Steve Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 Alholk we don't have to replace oil, even if Hybrids are used it would massively reduce the reliance on oil. America produces a lot of oil itself, if hybrids were common place its possible America could rely on only the oil it produces and perhaps maybe some outside oil from Mexico. The point is whether its hybrids, or fuel cell, or something else, we (America and Europe collectively) should agree on something that would negate the west having to use middle east oil or reduce its present consumption dramatically. Its all fine and well that Sweden is doing things but I hope that the west can get together on a unilateral agreement on what to do. As for immigration, I am not saying denying those running away from oppression. I have no problem with even some middle eastern immigrants if we can be fairly certain they have no terrorist ties or ideology that supports them. I am only talking of immigrants from countries with a strong anti west bias. If these immigrants, whether they are persian, arabs or whatever are anti terrorism and that thinking, fine, they are welcome. As for others; why invite a bomber into your home (country)? Makes no sense. I would also suggest that the west curtail trade with nations that turn a blind eye to terrorists in their countries or even encourages via schools, etc. (Syria, Saudi Arabia). I don't recall the areas, lazyphil may have touched on a few (possible Luton?), but there were reports of fighting between Pakistanis and Brits for a few years now due to racial conflicts. These acts will escalate such conflicts. Does any Brit on here see the same happening in London? I am curious if it will happen there. Certain acts are going to happen. With well over 58 million people there will be some acts. But by and large it will be far, far less than if the reverse would have happened in one of the middle east countries. Not saying its right, but western citizens do show far more restraint than their middle eastern counterparts. My overall point is reduce or if possible eliminate the reliance on oil from the middle east and that will eliminate our 'need' for a presense there and leave them to themselves. Their economy is based on oil production. Most of the governments are corrupt and/or incompetant. Remove a common enemy and the people will see that for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 krml said:Well if you want to get into history this is way beyond bin laden and the U.S. This actually started with the first crusade. The Catholic church deciding that Muslims were barbarians. How did it start? The Muslims who controlled the Holy Land were charging pilgrims a fee to travel through the land to get to Jerusalem. The church took offense to this and waged war indiscriminately killing anyone when they sacked Jerusalem. The Muslims when they controlled the city allowed people of all religions to practice their faith. This of course changed when the church controlled the city. Believe me the Muslims in the Middle East still have not forgotten this even though it was almost 900 years ago. This is of course the super condensed version. Islam is being twisted into some evil thing by people like bin laden. Christianity has had its share as well. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. Never thought you would see this on these pages did you? The historical aspects of these have little or no basis for the attacks. We're involved in their lives over there via business (oil), military presense (Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia), and a political presense (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc.) or moslems on western soil being perceived as persecuted (Chechnya). Remove that and these attacks stop. Everyone has some beef with someone over history. But they don't plant bombs over it. They use history to help spur people on, not as a basis for terrorist attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 Luton is one flash point, old Lancashire Mill Towns have issues where my cousin works. Also not long ago Afghan and Pakistanis (at each other no whites : were going hell for leather in Peterborough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 <<Everyone has some beef with someone over history. But they don't plant bombs over it. They use history to help spur people on, not as a basis for terrorist attacks. >> Look at CS, your ancestors were seriously shafted and I dont sense an ounce of hate in your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 Hi! The problem with alternative energy sources is that they are not economically viable. If these immigrants, whether they are persian, arabs or whatever are anti terrorism and that thinking, fine, they are welcome. As for others; why invite a bomber into your home (country)? The flaw in this reasoning is that the democrasy that I'm sure we both believe in requires that all people are treated equally. Remember "Animal farm" - "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. regards ALHOLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_66_UK Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 As I said in my earlier post, am not in London. Yestereday at work no one mentioned it, indeed I had forgotten about it until picking up a newspaper at lunchtime, the first few pages were interesting, but I soon got bored of the subject (as they had very few facts to report) and looked for more interesting things to read. Down the pub after work, I don't recall it being discussed - but I had been drinking! Funnily enough though, during my few interactions with folk I don't know outside work, folk have seemed freindlier with strangers - but this could be just my imagination. (but not many Arabs or Muslims in my neck of the woods). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 The Bush family is strongly tied to oil ------------------------------------------- That's just a footnote, IMO. WE are tied to oil, americans are completely crazy about their carS. They'll pay anyhting to keep the freedom to drive as wished. that's one freedom the patriot plan will never ever go after, of course. In general, I think we should not throw names, all administrations have treated the Saudis royally, but look at ourselves in the mirror as a glutting nation once in a while, to understand our reliance on foreign reserves of anything, not just oil. That's what Blair and euros is trying to work out with the US, re-appraise this unchecked gluttony, because the chinese or indians won't do it, if we don't either. Now, in the name of economy, we are passing the results of our irresponsability to the next generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 Regarding any action without considering it's reasons is a very dangerous analasys ------------------------------------- Ok, I will be clearer. If some guy is tried, having killed his cheating wife, the reasons are never passed under the carpet, but he still has to be judged and sentenced for murder, not "love betrayal", not romantic notions about "cheated affection". But that's what Bush and Co did, pretexting a poliitical amalgam, to go after Saddam. It has really complicated the whole "go after the terrorists" stance. I think the military brass has well indicated that invading Irak, took a lot of resources from the good jod started in Afghanistan, and we end up with news of army units letting the pakistanese Army dealing with Bin Laden when they knew excatly where he was. Doing that was a political decision, not trying to get a sponsor of mass-murdering. There is still too many decisions made where not offending muslims is more important than getting the job done. IMO, that's a sign of weakness. If you catch a murderer, there may be some people who though he was cool, a redresser of wrongs, but that's skin deep stuff. everyone knows, and muslims as well, you kill innocents, you pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 Hi! Wthout expressing any support for terrorists I still maintain that failing to understand the underlying reasons is equivalent with failing to solve the problem. I doubt if any action in history has created so many new terrorists as the invasion of Iraq. There is still too many decisions made where not offending muslims is more important than getting the job done. Absolutely, just as there are to many decisions made to not offend christians. Religious nutters shold always be kept on the shortest possible leash. everyone knows, and muslims as well, you kill innocents, you pay for it. Except of course if the killer is sitting in a high altitude bomber and wearing a uniform. regards ALHOLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 a Mosque in Leeds was fire bombed yesterday??. A few have been valdalised in Aukland NZ too. Since Thursday. 4 I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.