Topic awaiting preservation: This is for you, Ram.

Our War on Terrorism

quote:

---

I am calling it "our" war on terrorism because I want to distinguish it from Bush's war on terrorism, and from Sharon's, and from Putin's. What their wars have in common is that they are based on an enormous deception: persuading the people of their countries that you can deal with terrorism by war. These rulers say you can end our fear of terrorism ? of sudden, deadly, vicious attacks, a fear new to Americans ? by drawing an enormous circle around an area of the world where terrorists come from (Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya) or can be claimed to be connected with (Iraq), and by sending in tanks and planes to bomb and terrorize whoever lives within that circle.

---

Sound familiar? Oh, maybe I should throw in "tighten up the borders until they are walled with concrete and razor-wire" and damned well make sure that those of Arab race are intently eyed and watched.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-24-2004 18:31)

This author has told an untruth either knowingly or unknowingly. President Bush is using military force to directly attack terrorists and their support, that is true. But that is not the only thing he is doing. He is doing exactly what the author suggests which is to change the conditions that breed terrorism in the first place. A free and democratic Iraq, Palestine, etc. is the best way we can bring an end to the current threat of Islamo-fascist terrorism. That requires a combined policy of military, diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian actions. Notice that the author calls for a better policy but does not offer any specifics as to what it is. That is my main problem with Kerry too, he doesn't really have a plan other than to point to Bush and keep saying, "I'm not him."

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs,

For the record -

The situation of Global Terror has gotten worse. Iraq was not a terrorist nation when we attacked it. And if what Bush has done to this point is what you consider

quote:

---

A free and democratic Iraq, Palestine, etc. is the best way we can bring an end to the current threat of Islamo-fascist terrorism. That requires a combined policy of military, diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian actions.

---

Wow.

Don't you agree, that with the help of our old allies, the United Nations, and NATO, we could do this much more effectively? If so, then why are we not enjoying this help?

Bush has one of the four points you mentioned above - military. The others are sadly lacking. On the diplomatic front, a castastrophy. Economically? A disaster. Humanitarian? Subjective, at best. At worst, Abu Ghaibor, Guantanomo Bay, etc, etc.

Do I think Kerry will do better? Well, he has the potiential to do better, both economically and diplomatically. Because many of our old allies are willing to follow Kerry. They will not follow Bush, even if it means waiting the next four years. Having our old allies on board, opens both the way for NATO, and UN help. That, in turn, helps us both economically and diplomatically.

I am going with the potiential, instead of the outright impossibility. I think something needs to be mentioned here.

The US has lead in many things before. But it has not succeeded at anything alone! Bush apparently didn't realize this. Now it is too late for him. We won The Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, and The Cold War with help from our allies.

We will not win the War on Terror without our allies. And they will not help us, as long as Bush is President.

Sobering thought.

Fist off, alternet. I mean, come on. At least pick a semi-non-biased source.

quote:

---

Iraq was not a terrorist nation when we attacked it.

---

I disagree.

quote:

---

A free and democratic Iraq, Palestine, etc. is the best way we can bring an end to the current threat of Islamo-fascist terrorism. That requires a combined policy of military, diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian actions.

---

Totally agree. Freedom is the key, give them time to open the door. There is too much focus on what is said to be a force of 20,000 or less, many of which have come across from other nations.

quote:

---

Don't you agree, that with the help of our old allies, the United Nations, and NATO, we could do this much more effectively? If so, then why are we not enjoying this help?

---

I do agree, but unfortunately there are a few things which blocked this. UN, oil-for-food, corruption amongst certain nations and representatives. It makes it all clear as to why certain nations were 1) working to get sanctions lifted even after 17 failed resolutions, and 2) voted against military action.

quote:

---

I am going with the potiential, instead of the outright impossibility.

---

So am I.

quote:

---

The US has lead in many things before. But it has not succeeded at anything alone! Bush apparently didn't realize this. Now it is too late for him. We won The Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, and The Cold War with help from our allies.

---

We are not alone. Tell those helping us in Iraq that we are alone.
Although if you think about it, this is the Iraqi revolution now and they are not going it alone, they have the help of a coalition, we only had the French, and they were late. Tell the Iraqis fighting and dying for their freedom they don't count and see the reaction you get there.

quote:

---

We will not win the War on Terror without our allies. And they will not help us, as long as Bush is President.

---

If by allies you are referring to France, Germany, Russia, et al then you have to take into account the shady dealings going down reported in the Duelfer document.
One of many reports surfacing as of late: Saddam paid off French leaders
The UN was not a viable resource to tap for help because of corruption. It was a fixed trial. Will you consider that as a possibility?

quote:

---

Sobering thought.

---

So is leaving Saddam Hussein unfettered.
Yet again proving that Ramasax is from Mars and WebShaman is from Venus.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-25-2004 01:45)

Now why couldn't I have put it like that? What he just said ^

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I was sure Ramasax would found something against the source and wouldn't miss the opportunity to use the only thing he found against the French government and claim there is a strong coallition behind the USA. If only he didn't vote he would simply be pathetic alas his ideas and the administration he supports mislead his country and have/will have a dangerous impact on the whole world.

Sorry for not being more constructive or vocal, but I'm just fed up to hear Ramasax's bullshits. And I know by experience that he's totally closed to the arguments of diplomatic alternatives and non pro-war fellows. Why should I waste more time for him ?

WebShaman: Wouldn't all your recent thread be better in the Philosophy and other Silliness ?



(Edited by poi on 10-25-2004 02:55)

Huh?

poi, are you saying there was no collaboration between Iraq and France? No corruption in the U.N.? And Bush was just a willy nilly rogue warmongerer?

Let's not forget that Saddam tried to assassinate one of our presidents. Even if it was Bush Jr.'s dad I would have supported any president that stood up to a third rate schoolyard bully who though he could roll with the big dogs.


Now, on another point totally unrelated to sniping attacks of character..., Are we not working with Iraqi leaders to support free elections monitored by the UN?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds a lot like helping to bring about a free and democratic Iraq..., hate to re-quote but I dont see any asylum rules against it ...,

quote:

---

A free and democratic Iraq, Palestine, etc. is the best way we can bring an end to the current threat of Islamo-fascist terrorism. That requires a combined policy of military, diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian actions.

---

-Military? Yup, sent that over.

-Diplomatic? Hmmm, not the best, but free elections kind of sound like diplomacy.

-Economic? Well, $2.69 a gallon for gas, billions of dollars on the ground, and removing oil sanctions sure does sound like economic benefits.

-Humanitarian? Huh? Go figure... I guess those schools built themselves, eh? Medicine? Food dropped from the sky? That sounds like Humanitarian aid to me.

Well, I guess Kerry has that "Magic Wand of Instantania" that will make all these things happen the day after he is elected, eh?

I tend to think it won't be that way. I think there are some forces behind these uprisings that see a Free and Democratic Iraq as a direct challenge to their powerbase. Call me silly or some other name if you prefer, but I really dont see either candidate being able to make the changes happen quickly enough for those of us of the "I told you so" disposition.

Oh crap! I forgot my point.., oh wait, it wasnt just the French buying Saddams oil now was it? Germans? Russians. DOH! You mean the people who were thwarting the sanctions and profiting from them didnt want to help America stop them? Damn! Who would ever imagine that would be the case. [wink, wink]

Oh now I remember my point...,

A free and democratic Iraq is the biggest threat to the middle east Theocracies. And we know how Theocracies react to threats dont we? They fight. And they will export their religious faithful anywhere they can to destroy the enemy. Who is the enemy? Freedom. Theocrats really dont have a historical track record for tolerating freedom, do they?

Allies indeed, the only allies at work in this situation are the super rich helping themselves to bigger slices of the world pie.

woops? I kinda rambled on there, eh?

But I dont see why another thread was started to point to one individual and say ... "Nah, nah, na Nah Nah, you're wrong".

So I might as well ramble on..., huh? ran out of time... oh well.

Continue on.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

UnknownComic: I didn't say that France didn't have a collabaration with Iraq. But I didn't felt necessary to remind in my previous post who sold the copters and chemicals weapons/industries Saddam used to kill his people and the kurds. You see, no one is fully innocent. Actually if Saddam gets a fair trial it'd be "fun" to see how all the countries of the "free world" ( including the USA, France, Germany, UK, ... ) have some Iraqi blood on their hands because they sold some weapons and military equipement to Saddam.

About the 4 points mentionned by Bugimus :

• Military: the so-called coallition is an ersatz of what it could be with the support of UN and NATO if the US diplomacy manage(d) to convince these organisations of the legitimity of the war in Iraq. All military experts agree that the operations in Iraq required a minimum of 500,000 soldiers.
• diplomatic : The US diplomacy is a disaster. The countries trusting GWB and his administration can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
• economic : It'll cost a lot to rebuild the cities and power facilities destroyed by the coallition. So far, since the coallition consist of the US, the UK and a bunch of countries who sent some troups to please the US and avoid economical restrictions or increase the economical aids they receive ( like it's been the case for the Yemen during the first Gulf War ), the US supports ~90% of the cost of the war which drains their economical balance.
• humanitarian : does the thousands of Iraqi civils killed by the US coallition count ? so does the 1,000+ US soldiers and several thousands wounded or amputed ?

Like WebShaman said, many countries are willing to follow Kerry. The so-called coallition would be more efficient with the help of the UN and NATO and its interventions would be more accepted by the Iraqi people.

[edit]
" Let's not forget that Saddam tried to assassinate one of our presidents "
Don't tell me you thought he had the slightest chance to succeed.
[/edit]



(Edited by poi on 10-25-2004 04:21)

I?m not going to read further than hovering my mouse over the link in post one.

...You just posted a link to alternet.org?

This is the only time I'll ever say this. But Ram, if you counter with an equally stupid article from rushlimbaugh.com, you're going to look like the smart one here.

...Seriously, alternet? couldn't you find a website with even the slightest little tiny-teeny bit of intelligent reporting? Making a political point with alternet.org is like making a point on quantum physics using "Sesame Street - The Best of Elmo."


(Just for the record, I'm not interested in any way about whatever arguement this thread is meant to settle)

Hey! Step right up. Want some democracy? We got a great new brand right here on the shelf ready to go. Seal-wrapped straight from the factory. And we'll get it to you through the barrel of a gun. Shipping and handling is on us. US imperialism, like its predecessors, is based on the moral right to rule. In a newly packaged version of manifest destiny and white man's burden, America is delivering democracy to the benighted and bedraggled masses. The empire is rooted in the near-theological conviction that American values, whatever that might be, are good for the world. In fact, the Bush administration has declared, with a hubris that would make Roman emperors blush, that its vision for the rest of the planet is the only sustainable model. Emanating from Washington is a series of diktats telling other countries: Follow orders or else.

- Arundhati Roy


Yup let us enforce "democracy" unto population , where 60% of people cannot read or write. Way to go!

Unknown Comic: I agree with everything you said.

poi: I love you too big guy. Really man, for someone who preaches tolerance and all that, you sure have an intolerant view of my positions. Disagree with me? Fine. Dislike me? Fine. Just making a post so you can point out how pathetic you thinkI am serves no purpose. If you're tired of hearing my bullshit, ignore it, pretty simple actually. Just be glad you have the freedom to do so.

About the article I posted. The information comes from the Duelfer Report. You can get it here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
You can also do a search on Google news and find many more like it from many different sources, except maybe CBS, Al-Jazeera, and Agence France Press, that is asking a bit much.

Will you consider it? If no, then I'm sorry to say you have no basis to make a judgment on.

In any case, I'm not here to fight with you or anyone else. I am here for conversation and the challenge of my views. That is not all, but recently has been a large part of it. Perhaps we could all make a concerted effort to resist the urge and be a little more tolerant of eachother's positions from now on. Just a thought.

Ramasax

quote:

---

poi: humanitarian : does the thousands of Iraqi civils killed by the US coallition count ? so does the 1,000+ US soldiers and several thousands wounded or amputed ?

---

Does it include the mass graves with 300,000 corpses found so far? Does it include the thousands of Kurds gassed? Does it include the children kept in a childs prison? Does it include those didmembered for petty crimes? Does it include the takeover and looting of a neighboring country? Does it include the rape & torture chambers? Does it include general fear of the 26 million folks who lived under him for all those years? Does it include an entire population of people with no say in their government and no freedom?

Read more...

The estimate of Muslim lives alone said to be taken by Saddam's regime top 1,000,000. Yes, I would say that is pretty damn humanitarian and well worth a couple thousand lives, tragic as it is.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Like WebShaman said, many countries are willing to follow Kerry.

---

poi, is YOUR country willing to send troops to die in Iraq for John F. Kerry? Was it not your defense minister who vowed under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they do so?

And I don't really think that just because Ramasax has a strong opinion that he should be called closed minded. You seem just as entrenched in your positions, poi. Shall I consider you closed minded because of that? I would prefer not charge you with that any more than I would Ram.

That's all I wanted to say on this one unless we do move it to the Philosilly section. I've got more time now, perhaps we can think about that debate once more? I'm not really sure what happened to it because I dropped out of things there for a few months but it just seems this Iraq question comes back up again and again.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Strange how this thing got de-railed from the War on Terror, to simply Iraq (which had nothing to do with the War on Terror in the first place).

Even the Unknown Comic fell for it...pretty interesting.

Ram, you still haven't answered anything. I am talking about the War on Terror. The Article is about the War on Terror.

Why the hell are you talking about Iraq?

Stupidity at its finest.

Ram, I am in no way, shape, or form, from Venus. And you are in no way, shape, or form from Mars. Or have you participated in a War? No?

Thought so.

When all this stuff first started, we had discussions on many things here. Bugs, you can remember some of that, I take it? Back then, I had suggested Iran and North Korea as much better targets. Given the information we know know, about Iran (nuclear material enrichment, and unwillingness to stop it), and North Koreas nuclear weapons program, are you not a little disappointed in how the Bush administration is handling this?

I remember you saying, first Iraq, then these others...or something similar. That doesn't look like it is going to be the case. Let us put it into perspective : Having a major exporter of Terror (like Iran is) obtain and produce nuclear weapons will undo ANY amount of effect that a "democratic" Iraq will have on the region.

That I need to point this out, is testament to how blind most have become to the issues. They can't see past Iraq to the real problems, apparently.

In fact the term "war on terrorism" makes no sense. Terrorism is a technique of combat, not an enemy you can fight.

Ramasax: Don't worry kitty, I already ignore you in the Philosophy and other Silliness. My previous posts serves as much purpose as all your previous ones where you pick every single sentence of a post and say : "Irrelevent", "I disagree", "biased sources", ... I think we're at a draw game here. Our point of view are diametraly different. None of us manage to understand the ideas of the other. Sure I disagree with you, but I can't dislike someone I don't know or only know by his opinions on things he ( and I ) has little or no power. You're maybe a cool guy in daily life but, don't take it personnaly, I doubt I'll make the trip to the US just to sort this out.

In the end of our rethoric ( because alas our pretty posts are just some rethoric ) the fact that English is your mother language gives an advantage in the sense that you understand/use better than me some rethoric and words having another conotation in other languages, you also have a direct access to the US medias. On the other hand I have access to some medias having a completely different editorial line from that of the US medias, but I doubt you'll make the effort to learn French for me so I can post some sources in French. However you'll certainly find the sources in French too biased for you.

Thank you for the links to the CIA reports. I just wonder if you read those 200 Mb of PDF to base your opinion.


Bugimus: I think the phrase you heard from the French Foreign affairs minister was incomplete because the French government always said we're not willing to send troops under the current circumstances that is :
1) without the willing of the Iraqi people.
2) without an independent/legitimate and sovereign Iraqi governement.
3) without the approval of the UN and/or NATO ( France was not the only country among the 191 members countries in the UN to disagree with the war in Iraq, but it's one of the few that is a permanent member of the Security Council and thus has the power to veto a decision if there is the slightest doubt on it ).

If the circumstances change, be assured that the French government and nation will be more than happy to help ( hand in hand with UN and/or NATO ) a sovereign nation asking assistance and if it means to send some troops in Iraq, we'll do so. I don't say the situation in Iraq will evolve in that direction for sure if KERRY is elected, but I strongly think that's way more likely to happen with him than with BUSH.

Actually you're right when you say I'm as entrenched in my positions as Ramasax. Sorry, usually I stay quiet and calm but like I said I'm fed up to hear his rethoric. Let's say that once does not count. For instance, whenever someone question the reasons of the invasion of Iraq ( the fact that Saddam had stock piles of WMD and chemical weapons and his responsability in the 9/11 events ), he avoids the question by telling that Saddam was a dictator and that his removal is a good thing. Nobody can deny that, but that's not the question.

Indeed this thread, and probably all the others about Iraq, the US, or any political subjects should be moved to the Philosophy and other Silliness. The OZONE is to be for " chit-chat about all sorts of silly topics.".



(Edited by poi on 10-25-2004 11:51)

This thread really does belong here in P&S so I moved it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

DOH!!!

I fell for a ploy? Hrmpf!

but...

errr... if we peel away the mask on your link... it comes out like this;

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20215/

Now I am no Rhodes Scholar, but it certainly looks like the article is in a subfolder of the /waroniraq/ folder ...

So I tried to look at the letters "waroniraq" in a different way...

think
think
think

...and when I was done thunking I still came up with "war on iraq".... Damn this literal mind! Why cant it see the symbolism you speak of?

Perhaps you could describe this new cataloguing that is used where an article about the "war on Terror" that is a subset of some cryptic folder called "waroniraq" becomes unto itself a superset that does not relate to that which it is a subset of?

Dammit! Now I broke my brain!

Where's my circular logic lawyer.... Augh!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

WS:Ram, you still haven't answered anything. I am talking about the War on Terror. The Article is about the War on Terror. Why the hell are you talking about Iraq?

---

First, what am I supposed to answer? You want my opinion about an article from alternet? I don't think so. I cannot answer a question based on an article that I think is extreme left wing propaganda & totally wrong to begin with. New York Times, maybe, but alternet, not a chance.

Secondly, I know you do not agree, but some of us do see Iraq as an integral part of the war on terror, so it is relevent. And actually, if you go back and look this thread over, who the hell mentioned Iraq in the first place? You did. In turn, I responded accordingly. Sorry if your thread turned out to be something other than you planned, but that is the nature of conversation. We are conversing aren't we, or are you just out for an argument?

quote:

---

Me: Perhaps we could all make a concerted effort to resist the urge and be a little more tolerant of eachother's positions from now on. Just a thought.

---

quote:

---

WS: Stupidity at its finest.

---

Guess not. Is everyone who does not share your view stupid or is it just a personal grudge against me?

quote:

---

Ram, I am in no way, shape, or form, from Venus. And you are in no way, shape, or form from Mars. Or have you participated in a War? No?

---

Figure of speech, settle down, take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and step down off your horse for a minute. I know you were in a war, you have said it more times I can remember. I respect the fact that you were, honestly, but why bring it up every chance you get? Do you think that because one or even a small percentage of veterans is against something it is going to sway me? I have four veterans in my immediate family and they would see your opinion in the same light as I.

quote:

---

WS: Back then, I had suggested Iran and North Korea as much better targets. Given the information we know know, about Iran (nuclear material enrichment, and unwillingness to stop it), and North Koreas nuclear weapons program, are you not a little disappointed in how the Bush administration is handling this?

---

You would rather we attacked N.Korea or Iran? There is still a lot of work to be done in the diplomatic arena there. We are making progress without force in both arenas.

On the other hand, with Iraq we are talking years of failed diplomacy and empty threats against Saddam's regime, to no avail. We are talking about a suffering population under brutal rule. Does the suffering of all those souls really mean that little to you? We are talking about a country that had, at many times, declared war on the US. We are talking about a leader with extensive ties to terrorism, which you obviously give no credence to, but there it is, a topic for another thread if you are willing to do so without calling me stupid, close-minded, ignorant or all of the above.

In any case, had Bush gone to N. Korea or Iran, something tells me you would still be bashing him, especially frequenting sites like alternet. Hell, I don't frequent the right wing news sites that often because even I like a little objectivity in my reporting. Reuters, AP, CNN, etc... What other biased sources do you frequent for your daily serving of red meat?

The question I ask myself is can John F. Kerry do any better? And with my, as you and so many others love to point out for one reason or another, limited intellect, I see Bush as the lesser of two evils. Simple as that.

quote:

---

poi: In fact the term "war on terrorism" makes no sense. Terrorism is a technique of combat, not an enemy you can fight.

---

Ok poi, I'll go for that. Semantics though. Would you be happier if we started calling it the War on Islamofacists? The War on Subhuman Scum? What would you call it? Perhaps the War on Rebels would suit your tasted better? Would it even exist if you had a say? You criticize constantly but never offer any alternates for me to consider.

quote:

---

My previous posts serves as much purpose as all your previous ones where you pick every single sentence of a post and say : "Irrelevent", "I disagree", "biased sources", ... I think we're at a draw game here.

---

I did that in one thread in which somebody posted a reference and some rhetoric that to me was irrelevent. Do not make it out like I give half assed responses, on the contrary, most of the time I will go through what the opposition has to say paragraph by paragraph. Draw game? Yeah, I'll have to agree there. Just a little more to respond to first though.

quote:

---

If the circumstances change, be assured that the French government and nation will be more than happy to help ( hand in hand with UN and/or NATO ) a sovereign nation asking assistance and if it means to send some troops in Iraq, we'll do so.

---

Umm... so now you make policy for your government? You can't make that call. Your foreign minister, Michel Barnier, said no troops will be sent either now or later, regardless of the outcome of the election. I'll take his word over yours.

quote:

---

poi: Thank you for the links to the CIA reports. I just wonder if you read those 200 Mb of PDF to base your opinion.

---

Let's just say I am working on it, but I have consumed a large chunk thus far. And you are quite welcome for the links. I hope you also enjoyed the link to the PDF detailing Saddam's many atrocities.

quote:

---

Sorry, usually I stay quiet and calm but like I said I'm fed up to hear his rethoric.

---

So basically, and correct me if I am wrong, what you are saying is that you are incapable of civil discourse with people of opposing opinions and values? Also, I don't know if you were referring to me, but I never connected Saddam directly with 911, there is just not enough evidence to support that.

quote:

---

Indeed this thread, and probably all the others about Iraq, the US, or any political subjects should be moved to the Philosophy and other Silliness. The OZONE is to be for " chit-chat about all sorts of silly topics.".

---

Couldn't agree more.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-26-2004 05:03)

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-26-2004 05:05)

quote:

---

Ramasax said:
Umm... so now you make policy for your government? You can't make that call. Your foreign minister, Michel Barnier, said no troops will be sent either now or later, regardless of the outcome of the election. I'll take his word over yours.

---

Actually I'm not sure if Chirac or the foreign ministers said clearly that some French troops could be sent in Iraq, but they clearly said several times that in the current situation ( cf the 3 points in my previous post ) the French government can not accept to send some troops in Iraq. The situation there and the relations between the US and the UN does not depend only of the election thus the sentence of Michel Barnier. Who knows BUSH, if he is re-elected, could realize that the "coallition" needs more allies and ignitiate some discussions with the UN. But honestly, from the course of the event since the last 2 years, I doubt it.

If the UN is sollicited and some Blue Helmets are sent to replace the actual coallition and help and protect the Iraqi people and strangers working there, be sure to see some French troops among them.

quote:

---

So basically, and correct me if I am wrong, what you are saying is that you are incapable of civil discourse with people of opposing opinions and values?

---

Nope. What I'm saying, is that your rethoric and refusal to face the things going really bad irks me but 99.9% of the time I stay calm when I reply or keep quiet. To be fair I also often give not enough importance to the things going well in Iraq as to me there's alas more things going bad there since the arrival of the army of liberation. This one time, I had read WebShaman's link before you replied and had an idea of the content and form of your first message. I've decided to let few days go to see if I was wrong, and I wasn't



(Edited by poi on 10-26-2004 09:31)

quote:

---

who the hell mentioned Iraq in the first place? You did.

---

Heh. Yeah, I mentioned it as a rebuttal for the War on Terror. Not the War on Iraq.

I Google a lot of stuff...that just popped up...I do not gather my information from Altersnet. The fact that it was from Altersnet...I knew it would stick in your throat. Apparently, it stuck in quite a few others, as well.

All of the Verterans that I know share the same opinion as I do. You say a "small percentage". Bring out your facts.

quote:

---

Guess not. Is everyone who does not share your view stupid or is it just a personal grudge against me?

---

Heh. Not sure if that even warrants an answer, considering all the different threads that I have participated in around here of differeing views. Another "brilliant" demonstration of your reasoning process.

quote:

---

You would rather we attacked N.Korea or Iran? There is still a lot of work to be done in the diplomatic arena there. We are making progress without force in both arenas.

---

You are off your rocker, ignorant of history, and wrong, to boot. With Iran, we are making no progress. North Korea and progress? Are you insane? Must be, you are here in the Asylum. We have been in "diplomatic" handling with North Korea since the Korean War has been in a Cease Fire. That is over 50 years now, give or take a few. You call that progress? If you use that as a measuring stick, then your position on Iraq is null and void.

You will notice, I do not "bad mouth" Bush on invading Afghanistan. I do give him a D- on how he has follwed up in Afghanistan, however. Had Bush chosen Iran, or North Korea, I would have been all for it.

You do not understand something, apparently. I am not against Iraq in principle. I have stated this before, apparently either your memory is rather weak, or you chose to ignore it. I am against how Bush chose to go about it. You are obviously severely lacking in the ability to determine a good job from a bad job. I have also pointed out, many times before, that both Iran and North Korea (and even Afghanistan) are more important targets than Iraq.

quote:

---

In any case, had Bush gone to N. Korea or Iran, something tells me you would still be bashing him, especially frequenting sites like alternet. Hell, I don't frequent the right wing news sites that often because even I like a little objectivity in my reporting. Reuters, AP, CNN, etc... What other biased sources do you frequent for your daily serving of red meat?

---

This little "gem" is exactly demonstative of your poor reasoning abilities. I normally use Google news. I follow links. I guess you could consider that a bit biased. If Bush had gone into North Korea or Iran, and did a good job, I would say so. If he did a bad job, I would also say so. Are you so inept, that you cannot recognize this? Apparently so.

You still have done nothing to answer questions that I posed to you. *shrugs*

Normal, coming from you.

Oh, this

quote:

---

On the other hand, with Iraq we are talking years of failed diplomacy and empty threats against Saddam's regime, to no avail. We are talking about a suffering population under brutal rule. Does the suffering of all those souls really mean that little to you? We are talking about a country that had, at many times, declared war on the US. We are talking about a leader with extensive ties to terrorism, which you obviously give no credence to, but there it is, a topic for another thread if you are willing to do so without calling me stupid, close-minded, ignorant or all of the above.

---

is just sooo vintage Ram - a larger pile of steaming doo I have not seen in awhile. You are actually describing North Korea, not Iraq. And North Korea really does have WMD. As for Saddams supposed extensive ties, where is your proof? In all the threads that have been done here even remotely relating to the subject at hand, there has been no conclusive proof on that! Even the Bush administration has backed away from this, because there is no evidence supporting it.

As for calling it like I see it...if you would demonstrate a logical thought train, provide valid facts for your position, and back it up with such, as well, then maybe I and others wouldn't have to point out the gaping holes of your ignorance. The fact that you seem incapable of accepting the facts, or admiting that you are wrong, only compounds the issue.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Ram, you still haven't answered anything. ... Stupidity at its finest.

.... Another "brilliant" demonstration of your reasoning process. ....

.... You are off your rocker, ignorant of history, and wrong, to boot. ... Are you insane?

.... You are obviously severely lacking in the ability to determine a good job from a bad job. ....

.... This little "gem" is exactly demonstative of your poor reasoning abilities. ....

.... Are you so inept, that you cannot recognize this? Apparently so. ....

.... As for calling it like I see it...if you would demonstrate a logical thought train, provide valid facts for your position, and back it up with such, as well, then maybe I and others wouldn't have to point out the gaping holes of your ignorance. The fact that you seem incapable of accepting the facts, or admiting that you are wrong, only compounds the issue. ....

---

And this creature dares to lecture me on ad hominem comments? What a joke. Even I am not this harsh to Ramasax. These "gems" further demonstrate why ignoring any replies from this creature to me is a wise idea. DL-44 is an angel compared to this creature. Astounding.

Your point, meta?

quote:

---

And this creature dares to lecture me on ad hominem comments?

---

Can't honestly remember when I attempted to lecure you on ad hominem comments. Could you perhaps provide me with an example?

Nice of you to drop into the thread. Maybe you have some thoughts on the subject? Or are you just following me around in the Halls? If so, don't you have something better to do, than to converse with the "creature", as you put it?

Have you guys seen the recent video that Osama bin Laden made before the U.S. Election?
Now that was intriguing. I really liked what he said in it. Everything that he said was true. The safety of the US civilians are not in Bush or Kerry's hands but their own.
It's Bush's fault why those people died in Sept.11 attack in the first place, haven't you noticed. When he stepped up to be the President everything just became a disaster. When Clinton was the president bin Laden never attacked the towers, well this is because he was planning it at that time. Still, he should never interfere with Muslim and Islamic's business.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | My Detention Room | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Support and advice needed. Now!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are incorrect

OK, I stand corrected about Clinton's ruling before. But that's it, I'm not backing down anymore until someone can prove and give me evidences of the rest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | My Detention Room | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Support and advice needed. Now!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yannah, where do you live?

[edit] On second thought, nevermind that question. I'll just say it rather than playing some tedious game of rabbi.

Unless you are willing to convert to Islam then your security is at risk as far as Osama is concerned. He takes his religion *very* seriously and I think you should try your best to understand him and his point of view before you assume he'll leave you alone if you leave him alone.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-11-2004 09:38)

I'm sure if I was as devoted as he is to his religion, I'd do the same to protect it from being crossed. On the other hand, I'm not thinking of converting to Islam as you mentioned earlier because I'm happy with being a Roman Catholic.

Even though I don't live in the U.S., think about the impact this thing will bring U.S.' allies, esp. Australia and this is what I'm more concerned with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | My Detention Room | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Support and advice needed. Now!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edited by Yannah on 11-11-2004 12:14)

Yannah, what you must understand is that people like OBL are not happy with *you* being a Roman Catholic. That is the problem. If it were a case of "live and let live", we wouldn't be having this conversation.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus: I probably missed something but I never heard of Osama Ben Laden willing to kill people only because of their religion.

I was afraid of that. He wrote an open letter to the "west" explaining some of his motivations over a year ago. I heard parts of it read over a news program at the time. I would very much like to find the text of it online somewhere but I'll have to do some digging.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Go and dig.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | My Detention Room | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Support and advice needed. Now!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found it!!! And from the Guardian no less so we know it's reliable

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

quote:

---

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Removed from context, it would seem that is their only reason. That is the way it is shown all too often in the American press and punditry.

The first question asks, "Why are we fighting and opposing you? " and the answer given has zero to do with converting anyone to Islam. In fact, he says, essentially, the reason for fighting is self-defense.

1) "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us."

2) "These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!"

3) [Too long to put here. Go read it. Basically, it attempts to justify attacks, by al Queda, on civilians.]


And, with regard to the second question, the one you quoted, "What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?" He provides 7 parts to the answer, only one of which has anything to do with Islam.
1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

4)We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

5)We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

6)Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

7)We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.


Now, one can disagree with his/their methods (and I do!), but the things he/they are calling for are not all about converting the world to Islam, taking over the world, hating our freedoms, or any other of the "reasons" oten batted about in American discourse. In fact, that's minimal. He's written FAR more on US foreign policy in the Middle East than he has on converting people to Islam.

In fact, one hardly ever hears an American news person speaking about Osama's thoughts on American foreign policy having anything at all to do with his justification of terrorism.

Just making sure the picture we're painting is as complete as possible.

Bugimus: Thanks for digging deep enough
I just read that in diagonal, and I see no mention to the fact that Osama is clearly against Christians. He says repeatedly that he's against anybody who, according to him, attack the muslims ( which includes, still according to him, the Jews and the Americans ) and want to reap them. Ok many Americans are Christians, but he never talks about Christianity. In fact he always talk about the Americans as citizen of the US.

Whatever, it doesn't change the situation between Al-Qaida and the US.



(Edited by poi on 11-12-2004 17:24)

~sigh~

Is living by faith so utterly foreign to your understanding? For OBL and anyone who lives by faith, the will of God is supreme. Everything in life is viewed within that context and according to that purpose. I can only surmise that this is simply not something either of you are willing, or perhaps able, at this point to recognize. Can you please help me to understand your view better if what I just said is inaccurate?

[edit] That is a brief reaction from me. I can back it up better with more time. I will explain the religious aspect of his answer to question #2 and how it relates to threatening us. Stay tuned and I'll come up with a more substantive response. [/edit]

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-12-2004 17:39)

I think I completely understand. Please don't mistake me as an al Queda apologist or anything of the sort.
I despise the fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism as much as of ANY fundamentalism.
I speak out openly and harshly against these same attitudes of Christians, Jews, Muslims...anybody.
It would be a double standard for me to do otherwise. =)

What I'm saying is this:
The American press says (almost exclusively) "OBL hates us because of our freedoms." or "OBL wants to kill all non-Muslims."

I completely disagree with the first statement. There is nothing I've ever read coming from him that says he hates us for our freedoms (and I've read quite a bit from him. I was reading his letters long before most in the US had ever heard his name.) One could say, I suppose, he hates secularism forced upon those he considers his people. I'm not saying I agree with him, I'm just saying that "our freedoms" are not his concern.

Then there is the issue of religion.
I DO believe religion is a fundamental part of the equation - especially for Osama.
It is not, however, the only piece of the equation. It's not even, really, a major part, for most people who really want to think about Islamic terrorism seriously.
I'm saying, as long as we in the US continue to believe the problem lies in someone's religion, we're going to have a significant misunderstanding of the situation. Brute force alone may drag us through, but it will be neither cheap nor intelligent...nor ending.

I'm saying, Osama bin Laden has written FAR more about US foreign policy in the Middle East than he has about converting people to Islam (that's important, not because it is what he believes, but because that is what draws the audience).
I'm saying, the people recruited to attack Americans are much more likely to do so because of political reasons than religious reasons. Certainly, they do it thinking God is on their side, but so does Bush. That proves nothing.
I'm saying, if the foreign policy issues were worked out, OBL and other wackos would have SIGNIFICANTLY less people to do their dirty work. He may still continue to spew crap from time to time, but so does the Montana militias and we largely ignore them - they simply aren't a serious threat without recruits.

The US has policies that do not promote democracy in the Middle East, that do not promote stability in the Middle East, that do not promote security in the Middle East, that do not promote prosperity in the Middle East.
If we fix those things - those things OBL has mentioned in that letter and elsewhere, those things the left as been talking about for decades - we remove a significant recruiting tool.

The terrorist issue almost fixes itself AND democracy is served.

(Edited by mobrul on 11-12-2004 19:17)

^ I agree with him