Or does the US have the legitimate right to do this? (assuming it was the US that wanted the plane bugged)
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
No, the US doesn't have a legitimate right to spy. No nation has (talk about kicking in an open door). Happens anyway.
quote:The Washington Post quoted unidentified sources as saying Chinese aviation and military officers believe U.S. intelligence agencies planted the listening devices aboard the plane while it was being fitted in the United States with special bathroom and other accommodations for President Jiang Zemin.
The CIA had no comment.
Doesn't really matter where the devices where planted. Wether the CIA has comments or not is also irrelevant, since it's pretty obvious which organisation is responsible for planting the bugs - and it ain't Wal-Mart.
'Course, espionage is a dirty business. Though I doubt the Chinese have wired AF1&2, you can bet that they too are running their own little operations (EVIL COMMIES!).
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Rather then blaming criminal masterminds or political radicals over sea for the recent terrorist events that took place over in the States, American should really think about why almost everyone pick them as the target...
BECAUSE SOMETIME YOU GUYS DESERVE IT!
And this is just one of the many example that make people all over the world dislike the Americans.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Norman: HOLY FUCKING SHIT, THAT'S A BIG-ASS CAN OF WORMS!
Reman: Yeah, here help me with this.
Norman: WHOA! YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN THAT BASTARD?
Norman is loud. That's why the funny comes.
Oh, and maybe he says things without thinking too much, and is incoherent. That's why the irony comes. Except he's not Blue or an Energetic Particle-type deal.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Everyone does it. Indeed, global security is somewhat dependant on everyone doing it. China understands that. Most analysts aren't expecting any serious fallout. Indeed, the point is America got nailed and the Chinese are fuming to an extent but are moreso pointing and laughing.
Fine, well and good. But I'm just sick of America playing the "peerless and righteous defender of freedom" card at every turn when time and again its been established that they hit below the belt. In this case, its no biggie because nobody's gotten hurt. But when its training assasins and torturing people and deposing governments that disagree with them its a somewhat different matter.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
yeah. those people who got burned to death/crushed to death/fell to their death at the WTC were the ones behind all that sinister shit that goes on in the United States name around the globe. They totally deserved what they got.
actually, I get the sarcastic tone of the above. what ticks me off is that the bugs were found. How inept were these guys? It was like a fifth graders plan.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: thoughtcriminal84 ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
*smacks BE*
Does that mean we have a legitimate reason to hate the Chinese and bomb the Great Wall, because they have elint boats disguised as fishing trawlers off our western coast? Hm?
Don't hate US, for what YOU DO TOO.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Let them find a few bugs, but make sure one or two are truly hidden.....
BE, that was bad.......
Like that disagreeable Taliban.....
Is is 'gremlins' or 'graemlins'??? Look to the left and below the 'Add Reply' button.....
We really do need a a member from the Taliban here.... Although I guess since they really hate the evil infidel created internet wee can.....
U.S.S.R. did our embassy, we do China's plane, China probably did bug the Russians somewhere along the lines.... If you have nothing to hide it woulldn't matter, crap, if someone bugged me they'd see how boring my life is.....
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Don't get me wrong, I feel sympathy towards the victims of general public. I'm saying that general public should focus more on American forenign policies (like, keep their government on butting in on business of other nations, and refraining from playing boss all the time.)
Fishing boat? Dude, you gotta show more proof then that.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Is is 'gremlins' or 'graemlins'??? Look to the left and below the 'Add Reply' button....."
I'm not sure what this has to do w/ anything, but the reason it says "Graemlins" is apparently because the guy who made the smilies was named "Graeme".
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
BE, EVERY government butts in on the business of every other. Such is the nature of international politics. If you don't like it, I have some nice warm covers you can pull over your head. If the US just happens to be better at it, that's merely a sign that we're the most adept at looking out for our own interests.
Do you remember the hoopla about the USSR bugging all over the US Embassy in Moscow, back in the 70-80's? I do.
[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I could be wrong, but didn't Reagan order a tunnel dug under the Soviet embassy for the same purpose?
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Sure, you're right, everyone in the world butt in on other's business, but U.S. exercise it to such an extreme extend that they piss most people off.
That's why I said that U.S. are somewhat responsible for the attacks
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
so, by that logic, If you piss me off, I can come and blow up your house, and you'll be one responsible for it.
nice.
to be fair, I understand where you're coming from. The US does cause alot of pain in this world. The US arguably also has the largest propaganda blanket in the world as well...one that blinds many of it's citizens to the world.
But these punks that think they can change something by killing innocents in a building? They're not changing anything. In fact, they're making things worse, causing their own situation to rot even faster than it would've otherwise.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Well, I'm not saying that terrorists are justify to attack U.S. because U.S. pissed people off.
Terroists are moraless killing machines that should be shot for blowing innocent people up, BUT U.S. is stupid enough by attracting the unwanted attention of terriorst onto themself by playing boss and butting in on others all the time.
U.S. should ask themself this question: How come terrorists always pick us?
And the answer is not "because we're the symbol of freedom" or "they're jealous of how well we're doing", the real answer is that people are sick of how U.S. always trying to tell them how to live their live and how to govern their country.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Er, maybe, why do the wipes from the Middle East pick us....
England can ask the same for the IRA.....
Israel the same as US....
Political and idealogical beliefs differ....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Terrorists DON'T always pick the US, BE. Your historical/sociopolitical naivete astounds me.
There have been terrorist incidents all over the world. Spain, France, the UK, Malaysia, Russia, Colombia, Brazil, Yemen, Kenya, EVERYWHERE. And as often as not, NOT directed towards the US.
Telling us that ONE country needs to change its policies because it's been attacked, while all the others do not, is... well, I can't think of a better word for it... DUMB. It's also bowing to what the terrorists want, in a FUTILE hope that "Oh, if we change, they won't blow up things anymore!" They won't. They'll just move on to newer goals of their bombing.
Terrorists are out of a job, if a peaceful solution happens, peace isn't in their interests.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
While it's true that terrorisim also happened in other countries, but the magnitude and freqency is nothing compare to the terrorism committed towards U.S.
Plus, most of them are DOMESTIC outside of U.S., while U.S. are getting both domestic and international.
Domestic terrorism usually means people inside their own country are not happy with the way how society works, while international terrorisms are commited because your country piss other people in other nations off.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Terrorists are out of a job, if a peaceful solution happens, peace isn't in their interests.
I'm sure Rob'll argue me about this, but George Washington essentially led terrorists to overthrow British occupation in the American colonies. When the French assisted and the British were beaten, Rob would have you believe that Washington was willing to lead an invasion force to England to burn London down.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Can you name any Continental Army attacks on civilian nonmilitary targets?
I can name a few Britih attacks of that kind.
Who, then, were the terrorists?
Only a terrorist like that guy in that TNG episode that they censored in the UK (can't remember the name) would compare Washington with BinLaden.
quote:Rob would have you believe that Washington was willing to lead an invasion force to England to burn London down.
What?? What part of your butt did you pull that out of?
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Only a terrorist like that guy in that TNG episode that they censored in the UK (can't remember the name) would compare Washington with BinLaden.
Terrorist, guerilla, freedom-fighter. What's the difference, Rob?
And, again, we see you ignoring all the times when supporters of the American Revolution attacked those who weren't. Of course, you don't call THAT terrorism, the same way you don't define bombings of civilians in Afghanistan terrorism (admittedly, those are accidental).
Still, you draw lines that are hipocritical. "No, pro-Revolutionary Americans weren't terrorists, even when they attacked anti-Revolutionary Americans! But the British WERE terrorists when they attacked pro-Revolutionary Americans!"
Then you go and say that the British were terrorists. Well, okay, using that definition any attack on a civilian by the U.S. is thus a terrorist attack. Oh, wow -- Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, do we even need to mention My-Lai?
Using that logic, your assertment that ALL terrorists/guerillas/freedom fighters wanted to keep fighting after their objectives were obtained is flawed, since Washington's Revolutionary Army meets the definition, and you didn't seem them sending an armada to burn England to a crisp.
But most damning is that using George W. Bush's definition, we need to bomb ourselves. For we have attacked civilian targets, Rob, and if we are to believe what you and Bush say, then we as a nation are more damned then any.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: all the times when supporters of the American Revolution attacked those who weren't
again, when?
And when the reverse was true, and the Tories attacked, can we call the Brits terrorists? How about when they paid the Indians for American scalps?
One would think that a fan of pro sports would know the difference between a riot and a terrorist event, but maybe you're not all that clear.
Anyway, much poop do i sense in this argument, when one brings up things done 30 years ago and related them to things done now.
The people in now are not responsible for what happened then. (Despite the liberal Theory of Perpetual Blame) It is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest punishing people for sins their forebears committed. (Omega's religion notwithstanding)
These people committed their acts in the PRESENT. We're living in the PRESENT. We're dealing with the NOW. Get a grip.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I think what you're speaking of (Native Americans, and all) was the massacre at Wyoming?
quote:At the end of June 1778, a group of 900 Tories and Native Americans struck the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania. A small force of militia and 60 regulars under the command of Colonel Zebulon Butler attacked the attackers and was butchered. All of those not killed on the battlefield were later tortured to death.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Tories Americans opposed to Revolution? Uh, where were the British in all of this? Isn't this just American terrorism against other Americans based on political ideology?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, the Tories attacked. Your quote says that the defenders were butchered by the Tories and Indians.
The Tories didn't consider themselves Americans, they considered themselves British. The Brits considered the Tories Brits, as well. And even after the Revolution, when the Brits still controlled the land past the Appalachians, they paid the Native Americans to harass and raid Americans.
However, this is still all old history, and has nothing to do with the PRESENT, (unless you propose nuking London for acts committed 200+ years ago - which IS terrorist logic) except to show how the natural outgrowth of your arguments on the subject would lead to the extinction of humanity, and thusly cannot be correct.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I still don't see the British in here.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
read the revised & edited post above.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Only a terrorist like that guy in that TNG episode that they censored in the UK (can't remember the name) would compare Washington with BinLaden."
I should point out that the "censorship" consisted of removing the line about when Ireland was reunified, and nothing else. Which I can see the logic behind.
"Can you name any Continental Army attacks on civilian nonmilitary targets?
I can name a few Britih attacks of that kind."
I'm so glad that The Patriot presented an honest and accurate depiction of that war. Where would we be without Mel Gibson and his tireless desire for historical accuracy in his films.
[ January 24, 2002, 21:06: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
The Patriot wasn't historically accurate?
wow.
there goes my thesis paper, and my faith in the biting wit of the british.
Seriously, I would like to know why it's supposed that the US is hit more often than other countries...can't remember the last time somebody started shit in, say, Denmark, but then again, it's not like this country is Lebanon.
If you factor in the scope of influence that this country (for good or ill) enjoys, I'm suprised we aren't getting fucked up every other week.
As far as the debate over what a terrorist is? I thought we--we being CNN--had decided that...a terrorist is somebody from the middle east who doesn't like the West and has guns. Or bombs. Or severe rhetoric. Or maybe even a lazy eye.
Except that we are lead to believe that most of those swine are okay, which is why we are creating all kinds of new laws that won't work to track said swine as they move around in our country. Because most of them are okay, and they (most of them)OBEY THE LAW.
The fact that they (most of them)OBEY THE LAW is apparently very important. I've read that phrase quite a bit lately in regards to american Arabs...
God, I love pointless sarcasm, especially when it makes a vague point.
Remember, in this world, if you want to make people stop doing things, you drop big heavy things called bombs on them.
It seems to work equally well when you blow things up with cars made into bombs, or when you are ingenious and use airplanes as bombs.
Bombs are the key to everything. You know, because they solve so many problems.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Of course the continental army wasn't an army because the United States had only been recognized by one state at the time, France and therefore it was only a terrorist force (sound familiar). And there were lots of incidents where civilians were attacked and their goods confiscated to feed that so-called army. And also you celebrate an act of terrorism every year in Boston Harbour.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You are a true idiot if you think I'm referring to incidents in "The Patriot." Nice desperate non sequitur, though. *claps sarcastically*
Actually, the events I'm referring to occurred mostly during the occupation of New York.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And you're a true idiot if you think the Taliban wasn't an army but the Continental Army was, using the definition Bush has.
And since you seem to ignore the treatment of Tories in the U.S. during and after the war, hey, we know how much faith we can place in you, Mr. If They Try And Tell Two Sides Of A Story In A History Book They're A Damned Liberal!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Somehow I can't picture the Continentals trying to blow up Parliament. Only the Brits themselves ever tried that.
There is only one side to a story. Especially History.
Or, if you ask the Vorlon, three sides. Yours, Theirs, and the Truth.
It just so happens that my side's closer to the Truth.
Final Truth: Despite what you've been told, not every viewpoint is equally valid.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:32: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- all the times when supporters of the American Revolution attacked those who weren't --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
again, when?
Boy FOT you really should read history other than the onesided stuff that your government hands you. Here is just one account, which should be good enough as you seem to think there were none. Your people being so pure and all.
Such an incident occurred in 1775:
At Quibbleton, New Jersey, Thomas Randolph, cooper, who (as the Patriots said) had publicly proved himself an enemy to his country, by reviling and using his utmost endeavours to oppose the proceedings of the continental and provincial conventions... was ordered to be stripped naked, well coated with tar and feathers, and carried on a wagon publicly around the town - which punishment was accordingly inflicted. As soon as he became duly sensible of his offence, for which he earnestly begged pardon, and promised to atone, as far as he was able, by contrary behaviour for the future, he was released and suffered to return to his house, in less than half and hour.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:57: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Ok here's another because FOT will think up some other diversionary tactic to discredit the first example The Tea Party Parliament's passage of the Tea Act in 1773 was the occasion for an escalation of violent reactions against British colonial policy. The Boston Tea Party, during which patriots dumped forty-five tons of tea into Boston harbor, triggered sympathetic responses in other colonial ports, and began a new wave of assaults against the agents who collected Britain's commercial revenues. Contemporary portrayals of the tarring and feathering of tax collectors were long on revolutionary symbolism.mple.
[ January 25, 2002, 09:05: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Because, as I'm sure Rob says, "if it's not told with an American bias, it's LIBERAL TRASH!"
Grow up, Rob.
Then again, since he seems to think the Americans can't be terrorists since he considers the Brits to be an occupying force, I wonder what he classifies those who blow up Marine barracks overseas. I mean, clearly THEY must be freedom fighters, right? There is a foreign military on their soil!
[ January 25, 2002, 10:55: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:and using his utmost endeavours to oppose the proceedings of the continental and provincial conventions...
But what does that MEAN? Guy Fawkes used his utmost efforts to oppose parliament meetings...
And the TEa Party was simple hooligabism and destruction of property. No one was killed. and it was STILL 200+ years ago, and not relevant to the present.
Snay, you're like the blind mice who discovered the elephant...
Because they were so small, they could only feel at tiny bits of the elephant, so they formed totally wrong opinions of what an elephant was like.
You looked at ONE thing I said in my whole large argument which contained a number of elements distinguishing terrorists, and froze on that one thing, and developed a totally wrong opinion.
[ January 25, 2002, 12:28: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Snay, you're like the blind mice who discovered the elephant...
Because they were so small, they could only look at tiny bits of the elephant, so they formed totally wrong opinions of what an elephant was like.
Although I bow down before your all-encompassing drollness and intelligence, Rob, might I point out that somehow your titanic intellect managed to miss the fact that blind mice wouldn't see anything elephant-related. Perhaps something like an elephant in a pitch-black room.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'd hardly call it a desperate non-sequiter, since unlike Jeff, I long ago gave up any ambitions on changing peoples minds through logical arguments. Instead I while away my time thinking up ways to be sarcastic and annoy everyone.
But, in bout of hypocricy, I will add one thing to the "we never tried to attack Parliment argument". How the hell were you suppossed to? Was some of your army going to get on boats, sail over, shoot some members of Parliment, and shoot back?
If that was was happening in a time where access to planes and bombs is a darn sight easier, then yes, I do belive you'd have tried to attack parliment.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I say hell yes Our Boys would've gone for the brit goverment. I would have been in full support of it, two hundred years ago.
"Blimey, you say the yanks have...aeroplanes?"
"The nine devils they do, Richard! Some useless contraption or whatnot. I'm sure they won't be able to strike so far as this."
"what's that bloody noise?"
"it's the yanks sir. They're...Here. In their aeroplanes, sir."
"well then, Call them in for tea then Reginald."
"Can't sir. They look rather angry."
"What's this? they would dare so bold an action? Against the crown?"
"Almost as bad as the bloody Zulus, sir"
"The Who?"
"the Zulus, sir. bloody anachronism and all that."
"Very well. Let's have some tea."
In any case, I think First of Two was talking about me, with the Non sequithing. Because you made sense, and I did not. I think.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Somehow I can't picture the Continentals trying to blow up Parliament.
The only thing I can think is that for some folks, it must somehow be quite self-satisfying to view history so simply.
Or to see that tactics and strategy insurgencey groups use have changed over time. To be sure, the 1/3 of the Americans who organized to fight the British were an insurgence group. Had such a revolution started yesterday, I think we can be sure that 17th century tactics would not be used again. It is therefore silly to require the same of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or the FARC in Columbia for that matter.
The rules of war have gone out the window a long time ago. Victory in one's particular cause is now the only thing that matters.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:for some folks, it must somehow be quite self-satisfying to view history so simply.
I agree. That's why I wasn't the one to start making bogus historical comparisons. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, you're just ignoring them because they don't fit what you like to think of the American Revolution.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
At least you admit that they're bogus comparisons. That's a good start. Only 11 more steps to go.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
step four means writing down all the fouled up shit you've done, in excruciating detail, so that you can read it anytime you start feeling good about yourself and thus remember what a evil bastard you are.
Been there, done that.
Wouldn't it be great if world leaders had to do that sometimes?
Twelve step program to Leadership Addiction...
damn i miss having the history channel.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:At least you admit that they're bogus comparisons.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)