but in different ways.

It's a sad paradox that mankind is at it's most inventive when creating ways or things to destroy each other. =/

king arthur was elite, dont underestimate

I seen first hand what a Challenger II & a Longbow Apache are capable of, & no way would a sword & a shield last .2 of a nano second against them.

Those things together are fearsome in a awe inspiring way.

Arthur may have been good, but he was not [b]that[/b] good...

he had lancelot

end of story

lol. ..and good point taz...

I usually see Israel seperate from the Middle East just because it seems seperate, religion is different, terrain is different, etc...the Crusades were to liberate Israel the rest of the Middle East was just a way to get there...

The IRA is essentially free speech they can do whatever the heck they want as long as they aren't planning on hurting anybody or breaking laws which they don't...

Like GT says, technology won't help anything violence-wise, all it does is give the people who want to do the fighting "bigger guns" that do more damage, let's say AI does get made then you would not even know who is trying to kill you anymore, not to mention the fact that you'd have no chance of defeating him. :(

Finally, the only way I see peace actually happening is in a situation like 1984 and Brave New World, where the entire civilization is ruled by fear or by genetic alteration and the destruction of morality, respectively.

" he had lancelot "

I don't care what he got upto with Lancelot behind close doors....

Still wouldn't be able to beat a tank & a helicopter. =P

Example..

[Lancelot]
My Lord, look yonder on the horizon!

[Arthur]
YE GADS! Tis the workings of the devil!
What foul winged beast is this that invades my beloved Camelot?
Knights, too horse!

*Arthur looks around & sees Lancelot & the rest of the Round table posse galloping away in the opposite direction from the oncoming Apache*

Good thinking Lancelot, I have been thinking we need to move to sunnier climbs, like Jordan!

KNAVE WHERE IS MY HORSE?
A horse a horse my kingdom (Or what is left of it after that flying beat & rolling devil have finished with it!) for a horse!

*Challenger II rolls over Arthur thus ending the legend of Arthur*

=D

...why do people have to fight ..to hate ..I know there are going to be disagreement but am I the only one that thinks war is going a little to far..? (sigh) Do they not realize what they are doing?

" ...why do people have to fight ..to hate .."

Now there is the 64 million pound question.

Take ya pick, greed, envy, prejudice, ignorance...

The list is endless.

Don't forget fear, uneducated, overpopulation, ego’ and world economics.
What it really comes down to is the others tribe is getting to big or has more then us and if it wont share. war!

I'm not so sure about the apaches. They seemed to fall out of the sky in Iraq fairly often.

" Don't forget..."

I did say the list is endless. *rasies eyebrow*

I knew the reasons but I just don't know why it has to lead to violence ..stupid people..

dont forget defense

I agree with that CaptainHero. They did seem to fall out of the sky allot. But I guess its like going on a date to the beach the the darn sand gets into every thing.

...Lancelot didn't have rocket launchers...

excalibur?

Sword Vs Rockets?

m'kay.....

they could throw them?
really hard?
oh whatever :p

Longbow Apache 1 - Knghts of the round table nil.

Round 2 will not be taking place in a desert area for fear of an Apache falling out of the sky & crushing knights, we feel this scenario would give the Apache an unfair if some what silly advantage. ;)

=P

35 Iraqi children killed by a bomb while waiting in line to get candy from American soldiers - if I was a tear shedder I would have broken down instantly after hearing this.

Who here thinks the people responsible for this shouldnt die?

Well of course the soldiers will get blamed for this because they were the ones making the kids stand out in the open....

& no, I am not being serious, but you watch someone in the media come out with something similar.

It's a sad state of affairs. =/

That is a big portion of the reason things look as bad as they do. We are close to winning the war in iraq, we are so so close to establishing democracy and giving those people freedom.

But you don't see this in the media. All you see is bombs going off, terrorists and the radical malcontent minority standing in the streets waiving signs.

You don't see the happy people, the people crying for joy that American soldiers have come to save them. You don't see the pictures of iraqi children smiling and joyful, running up and hugging our fighting men and women, because they had the guts to do their job.

The liberal media is killing our country, bit by bit. Biased and hateful and liberal, they are sucking the life out of our country. And soon, it will die because of it. Unless we do something.

Of all the greatest nations, the ones who fell, did not fall because of some outside force, but some inside rot. Some gnawing, rotting, infectious desease of morality or politics or discontent, steadily eating away at the heart of all that made the nation great.

So it is right now with America. The liberal news media, the public school and it's liberal, communisitic, propaganda pushing teachers, just to name a few.

I love my country, and it kills me to see this happening.