|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Violent propaganda | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Nobody is saying that words and pictures can't be used. What is being said is that to use them in the way you suggest would be very, very counterproductive and would lead to more anti-American sentiment and terrorism, not less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: "Threatened?" Hardly. Iraq has the second largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It was greed and protectionism, nothing less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Iraq didn't attack the US. Osama bin Laden did, remember?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, you are partially right. American intelligence was not really wrong about much of the Iraq information; Bush and Cheney and the rest just chose to ignore what many people were telling them.
quote: It's possible, but not probable. That's because there never was a convincing case for Iraq having WMD in the first place. Bush and Co. Just saw what they wanted to see and ignored the rest.
quote: Maybe, except that IRaq was still under pretty severe UN sanctions regarding any kind of military build up and was being well-monitored by the international weapons inspectors. Given Hussein's record, I don't think the international community would have readily allowed him to make any moves toward militarisation at all.
quote: Agreed, although remember that sometimes the manifestation of power boild down to "My religion tells me that I should kill you because you are not part of my group."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How so?
quote: ...and had been for quite some time. Bush and Co. dropped the ball and did not protect the country from this religious extremist. They had courted the Taliban, the most oppressive and brutal government in recent times. If we had finished the job in Afghanistan instead of going after a country which had never attacked us, things would be much better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The Taliban was supporting the terrorist that attacked us, and he was in Afghanistan. We were quite justified in going after the Taliban and Bin Laden. Of course, my point was that we had no justification at all in going after Hussein and Iraq, and it was a diversion of needed resoources that could have been used effectively elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
The Taliban was supporting the terrorist that attacked us, and he was in Afghanistan. quote: No, that's not correct. Our intelligence never provided evidence of WMD in Iraq. Bush and Co. just lied about it being there.
quote: The Taliban, which was the current religious dictatorship leading Afghanistan at the time, was funding and harboring and sheltering Al Qaida and Bin Laden. After 9/11 and before invading, the US demanded that the Taliban turn Bin Laden over, and they refused. Therefore, we invaded.
We were quite justified in going after the Taliban and Bin Laden. quote: The taliban was harboring a known terrorist responsible for the WTC attacks, and they refused to turn him over. They were hardly "doing their own thing". They made a choice to ally themselves with Al Qaida and Bin Laden against the US both before and after Bin Laden bombed the WTC, so they paid the consequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Look, you keep switching back and forth between Iraq and Al Qaida in the same breath. They are very different situations, and the fact that you keep switching like that leads me to believe that you have them conflated in your mind for some reason. Anyway, Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998 was in direct response to Iraq's giving lots of difficulty to the UNSCOM international weapons inspectors, including attacking helicopter pilots when they tried to fly the inspection teams to planned destinations, attacking photographers with the inspectors when they tried to take pictures of a site, etc. Around this time, evidence of Iraq's WMD plans and actual acivity were uncovered by coalition weapons inspectors:
September 25, 1997 * UNSCOM inspects an Iraqi "food laboratory". One of the inspectors, Dr. Diane Seaman, enters the building through the back door and catches several men running out with suitcases. The suitcases contained log books for the creation of illegal bacteria and chemicals. The letterhead comes from the president's office and from the Special Security Office (SSO). * UNSCOM attempts to inspect the SSO headquarters but is blocked. October 23, 1997 * The UN Security Council passes a resolution demanding once again that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors. October, 1997 * UNSCOM destroys large quantities of illegal chemical weapons and related equipment. Iraq admitted that some of this equipment had been used to produce VX gas in May, 1997. Here's my info on the Pre Desert Fox timeline As you can read, this is REAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Iraq was producing illegal chemical weapons, because it had to be destroyed. Overall, the timeline shows that Iraq was basicaly jerking the inspectors around. Also note that I do NOT think that Iraq had WMD when Bush invaded. Desert Fox was a completely different mission than Desert Storm. OK, now on to Al Qaida.
quote: Sure it does, but it is not terribly clear cut who is an "Al Qaida member" or not because it is a shadowy, secretive, covert terrorist organization. There are probably many sub-groups that Bin Laden and other leaders can call upon. Anyway, pretty much the entire international community recognizes that Al Qaida exists, so I'm not sure why I should believe you when you say it doesn't. Here's my info:
Al Qaida has an entry in Wikipedia, so it must exist quote: Uh, Bin Laden has been identifying himself (and his group) as being responsible for many attacks and bombings on US targets, including 9/11. Do you deny what he says?
quote: Did they offer to help find bin Laden and to bring him to justice? Anyway, it had been very well known that bin laden had been conducting terrorist training camps in Afghanistan for years before that.
quote: It wasn't unilateral. The UN and much of the international community demanded it also:
United Nations Orders Taliban: Hand Over Bin Laden This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-19-2005 08:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Oh, so you see conspiracy everywhere when you are looking at a government you don't like, but you give Saddam Hussein's government every benefit of the doubt? What an amazing double standard you have there, contracycle.
quote: Well, I have my news sources which say that they happened. Do you have any particular reason or evidence which would cause me to doubt them?
quote: quote: Source please.
quote: What bullshit. Do you think that no other governments besides the US monitor Al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups? Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Great Britain all have counter terrorism offices and monitor Al Qaida and similar groups.
quote: He administered justice to office workers? Cleaning staff? Fire fighters? You have a very twisted idea of what justice is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, you do, and the several paragraphs you wrote about Iraq are irrelevant to this point, which I will restate:
Oh, so you see conspiracy everywhere when you are looking at a government you don't like, but you give Saddam Hussein's government every benefit of the doubt? What an amazing double standard you have there, contracycle. The fact of the matter is that you are willing to give Saddam's government every benefit of the doubt (as if he had the reputation of being a wonderfully upright, just, virtuous leader instead of a homicidal sociopath), and you are completely willing to see conpiracy everywhere from a government you don't like. You know, it must be really comfy living in that black and white world, where everything is so crystal clear and you know that the "bad guys" are 100% bad and the good guys are 100% good. Too bad you don't live in reality.
quote: Except for China.
quote: Maybe Bin Laden should have though about that when he adminstered justice to office workers, firefighters, and cleaning crews when he orderd the bombing of the World Trade Center. Or is it OK and not really murder if you are a non-American?
quote: Once again a Terrorist Apologist insists that the extremist religious terrorist not be held accountable for its brutality and cruelty.
Source please. quote: Neither. I'd like a source for tis claim of yours:
quote: Show me that the chemical weapons were not actually found and destroyed, contrary to my Wikipedia timeline source.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024