More AQ threats to Europe
FACE
Maybe if some of these cities would just declare themselves Holy Cities of
Islam.....that seems to work in Iraq.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBKX0XO8XD.html
~~~~
Thursday, July 29
Al-Qaida-Linked Statement Threatens 'waterfalls of Blood' in Europe
By Maggie Michael Associated Press Writer
Published: Jul 29, 2004
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - A statement purportedly from an al-Qaida-linked group
threatens "waterfalls of blood" in European cities because the continent
didn't respond to Osama bin Laden's demand that they leave Iraq and
Afghanistan within three months.
The statement, dated Wednesday, was posted on an Islamic Web Site known for
its extremist content. It was written in the name of the Abu Hafs al-Masri
Brigades, which has made similar threats in the past,
According to the threat, Italy will be the first to face attack for not
meeting bin Laden's demand. Premier Silvio Berlusconi has been a steadfast
U.S. ally and contributed about 3,000 soldiers to the coalition, behind only
the United States and Britain. Poland has about 2,400 troops in Iraq, while
several other European countries have smaller contingents there.
"We will create waterfalls of blood that will drag you to their depths. You
have condemned your people to that. The infidel Europe has done the same to
its people by following America. We will destroy European cities, starting
by you, Berlusconi," the statement said. "The cities will bleed until all of
you, European leaders and people, come to your senses. Withdraw your deadly
missions from Iraq."
The same group made a similar threat against Italy on Monday.
<more>
~~~~
And the beat goes on.......
FACE
Naidoo
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ep2ig0lef465a9o6d...@4ax.com...
I wonder sometimes if a large scale terrorist attack happens in W. Europe,
will the US lift a finger to help. Certainly Italy, Britain, Poland and
much of E. Europe would get help no questions asked. But in all
seriousness, I have a hard time imagining it for France, Germany, Russia,
Spain and the like. Unless it is like one pundit put it, the US acts like
it has battered wife syndrome. Europe sucks the US dry for 50+ years,
abuses us and we keep coming back for more based on the illusion of a real
partnership. Even the most battered wife has her breaking point.
To be honest, I hope it is here.
XN
FACE
uk.current-events.terrorism wrote:
>
>I wonder sometimes if a large scale terrorist attack happens in W. Europe,
>will the US lift a finger to help. Certainly Italy, Britain, Poland and
>much of E. Europe would get help no questions asked. But in all
>seriousness, I have a hard time imagining it for France, Germany, Russia,
>Spain and the like. Unless it is like one pundit put it, the US acts like
>it has battered wife syndrome. Europe sucks the US dry for 50+ years,
>abuses us and we keep coming back for more based on the illusion of a real
>partnership. Even the most battered wife has her breaking point.
>
>To be honest, I hope it is here.
>
>XN
>
As a bottom line analogy, the pundit put it well.
I imagine that the US will continue to play the free world's Dudley Dooright
though.
FACE
The Happy Hippy
"Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote ...
> I wonder sometimes if a large scale terrorist attack happens in W. Europe,
> will the US lift a finger to help.
I doubt it; America didn't deport those alleged to be responsible for
terrorist attacks in Europe.
While innocent British civilians, men, women and children, were beeing
killed, maimed and murdered, the US put those suspected of being responsible
and involved out of reach of justice. While terrorist groups were committing
outrageous acts of violence and death, the US did very little to stop those
involved from receiving funding.
> Certainly Italy, Britain, Poland and
> much of E. Europe would get help no questions asked.
Except when it comes to deporting terrorists the UK wanted to put on trial.
> But in all
> seriousness, I have a hard time imagining it for France, Germany, Russia,
> Spain and the like.
So do I. If the US were able to act in a grown up manner when disagreements
occur, it may be a different story.
> Unless it is like one pundit put it, the US acts like
> it has battered wife syndrome. Europe sucks the US dry for 50+ years,
LOL. You really do have an over-inflated view of America.
> abuses us
And what is this abuse you've suffered at the hands of Europe in the last 50
years ?
> and we keep coming back for more based on the illusion of a real
> partnership. Even the most battered wife has her breaking point.
>
> To be honest, I hope it is here.
To be honest, a great many people wish the US would stop interfering with
Europe and the rest of the world except when invited to.
Naidoo
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bCgOc.1411$tW2....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote ...
>
> > I wonder sometimes if a large scale terrorist attack happens in W.
Europe,
> > will the US lift a finger to help.
>
> I doubt it; America didn't deport those alleged to be responsible for
> terrorist attacks in Europe.
Where is Stumpy-Jihad boy by the way?
>
> While innocent British civilians, men, women and children, were beeing
> killed, maimed and murdered, the US put those suspected of being
responsible
> and involved out of reach of justice. While terrorist groups were
committing
> outrageous acts of violence and death, the US did very little to stop
those
> involved from receiving funding.
I take it you mean the IRA? The US gov't has never funded the terrorist
groups in the UK. Private citizens probably have and will likely continue
until they are caught. Thank God for the Patriot Act. Perhaps these cunts
will be caught.
>
> > Certainly Italy, Britain, Poland and
> > much of E. Europe would get help no questions asked.
>
> Except when it comes to deporting terrorists the UK wanted to put on
trial.
Now, just where where is Nubby-Jihad boy?
>
> > But in all
> > seriousness, I have a hard time imagining it for France, Germany,
Russia,
> > Spain and the like.
>
> So do I. If the US were able to act in a grown up manner when
disagreements
> occur, it may be a different story.
Grown up? I was just thinking the same thing about Europe.
>
> > Unless it is like one pundit put it, the US acts like
> > it has battered wife syndrome. Europe sucks the US dry for 50+ years,
>
> LOL. You really do have an over-inflated view of America.
>
> > abuses us
>
> And what is this abuse you've suffered at the hands of Europe in the last
50
> years ?
Sucking on the teat of American protection while Europe has grown weaker.
It's a shame really. The spicket should have been cut off in 1949.
>
> > and we keep coming back for more based on the illusion of a real
> > partnership. Even the most battered wife has her breaking point.
> >
> > To be honest, I hope it is here.
>
> To be honest, a great many people wish the US would stop interfering with
> Europe and the rest of the world except when invited to.
Sounds good to me. Next time, take care of your own backyard yourself.
We'll just stand over here and say, "Go, man go!"
XN
Naidoo
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bCgOc.1411$tW2....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote ...
>
>
> > and we keep coming back for more based on the illusion of a real
> > partnership. Even the most battered wife has her breaking point.
> >
> > To be honest, I hope it is here.
>
> To be honest, a great many people wish the US would stop interfering with
> Europe and the rest of the world except when invited to.
As I have stated before, I am an isolationist, along with 35% of Americans,
so not interfering suits me just fine. However, I would want it to be
almost total.
Disengagement as I see it.....
1. Pull our primary ambassadors out of the UN and send in a lackey instead.
The UN is a corrupt institution with no change in sight. The US should then
in turn cut our contribution to the UN from 7 billion yearly to 18.7
million that the Chinese pay. This amount should then be cut by a million
every year from then on out until we pay the average amount that other
countries pay. Unfortunately, the US cannot evict the UN, they own the
land. But our role in it should be one of observer at best.
2. Pull all US forces, bases, military installations, hospitals, airbases,
any bombs and whatnot from all over the world--including Europe, Turkey,
Japan, South Korea, Kosovo, Iraq and anywhere else. Also, all foreign
forces training under the NATO banner should be evicted from the US and sent
home.
3. NATO gets pitched too. No need for it. All funding and training of
this institution should cease immediately.
4. All funding for Israel, the Palestinians should stop now. All further
dealings with either party can be handled by Europe. If the Israel's want
to come to the US and live in peace, sounds good. They can have Nevada. It
would be perfect. It's sandy and they could war with Reno and Las Vegas.
It would be just like home.
5. All US funding for AIDS in foreign countries should be reduced from $2.4
billion a year (nearly twice as much to fight AIDS as the rest of the
world's donor governments combined) to match what maybe France or the UK pay
yearly.
Those are the immediate needs I see.
The only places we should involve ourselves is the Americas. Perhaps more
on that later.
XN
The Happy Hippy
"Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote ...
[snips]
> Now, just where where is Nubby-Jihad boy?
Who ????
> Sounds good to me. Next time, take care of your own backyard yourself.
> We'll just stand over here and say, "Go, man go!"
That reflects precisely what I meant about becoming grown up.
Naidoo
That firebrand "imam" who stumps (excuse the pun) in Britain. You know, the
one without any hands.
yhkhfhjkhjk
<nai...@bigfoot.com> writes
>..
>
>1. Pull our primary ambassadors out of the UN and send in a lackey instead.
>The UN is a corrupt institution with no change in sight. The US should then
>in turn cut our contribution to the UN from 7 billion yearly to 18.7
>million that the Chinese pay. This amount should then be cut by a million
>every year from then on out until we pay the average amount that other
>countries pay. Unfortunately, the US cannot evict the UN, they own the
>land. But our role in it should be one of observer at best.
YES Please!!!! that way we don't have the USA vetoing more UN
resolutions that all the rest put together.
>2. Pull all US forces, bases, military installations, hospitals, airbases,
>any bombs and whatnot from all over the world--including Europe, Turkey,
>Japan, South Korea, Kosovo, Iraq and anywhere else.
YES!!!
However this will severely weaken the US economy
>Also, all foreign
>forces training under the NATO banner should be evicted from the US and sent
>home.
Interesting see below*
>3. NATO gets pitched too. No need for it. All funding and training of
>this institution should cease immediately.
Interesting... Please note:-
The CIA was initially set up with help from MI6 (in the UK)
The UK also helped set up and train the NSA
The Delta Force was set up along the lines of the British SAS and much
initial training of Delta Force came from the UK. Incidentally on le fir
Hollywood films about Detla Force in the Middle east has the same plot
as a real French SF operation not a US one.
The Current FIBUA training centre in California (set up to teach the US
forces how to cope with Iraq) is a copy of the UK system and indeed the
initial training of the US instructors was done by the British Royal
Marines.
In GW1 and GW2 all the major SF work was done by the Brits (and the
French in GW1)
All the low level precision bombing was done by the UK and French in
GW1... Operation Red Flag in the USA is used by the US to gain skills
from the other NATO forces.
Most of the CT training of the Mujhadin in Afghanistan was done by the
Brits (up near Fort William in the traditional Army Commando training
area) because the Us has nothing comparable.
In short the US gets more Special forces, counter terrorist and other
training from NATO members than it gives out.
A British Military commander said the other day that whilst we may fight
*with* the US forces there is no way we would fight *like* the US
forces... We would never sink that low. NATO is effectively training the
US forces NOT the other way round.
>4. All funding for Israel, the Palestinians should stop now. All further
>dealings with either party can be handled by Europe. If the Israel's want
>to come to the US and live in peace, sounds good. They can have Nevada. It
>would be perfect. It's sandy and they could war with Reno and Las Vegas.
>It would be just like home.
Now that is a VERY good idea! Seriously I think that is a good solution.
The Mormons have Utah the Israelis can have Nevada... I think it is
bigger than Israel though you would have to split out Las Vegas and the
whore houses as the strict Jews would not hold with it. However despite
some problems with the details I think this is a DAMNED GOOD IDEA!
>5. All US funding for AIDS in foreign countries should be reduced from $2.4
> billion a year (nearly twice as much to fight AIDS as the rest of the
>world's donor governments combined) to match what maybe France or the UK pay
>yearly.
Seems reasonable. I have no argument with this.
>Those are the immediate needs I see.
>
>The only places we should involve ourselves is the Americas. Perhaps more
>on that later.
Yes. North America only. Your forays in to South America, especially in
the drugs war have depended on the SAS and KMS :-)
So talk to Mexico... maybe even incorporate Mexico into the US. Canada
is another matter though. I think you may find that they want to side
with Europe. Well France for a lot of them.
Overall I thing your suggestions would be very good for the world.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Naidoo
"yhkhfhjkhjk" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:J9Ig8MAp...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <BdydnX93aum...@giganews.com>, Naidoo
> <nai...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >..
> >
> >1. Pull our primary ambassadors out of the UN and send in a lackey
instead.
> >The UN is a corrupt institution with no change in sight. The US should
then
> >in turn cut our contribution to the UN from 7 billion yearly to 18.7
> >million that the Chinese pay. This amount should then be cut by a
million
> >every year from then on out until we pay the average amount that other
> >countries pay. Unfortunately, the US cannot evict the UN, they own the
> >land. But our role in it should be one of observer at best.
>
> YES Please!!!! that way we don't have the USA vetoing more UN
> resolutions that all the rest put together.
Agreed. I would also add to this that all UN members and staff must remain
on UN property only. All embassadors and staff would be moved from the NY
area and kept only on the land the UN owns.
>
> >2. Pull all US forces, bases, military installations, hospitals,
airbases,
> >any bombs and whatnot from all over the world--including Europe, Turkey,
> >Japan, South Korea, Kosovo, Iraq and anywhere else.
>
> YES!!!
>
> However this will severely weaken the US economy
Actually it will not. The troops should be redeployed to the borders and
the Americas. Right now there are ranchers who see illegals running through
their property to get into the US and find Muslim prayer rugs all over their
property from likely terrorists (or wannabe terrorists) who are smuggled in
by Mexican nationals. This needs to stop.
Interesting. Regardless, NATOs purpose has long past and the US engaging in
it is fruitless. The foreign troops in the American west who currently
train using US technology just wouldn't be needed any longer.
I envision the entire regions. The US surrounded by weaker neighbors is
just a bad idea. A strong and able South America and Mexico would go a long
way for the people who live there and it is of more interest to the US than
Kosovo, Bosnia, South Korea or the like.
>
> So talk to Mexico... maybe even incorporate Mexico into the US. Canada
> is another matter though. I think you may find that they want to side
> with Europe. Well France for a lot of them.
No. I think that sovereign nations are a better idea than a "United"
Americas. It would be detrimental to the culture of these regions to unify
as well as their security. I would hate to see the degredation of the
Americas the way the EU has done to Europe. Sovereignty and freedom are
more valuable to a people.
With regards to Canada, they would be free to choose what they like (you
know, that sovereignty thing.) It's their country; it's their choice.
>
> Overall I thing your suggestions would be very good for the world.
Thank you. I think it would be a good start for the US as a country and the
Americas as a region. Placing our resources closer to home and helping
those in our neighborhood would certainly strenghten the region. I believe
that a a US surrounded by successful nations can only help the entire
region.
XN
yhkhfhjkhjk
<nai...@bigfoot.com> writes
>
>"yhkhfhjkhjk" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:J9Ig8MAp...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <BdydnX93aum...@giganews.com>, Naidoo
>> <nai...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >..
>> >
>> >1. Pull our primary ambassadors out of the UN and send in a lackey
>instead.
>> >The UN is a corrupt institution with no change in sight. The US should
>then
>> >in turn cut our contribution to the UN from 7 billion yearly to 18.7
>> >million that the Chinese pay. This amount should then be cut by a
>million
>> >every year from then on out until we pay the average amount that other
>> >countries pay. Unfortunately, the US cannot evict the UN, they own the
>> >land. But our role in it should be one of observer at best.
>>
>> YES Please!!!! that way we don't have the USA vetoing more UN
>> resolutions that all the rest put together.
>
>Agreed. I would also add to this that all UN members and staff must remain
>on UN property only.
Most of the UN staff are US citizens....
> All embassadors and staff would be moved from the NY
>area and kept only on the land the UN owns.
It would make more sense to move the UN to Switzerland.
>> >2. Pull all US forces, bases, military installations, hospitals,
>airbases,
>> >any bombs and whatnot from all over the world--including Europe, Turkey,
>> >Japan, South Korea, Kosovo, Iraq and anywhere else.
>>
>> YES!!!
>>
>> However this will severely weaken the US economy
>
>Actually it will not. The troops should be redeployed to the borders and
>the Americas. Right now there are ranchers who see illegals running through
>their property to get into the US and find Muslim prayer rugs all over their
>property from likely terrorists (or wannabe terrorists) who are smuggled in
>by Mexican nationals. This needs to stop.
OK fair enough but you are missing a lot as you have a very blinkered
internal US view.
>> >Also, all foreign
>> >forces training under the NATO banner should be evicted from the US and
>sent
>> >3. NATO gets pitched too. No need for it. All funding and training of
>> >this institution should cease immediately.
>>
>Interesting. Regardless, NATOs purpose has long past and the US engaging in
>it is fruitless. The foreign troops in the American west who currently
>train using US technology just wouldn't be needed any longer.
Not true... one of the main areas where the US is VERY weak is counter
terrorist work the best people in the world at this are the Brits and
the French. You need this training today which is why the Brits have
only just finished (in the last month) doing the FIBUA stuff in the new
installation in the US.
The US still needs an awful lot of help but as long as it does not stray
outside it's won borders no one will care.
>> Yes. North America only. Your forays in to South America, especially in
>> the drugs war have depended on the SAS and KMS :-)
>
>I envision the entire regions. The US surrounded by weaker neighbors is
>just a bad idea. A strong and able South America and Mexico would go a long
>way for the people who live there and it is of more interest to the US than
>Kosovo, Bosnia, South Korea or the like.
I said NORTH America including Mexico. The main successes in the South
against drugs have been due to the involvement of British SF and KMS,
also some French (again)
See the comments above about how weak the US is in CT warfare and Police
actions. Like in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq you may win a full
on battle field fight but you can't win any other type of fight.
Tanks, Aircraft and ICBM's don't work in the low level terrorist war you
will face. Just look at how many illegal aliens your battle field army
stops.
>> So talk to Mexico... maybe even incorporate Mexico into the US. Canada
>> is another matter though. I think you may find that they want to side
>> with Europe. Well France for a lot of them.
>
>No. I think that sovereign nations are a better idea than a "United"
>Americas. It would be detrimental to the culture of these regions to unify
>as well as their security. I would hate to see the degredation of the
>Americas the way the EU has done to Europe. Sovereignty and freedom are
>more valuable to a people.
It has happened already to the US.... The countries of the EU are on a
par with the states of the US! So how much sovereignty do the US states
have? Europe is far less controlled by the EU council than the US
states are controlled by the Federal US.
>With regards to Canada, they would be free to choose what they like (you
>know, that sovereignty thing.) It's their country; it's their choice.
I doubt it would side with the US. Have you tried calling a Canadian "an
American"? they don't like it.
>> Overall I thing your suggestions would be very good for the world.
>
>Thank you. I think it would be a good start for the US as a country and the
>Americas as a region. Placing our resources closer to home and helping
>those in our neighborhood would certainly strenghten the region. I believe
>that a a US surrounded by successful nations can only help the entire
>region.
I didn't say I thought it would be good for the US but It would be good
for the world. This is why your leaders will not let it happen. the US
could not survive in the same way with your suggestions. the US big
business needs the world markets.
In many areas you survive on foreign labour. Your hi-tech and aerospace
industries particularly and we are talking graduate level people here.
Anyway good luck with your suggestions.
BTW Putting the Israelis in Nevada (minus the gambling and prostitution)
is a VERY good idea for all concerned I think. Though I doubt the
Zionists will play ball.
It will immediately make the US a hero in the Arab and Islamic world. It
will stop ALL the middle east terror (and stop the US being a target) It
will stabilise the price of oil. I expect the Israelis will want to
remove (brick by brick) some buildings and temple and require permanent
at staff and access to others in Palestine. However I can't see the
Palestinians objecting to that sort of thing.
Naidoo
The service staff, sure. However, every representative has a personal staff
and assistants from his or her native country. I mean country staffing not
those who serve them lunch in the cafeteria. The US should pull out all US
service staff and buttress the area away from all US soil. The UN delegates
should hire their own nationals to feed and care for them.
>
> > All embassadors and staff would be moved from the NY
> >area and kept only on the land the UN owns.
>
> It would make more sense to move the UN to Switzerland.
Sounds great. They would have to sell the land back to the US though--at
market value.
>
> >> >2. Pull all US forces, bases, military installations, hospitals,
> >airbases,
> >> >any bombs and whatnot from all over the world--including Europe,
Turkey,
> >> >Japan, South Korea, Kosovo, Iraq and anywhere else.
> >>
> >> YES!!!
> >>
> >> However this will severely weaken the US economy
> >
> >Actually it will not. The troops should be redeployed to the borders and
> >the Americas. Right now there are ranchers who see illegals running
through
> >their property to get into the US and find Muslim prayer rugs all over
their
> >property from likely terrorists (or wannabe terrorists) who are smuggled
in
> >by Mexican nationals. This needs to stop.
>
> OK fair enough but you are missing a lot as you have a very blinkered
> internal US view.
Why, because I don't believe in the US being a slave to perception rather
the master of intent? Because I don't believe in the socialist "cradle to
grave" mindset that enslaves and distorts? Because I do not believe that
any people have a duty to be billed twice and then bitched at that they
aren't paying enough? Because I do not believe that sovereignty is for
sale?
>
>
> >> >Also, all foreign
> >> >forces training under the NATO banner should be evicted from the US
and
> >sent
> >> >3. NATO gets pitched too. No need for it. All funding and training
of
> >> >this institution should cease immediately.
> >>
> >Interesting. Regardless, NATOs purpose has long past and the US engaging
in
> >it is fruitless. The foreign troops in the American west who currently
> >train using US technology just wouldn't be needed any longer.
>
>
> Not true... one of the main areas where the US is VERY weak is counter
> terrorist work the best people in the world at this are the Brits and
> the French. You need this training today which is why the Brits have
> only just finished (in the last month) doing the FIBUA stuff in the new
> installation in the US.
>
> The US still needs an awful lot of help but as long as it does not stray
> outside it's won borders no one will care.
Actually, we are just new at counter terrorism, but we are getting better
and will likely continue to do so. Ahh, one more benefit to fighting the
Zarqawis in Iraq.
Anyway, I would hate the US to follow European policy in such matters. What
"works" for Europe has never worked for us. Europe is (for the most part) a
socialist/collectivism/appeasment based area. We are just not like that
here. I would hate the US to be hamstrung by French and British policy, any
more than you would want Europe or Britain to be hamstrung by ours.
>
>
> >> Yes. North America only. Your forays in to South America, especially in
> >> the drugs war have depended on the SAS and KMS :-)
> >
> >I envision the entire regions. The US surrounded by weaker neighbors is
> >just a bad idea. A strong and able South America and Mexico would go a
long
> >way for the people who live there and it is of more interest to the US
than
> >Kosovo, Bosnia, South Korea or the like.
>
> I said NORTH America including Mexico. The main successes in the South
> against drugs have been due to the involvement of British SF and KMS,
> also some French (again)
>
> See the comments above about how weak the US is in CT warfare and Police
> actions. Like in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq you may win a full
> on battle field fight but you can't win any other type of fight.
>
> Tanks, Aircraft and ICBM's don't work in the low level terrorist war you
> will face. Just look at how many illegal aliens your battle field army
> stops.
I read that you said north, but I disagreed. I think the US should focus
it's energy almost exclusively on the entirety of the Americas. That
includes South America.
With regard to the drugs in the south, if we pulled our resources from
dead-end areas as I lined out before, then this help you refer to would be
unnecessary. They could go home. Wouldn't it just be better for everyone
all around if the SF, KMS and the French just went home?
>
> >> So talk to Mexico... maybe even incorporate Mexico into the US. Canada
> >> is another matter though. I think you may find that they want to side
> >> with Europe. Well France for a lot of them.
> >
> >No. I think that sovereign nations are a better idea than a "United"
> >Americas. It would be detrimental to the culture of these regions to
unify
> >as well as their security. I would hate to see the degredation of the
> >Americas the way the EU has done to Europe. Sovereignty and freedom are
> >more valuable to a people.
>
> It has happened already to the US.... The countries of the EU are on a
> par with the states of the US! So how much sovereignty do the US states
> have? Europe is far less controlled by the EU council than the US
> states are controlled by the Federal US.
We are a republic, so yes...we have a central gov't with quasi-independent
states. What I would object to is a "United" Americas. I would hate to
have the Americas go through the French and German hegemony meat grinder as
the EU has done to Europe. Anyway, it would never fly in this region. This
hemesphere seems to be more independent minded and is unlikely to give up
sovereignty to such an arrangement.
>
> >With regards to Canada, they would be free to choose what they like (you
> >know, that sovereignty thing.) It's their country; it's their choice.
>
> I doubt it would side with the US. Have you tried calling a Canadian "an
> American"? they don't like it.
That would be their choice.
>
> >> Overall I thing your suggestions would be very good for the world.
> >
> >Thank you. I think it would be a good start for the US as a country and
the
> >Americas as a region. Placing our resources closer to home and helping
> >those in our neighborhood would certainly strenghten the region. I
believe
> >that a a US surrounded by successful nations can only help the entire
> >region.
>
> I didn't say I thought it would be good for the US but It would be good
> for the world. This is why your leaders will not let it happen. the US
> could not survive in the same way with your suggestions. the US big
> business needs the world markets.
That's too bad. The benefits to the US and the Americas would be
astounding. It would be fantastic to open up more universities and job
opportunities to the South Americans and the Mexicans. I think it would be
great.
>
> In many areas you survive on foreign labour. Your hi-tech and aerospace
> industries particularly and we are talking graduate level people here.
How perfect! That foreign labor could come from where it already
comes....Mexico, South America and so on. We could just limit others and
fill the spots with those from our own neighborhood and country.
>
> Anyway good luck with your suggestions.
>
> BTW Putting the Israelis in Nevada (minus the gambling and prostitution)
> is a VERY good idea for all concerned I think. Though I doubt the
> Zionists will play ball.
Perhaps not, but at least choaking off the funding for the two parties would
certainly help. I am sure Mrs. Arafat wouldn't like it too much, living
high on the hog in Paris as she does, but maybe it would push (even if
slightly) a more hasty resolution of the problem. I am sure that Hamas,
Hizbollah and Fatah would still get money from Europe, but that's not our
problem.
>
> It will immediately make the US a hero in the Arab and Islamic world. It
> will stop ALL the middle east terror (and stop the US being a target) It
> will stabilise the price of oil. I expect the Israelis will want to
> remove (brick by brick) some buildings and temple and require permanent
> at staff and access to others in Palestine. However I can't see the
> Palestinians objecting to that sort of thing.
Being a hero in the Arab world is like being a hero to Chirac, Schroeder,
Saddam or Arafat. It's pretty meaningless, but no entangling alliances and
no permanent friends only permanent interests are more important to the
Americas as a whole.
I don't think it would stop any anti-American sentiment in the world or the
attempts by terrorists to use Israel and the US as scapegoats to their own
failed nations and policies, but I think it would choke off their ability to
act on it physically inside the US.
Of course, while we shrug off the dead-weight, we should be investing and
continually developing independent fuel resources so that not a single dime
goes into the hands of any oil-producing nation.
XN
Arthur Figgis
wrote:
>Because I do not believe that sovereignty is for
>sale?
Not even in Louisiana or Alaska?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Naidoo
"Arthur Figgis" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:l51og0lalf2qbl6tt...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:23:35 -0400, "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Because I do not believe that sovereignty is for
> >sale?
>
> Not even in Louisiana or Alaska?
With regards to Alaska, I doubt the indiginous wildlife care much. The
native peoples of Alaska live independent of the US as the Amish do, so
you'd have to ask them.
I am surprised that the Louisiana Purchase bothers you. I would think the
conquering of the western states, the wholesale slaughter of the native
peoples by the early European settlers and slavery would bother you much
more.
XN
Mark Williams
> > > Now, just where where is Nubby-Jihad boy?
>
> That firebrand "imam" who stumps (excuse the pun) in Britain. You
> know, the one without any hands.
Do you mean Abu Hamza (the one with only one hand)? If so; he's on
remand pending an extradition hearing. What's your point?
--
Mark
Naidoo
"Mark Williams" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:m31xiro...@engine1.aziraphale.homeip.net...
Read the previous postings to follow the train of thought.
yhkhfhjkhjk
<nai...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >it is fruitless. The foreign troops in the American west who currently
>> >train using US technology just wouldn't be needed any longer.
>>
>>
>> Not true... one of the main areas where the US is VERY weak is counter
>> terrorist work the best people in the world at this are the Brits and
>> the French. You need this training today which is why the Brits have
>> only just finished (in the last month) doing the FIBUA stuff in the new
>> installation in the US.
>>
>> The US still needs an awful lot of help but as long as it does not stray
>> outside it's won borders no one will care.
>
>Actually, we are just new at counter terrorism, but we are getting better
>and will likely continue to do so. Ahh, one more benefit to fighting the
>Zarqawis in Iraq.
However you are making such a real mess of this (and in Afghanistan)
that you have been asking for a lot of UK help in how to do it.
>Anyway, I would hate the US to follow European policy in such matters. What
>"works" for Europe has never worked for us.
Actually it does and the repeated attitude of the Us saying what worked
for Europe does not work for us has given the US some of it's biggest
military failures. That is why out side Hollywood the US forces are
seen as generally no better than the average 3rd world army.
> Europe is (for the most part) a
>socialist/collectivism/appeasment based area.
Most of it is right of centre... It has been the socialist countries
like the UK that have been helping you. The right of centre countries
are the ones who were the most anti the US.
>We are just not like that
>here. I would hate the US to be hamstrung by French and British policy, any
>more than you would want Europe or Britain to be hamstrung by ours.
The French and British have had more military involvement around the
work than the US... the difference is they know what they were doing.
Look at Somalia. The French had it under control and very quiet with a
fraction the number of troops that the number of troops the US put in
when the replaced them. The also turned a stable quiet situation into a
war. the same thing happened in the Lebonon...
>
>I read that you said north, but I disagreed. I think the US should focus
>it's energy almost exclusively on the entirety of the Americas. That
>includes South America.
I doubt that. South America is very heavily aligned with Europe. the UK,
Spain and Portugal.
>With regard to the drugs in the south, if we pulled our resources from
>dead-end areas as I lined out before, then this help you refer to would be
>unnecessary. They could go home. Wouldn't it just be better for everyone
>all around if the SF, KMS and the French just went home?
No... the are working for the US because the US can't do it on it's own.
KMS was directly employed by the CIA.
You have a very unreal and over inflated idea of what the US forces are
capable of. Open battle field fights with massed tanks and aeroplanes
you win hands down every time. Anything else you make a right mess of
and *usually* have to be rescued by other forces. However this is
usually over looked in the US Media.
>> >No. I think that sovereign nations are a better idea than a "United"
>> >Americas. It would be detrimental to the culture of these regions to
>unify
>> >as well as their security. I would hate to see the degredation of the
>> >Americas the way the EU has done to Europe. Sovereignty and freedom are
>> >more valuable to a people.
>>
>> It has happened already to the US.... The countries of the EU are on a
>> par with the states of the US! So how much sovereignty do the US states
>> have? Europe is far less controlled by the EU council than the US
>> states are controlled by the Federal US.
>
>We are a republic, so yes...we have a central gov't with quasi-independent
>states. What I would object to is a "United" Americas. I would hate to
>have the Americas go through the French and German hegemony meat grinder as
>the EU has done to Europe. Anyway, it would never fly in this region. This
>hemesphere seems to be more independent minded and is unlikely to give up
>sovereignty to such an arrangement.
It has ALREADY happened. The equivalent in the US would be some states
going to war and some not. As you have said the states in the US are
"semi-independent" In Europe the states are far more independent.
What has happened in Us terms is The US saying We don't want to go to
war in Iraq and California saying we are going and shiiping it's troops
out.
Europe is a collection of sovereign countries/states. The US is a
collection of quasi-independant countries/states
Your state/country has virtually no sovereignty compared to my
country/state. When the federal government say jump you do as you are
told. When the EU council say jump It don't happen.
>> I didn't say I thought it would be good for the US but It would be good
>> for the world. This is why your leaders will not let it happen. the US
>> could not survive in the same way with your suggestions. the US big
>> business needs the world markets.
>
>That's too bad. The benefits to the US and the Americas would be
>astounding. It would be fantastic to open up more universities and job
>opportunities to the South Americans and the Mexicans. I think it would be
>great.
However the South Americans may not want it.
>> In many areas you survive on foreign labour. Your hi-tech and aerospace
>> industries particularly and we are talking graduate level people here.
>
>How perfect! That foreign labor could come from where it already
>comes....Mexico, South America and so on. We could just limit others and
>fill the spots with those from our own neighborhood and country.
Actually it comes from Europe. You are thinking about the low skilled
stuff. I was thinking about the high end aerospace, medical computing
professionals. About half the Boeing design engineers are European.
>> BTW Putting the Israelis in Nevada (minus the gambling and prostitution)
>> is a VERY good idea for all concerned I think. Though I doubt the
>> Zionists will play ball.
>
>Perhaps not, but at least choaking off the funding for the two parties would
>certainly help. I am sure Mrs. Arafat wouldn't like it too much, living
>high on the hog in Paris as she does, but maybe it would push (even if
>slightly) a more hasty resolution of the problem. I am sure that Hamas,
>Hizbollah and Fatah would still get money from Europe, but that's not our
>problem.
Hamas, Hizbollah and Fatah probably get less money from Europe than the
IRA terrorists got from the USA. However that pales into insignificance
compared to the millions the US governments funds Israel with
>> It will immediately make the US a hero in the Arab and Islamic world. It
>> will stop ALL the middle east terror (and stop the US being a target) It
>> will stabilise the price of oil. I expect the Israelis will want to
>> remove (brick by brick) some buildings and temple and require permanent
>> at staff and access to others in Palestine. However I can't see the
>> Palestinians objecting to that sort of thing.
>
>Being a hero in the Arab world is like being a hero to Chirac, Schroeder,
>Saddam or Arafat. It's pretty meaningless, but no entangling alliances and
>no permanent friends only permanent interests are more important to the
>Americas as a whole.
This is interesting as your president personally has a LOT of business
in the middle east (see 9/11, I know a lot of it is bollox but no one
has been able to sue him on the key points) The US oil industry depends
on the middle east.
>I don't think it would stop any anti-American sentiment in the world or the
>attempts by terrorists to use Israel and the US as scapegoats
It would as Israel would be in Nevada!
>to their own
>failed nations and policies,
Most nations haven't failed. I don't know where you get this idea from.
> but I think it would choke off their ability to
>act on it physically inside the US.
In what way? you have only had 2 terrorist attacks so far.
>Of course, while we shrug off the dead-weight, we should be investing and
>continually developing independent fuel resources so that not a single dime
>goes into the hands of any oil-producing nation.
Sounds like a good idea. Most of the world has been asking you to do
this for some years.
Arthur Figgis
wrote:
>I am surprised that the Louisiana Purchase bothers you.
It's not going to keep me awake at night, it is just that the name
"Purchase" suggests that sovereignty can be, quite literally, for
sale.
FACE
And then we have the Teapot Dome scandal, involving some of that same land
being sold multiple times. The whole world has revolved on money and barter
for time immemorial. Just as one example, the Spanish raped the Aztecs and
the Incas and genocidally destroyed them yet now the descendants of the
Spanish conquerors claim the land they stole as their own. Greed, the
glitter of gold and quests for raw power have always driven the expansionism
of humanity no matter how many sweet words it is wrapped up in. There are
exceptions, mostly in the dim past and mostly hunter gatherer groups who
moved to 'new lands' but they had a distinct tendency to just kill off or
drive out the previous inhabitants.
****
BTW, XN, the french army did defeat the vanguard of an expansionist islamic
army at Tours about a millennium ago. Scuttlebutt has it that the defeat
was because the muslim warrior-commander had been recently kilt.
That was one of the few battlefield victories of the french prior to that
Corsican.....who, also by the way crossed the alps on a donkey, not the
rearing white stallion of the painting. Nothing like a little propaganda,
eh?
FACE
Mark Williams
> "Mark Williams" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:m31xiro...@engine1.aziraphale.homeip.net...
> > "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> >
> > > > > Now, just where where is Nubby-Jihad boy?
> > >
> > > That firebrand "imam" who stumps (excuse the pun) in Britain.
> > > You know, the one without any hands.
> >
> > Do you mean Abu Hamza (the one with only one hand)? If so; he's
> > on remand pending an extradition hearing. What's your point?
>
> Read the previous postings to follow the train of thought.
You claimed that Britain (along with Italy, Poland and much of Eastern
Europe) `would get help no questions asked' in the wake of a terrorist
attack. The Happy Hippy pointed out that the US refused to extradite
alleged terrorists to the UK. You asked where `Nubby-Jihad boy' is.
If you're asking about Abu Hamza; then there doesn't seem to be much
of a train of thought to miss, but I still don't get whatever point it
is you're trying to make. Any elaboration would be welcomed.
--
Mark
Naidoo
"Mark Williams" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
Nubby Jihad boy has been asked to extradited to the US. Where is he?
XN
The Happy Hippy
"Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Q7KdnZm2LoE...@giganews.com...
Belmarsh Prison, London, UK. On remand, while extradition charges are
proceeding. Currently adjourned on interlocutries ( see below ), the full
hearing is due to resume in October 2004.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3856445.stm
But it's not going to be plain sailing having him extradited - it's out of
the hands of politicians and in the hands of the judiciary. Firstly the UK
won't extradite unless the US promises the death penalty will not be
applied, and secondly, the evidence against him is being argued as being
obtained under torture which may not be admissible in a UK court, or may
preclude a fair trial if he were extradited. On top of that no extradition
would likely take place if he doesn't get a fair trial in the US, and
there's a delay while the US government agrees a lawyer to represent him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/24/whamz24.xml&
sSheet=/news/2004/07/24/ixnewstop.html