The Forum > Article Comments > Are we winning or losing the war on terror? > Comments
Are we winning or losing the war on terror? : Comments
By Keith Suter, published 3/10/2014In short, the west is engaged in a 'long war' of low intensity conflict. But politicians and media just bounce along from one event to another without seeing the big picture.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- ...
- 18
- 19
- 20
-
- All
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 5 October 2014 9:55:02 AM
| |
A good article that gives an exellent over view of what Islamic State are doing to prevoke the west.
I would add two points for further thinking; 1. The West's reaction has a lot to do with fears regarding oil supply. The money spend on directly engaging Islamic state would be better spent developing oil independence from the middle east. Australia is sitting on enough oil and gas to do this. 2. The beheading's have another purpose and that is to activate the fanatical fringe in the Muslim community globally. We have seen both political and public negative reaction against Muslims everywhere.This will provoke the fanatical fringe into action; escalating this into a global conflict. The west seriously needs to analyse its reactions to Islamic State and take actions which deny them their power base which are Oil (money) and the fringe of the Muslim community (soldiers). I don't see direct engagement doing this that well and more positive more passive reactions could serve the World better. Posted by A world person, Sunday, 5 October 2014 10:21:40 AM
| |
Arjay,
Do you mean that the Twin Towers plane crashes were a hoax? Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 5 October 2014 2:09:42 PM
| |
Arjay, you might be having too much. We might lose the war on terror if everyone thinks like you are with this non-sense.
Why have we not seen video of the 3rd building collapsing? Have I missed big news somewhere? Why does that interview not show the 3rd building collapse? And wait. There is more. It is possible the suicide pilots and associates had suicide vests that exploded on impact and may have left residue. The molten metal pouring out of the building is apparently aluminium from the aircraft. Go to a tool hire shop, get a jackhammer, use the pick on concrete, watch the dust and powder form under impact. Then go seed a good doctor, not a spin doctor. LOL Meantime watch this and have a good rest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJy_LdHMmaM Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 5 October 2014 2:18:04 PM
| |
Hi Is Mise
I suggest don't get Arjay started. He's a 9/11 "Truth" nut you know. Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 5 October 2014 2:18:18 PM
| |
JF and Pete cannot face the truth of 911.It the very basis of all these wars.http://patriotsquestion911.com/ I think people like Lt Col Robert Robert Bowman the ex-director of Advanced Space Programs of NASA, Gen Wesley Clarke and Major General Albert Stubbline have a lot more credibility than you two. There are thousands of professionals on this site who have serious doubts about the official story of 911 and want a real investigation.
Dr Robert Bowman who died last yr was the head of the 911 truth movement. He had PHDs in Nuclear Physic and Mathematics and aeronautics. In his shadow Pete and JF, your opinions bare no weight. Also see http://www.ae911truth.org/ They now have 2200 architects and engineers who do not believe the official story. Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 5 October 2014 5:23:05 PM
|
This is a peer reviewed paper of which a team of 9 international scientists including our Dr Frank Legge.This paper has not been addressed let alone disproven by our authorities.
Keith Suiter did not display any disbelief in the evidence presented but kept saying this is very interesting. Most of us who have even a basic understanding of science know that the official story cannot be correct and the war on terror is a lie.