Who are the real terrorists?

[marharth]

Just to let everyone know, if you replied to something I said I might not of read it since I am not reading everything.

 

I would like to say a few things though that I think people are misunderstanding.

 

1. I am grateful for what the country has that is good, and I acknowledge those things. I am in no way saying I hate America I just dislike a lot of things that the government does.

 

2. It may seem that everything I say isn't to positive, you might of noticed I am pessimistic. I believe that a good way to solve issues is to make the issue known to a lot of people. Being overly optimistic is dangerous, and I would like to say I am kind of center pessimistic.

 

3. Once again, I DO NOT BLAME CITIZENS FOR WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENT DOES. That would be foolish to say that everything a government does is the fault of the citizens, but I do partly blame people who support bad things the government does.

 

4. I in no way support the terrorist groups we are fighting, I would say they are worse then our government due to radical ideology.

 

The purpose of this post is to try to uncover the bad sides of things more then anything else, its not meant to be insulting to anyone.

[LadyMilla]

Do you not understand that if you don't look after the money men then they will take their money and jobs to a country that will? it may not be fair but then life never is. The idea that the well-being of a nation is somehow seperate from the well-being of the wealth creators is exactly the kind of nonsense that has got the UK into the mess it's in now. I'm not suggesting that politicians are not self serving but they won't stay in office if the people aren't happy, when parties start to ignore or abuse the people is when they lose office. Oh and don't call me naive, I know exactly how things work.

 

I'm happy that you know exactly how things work. Myself, I am always doubtful about my knowledge so I often re-evaluate my views in the light of new developments. Your reasoning may be true in certain countries, but it is not a universal truth - you assume that supporting the moneyed classes always creates a driving force that will slowly advance the country in question. The sad thing is there are examples where the money earned by the wealthy is invested abroad / funneled into tax havens, and the only difference between the parties is that the a significant slice from the money paid by the taxpayers that could be used to support the development of local businesses or to introduce reforms slips into different supporter pockets after the elections. But this could/should be the subject of a different topic.

[marharth]

Do you not understand that if you don't look after the money men then they will take their money and jobs to a country that will? it may not be fair but then life never is. The idea that the well-being of a nation is somehow seperate from the well-being of the wealth creators is exactly the kind of nonsense that has got the UK into the mess it's in now. I'm not suggesting that politicians are not self serving but they won't stay in office if the people aren't happy, when parties start to ignore or abuse the people is when they lose office. Oh and don't call me naive, I know exactly how things work.

 

I'm happy that you know exactly how things work. Myself, I am always doubtful about my knowledge so I often re-evaluate my views in the light of new developments. Your reasoning may be true in certain countries, but it is not a universal truth - you assume that supporting the moneyed classes always creates a driving force that will slowly advance the country in question. The sad thing is there are examples where the money earned by the wealthy is invested abroad / funneled into tax havens, and the only difference between the parties is that the a significant slice from the money paid by the taxpayers that could be used to support the development of local businesses or to introduce reforms slips into different supporter pockets after the elections. But this could/should be the subject of a different topic.

Well the whole money corruption thing fits here quite well due to the military industrial complex.

[Aurielius]

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/demotivational-posters-attention-terrorists.jpg

[WizardOfAtlantis]

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/demotivational-posters-attention-terrorists.jpg

 

hahahahahahahttp://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif

[grannywils]

The Iran Plateau has substandard oil. The oil trapped in the tar sand of the Monterey Formation (under the Los Angeles Basin) is better quality. Their sorry sour crude can be heated in an expensive, laborious process and can be turned into a lower-grade oil, which in turn can be used to make petro products.

 

The Green River region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming hold the equivalent of approximately 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. That makes the oil reserves under the Iran Plateau literally a drop in the bucket.

 

So much for the wicked American Capitalist pigs lusting after Middle Eastern oil. Let the fundamentalists have the oil and the whole region. The only reason oil was ever pulled from the ground in the first place was the British needing the stuff prior to WW2.

 

Well lets be honest about that ,its an estimate of 1.5 - 1.8 trillion barrels and its estimated approx 750 billion of it is recoverable and to my knowledge I haven't heard of anyone conclusively confirming that much oil is there ,mind you even if only half that amount is there and again half the above stated figure of 750 billion is recoverable its still an incredible find .Also add in that its not in the form of oil but of shale and it takes one barrel of oil to get two from shale and unlike the Athabaskan oil sands in which its shale is lying virtually on the surface ,the Green River shale is a different geological formation , much of it being deeply buried .Its going to be much harder to get at that vs the Athabaskan oil sands and that took near 40 yrs to get going.

 

Again its not about getting the oil , its about selling the oil , related to but not the same .One is about oil . One is about the US Dollar

 

Here is a link on oils relationship to the dollar .His assertion in the last paragraph is wrong but overall its pretty accurate.I had read a similar piece that went into much more detail in explaining the same thing , but I can no longer remember the google search parameters that lead me to it .Anyhoo read it if you like maybe I'll get lucky and find the other one and post it too.

 

My link

 

Hmm strange didn't give me a chance to name the link ,just posted it as my link

 

The very best light sweet crude oil comes out of Africa; (Libya or maybe Algeria), even maybe Nigeria.

[Harbringe]

The Iran Plateau has substandard oil. The oil trapped in the tar sand of the Monterey Formation (under the Los Angeles Basin) is better quality. Their sorry sour crude can be heated in an expensive, laborious process and can be turned into a lower-grade oil, which in turn can be used to make petro products.

 

The Green River region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming hold the equivalent of approximately 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. That makes the oil reserves under the Iran Plateau literally a drop in the bucket.

 

So much for the wicked American Capitalist pigs lusting after Middle Eastern oil. Let the fundamentalists have the oil and the whole region. The only reason oil was ever pulled from the ground in the first place was the British needing the stuff prior to WW2.

 

Well lets be honest about that ,its an estimate of 1.5 - 1.8 trillion barrels and its estimated approx 750 billion of it is recoverable and to my knowledge I haven't heard of anyone conclusively confirming that much oil is there ,mind you even if only half that amount is there and again half the above stated figure of 750 billion is recoverable its still an incredible find .Also add in that its not in the form of oil but of shale and it takes one barrel of oil to get two from shale and unlike the Athabaskan oil sands in which its shale is lying virtually on the surface ,the Green River shale is a different geological formation , much of it being deeply buried .Its going to be much harder to get at that vs the Athabaskan oil sands and that took near 40 yrs to get going.

 

Again its not about getting the oil , its about selling the oil , related to but not the same .One is about oil . One is about the US Dollar

 

Here is a link on oils relationship to the dollar .His assertion in the last paragraph is wrong but overall its pretty accurate.I had read a similar piece that went into much more detail in explaining the same thing , but I can no longer remember the google search parameters that lead me to it .Anyhoo read it if you like maybe I'll get lucky and find the other one and post it too.

 

My link

 

Hmm strange didn't give me a chance to name the link ,just posted it as my link

 

The very best light sweet crude oil comes out of Africa; (Libya or maybe Algeria), even maybe Nigeria.

 

A friend of mine works in the Nigerian oil fields and he said the same thing to me , So it's probably Nigeria though he said best crude ,not light sweet crude ,still most likely the same.

[grannywils]

Harbringe, light, sweet has less sulpher. Has a mujltitude of uses. And requires less refining

[Harbringe]

Harbringe, light, sweet has less sulpher. Has a mujltitude of uses. And requires less refining

 

That I do know

[Harbringe]

Well I've been arguing with myself if I was going to post this ever since this thread came up , but I figure If your going to talk about what the nature of terror is you might as well know of some examples.

 

The first 2 vids I have been aware of for many months and there are other reportings of these events but chose this guy because he gives as much leeway to the Americans as possible ,wanted to avoid those who go into anti American rants.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LkYvEZOZs&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88nBDGYeVY4&feature=channel