Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:19 AM
37 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,909 Year: 8,945/19,786 Month: 1,367/2,119 Week: 127/576 Day: 28/99 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Violent propaganda
IANAT
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 135 (199751)
04-16-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
04-15-2005 8:37 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
Iraq didn't attack the US. Osama bin Laden did, remember?

Saddam was thumbing his nose at America.
Osama hit the nose and then was thumbing his nose at America.
This was bringing a increasing support to stand-up against America.
This affects your pride, commerce as well as eventual safety.
So what are you going to do?
If the child disobeys the parent, does the parent maintain control or let the child do as it pleases?
America likes to be in control. What country would not? Power brings great benefits to its people. It does not take a war to reap benefits.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 8:37 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2005 11:13 AM IANAT has not yet responded
 Message 49 by nator, posted 04-16-2005 6:58 PM IANAT has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 135 (199753)
04-16-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by IANAT
04-16-2005 10:56 AM


Saddam was thumbing his nose at America.

In what way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by IANAT, posted 04-16-2005 10:56 AM IANAT has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 135 (199791)
04-16-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by IANAT
04-16-2005 10:36 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
Repeatedly over years since WTC attack, American "intelligence" was duped.

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:
Isn't it quite possible that your President, whom many of Americans call 'idiot', and his many advisors was also duped by some clever Arabs who saw advantage by removing Saddam by creating a convincing case of weapons of mass destruction?

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:
Or, isn't is quite possible that the use of oil revenue by Saddam and friendly European traders to fund military power in Iraq and other countries was an eventual threat to Israel and of bringing USA into a war that would bring massive causualites of life and business to Americans?

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:
Of course the reasons for war are power and money. In sports there is the saying "the best offense is a good defense". That is true in power as well.

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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by IANAT, posted 04-16-2005 10:36 AM IANAT has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 135 (199792)
04-16-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by IANAT
04-16-2005 10:56 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
Saddam was thumbing his nose at America.

How so?

quote:
Osama hit the nose and then was thumbing his nose at America.

...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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by IANAT, posted 04-16-2005 10:56 AM IANAT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 8:26 AM nator has responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 50 of 135 (199821)
04-17-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Wounded King
04-15-2005 7:29 AM


Because the members of the axis of evil were getting overconfident in the wake of the successfull terrorist attack.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Wounded King, posted 04-15-2005 7:29 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 04-18-2005 4:26 AM Syamsu has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2258 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 51 of 135 (200041)
04-18-2005 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Syamsu
04-17-2005 12:46 AM


In what way?

What significant changes in Iraqi policy followed on from September the 11th and demonstrate this overconfidence?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 04-17-2005 12:46 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 04-18-2005 7:55 AM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Syamsu, posted 04-21-2005 11:17 PM Wounded King has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 52 of 135 (200054)
04-18-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Wounded King
04-18-2005 4:26 AM


I think we are getting way away from some important points.
The problem is that the real Evil Nation in the Terrorist Camp is Indonesia. If you examine what has come to light since 9-11 the recurring theme is that Indonesia was the meeting ground and home base for all of the various terrorist elements. Instead of invading IRAQ which has not been shown to have played any part in Terrorism, we should have invaded Indonesia.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 04-18-2005 4:26 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-22-2005 10:51 AM jar has responded
 Message 70 by Tal, posted 04-26-2005 12:37 PM jar has responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 135 (200055)
04-18-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tal
04-15-2005 11:07 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
Feel free to point a weapon in my general direction.

Why should I bother? I am already a civilian, and therefore a target.

You may be amused to know that in the recent PCGamer review of America's Army, they captioned a picture of 4 guys covering different directions as "the Women & Children formation, in which you spray bullets wildly into crowds of civilians".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tal, posted 04-15-2005 11:07 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 135 (200057)
04-18-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
04-16-2005 6:58 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:

If we had finished the job in Afghanistan instead of going after a country which had never attacked us, things would be much better.

Nonsense. There was nothing gained by attacking Afghanistan; it was merely the first bit of Imperialism that the administration knew it would get rubber-stamped.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 04-16-2005 6:58 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 9:52 AM contracycle has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 135 (200071)
04-18-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by contracycle
04-18-2005 8:26 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
Nonsense. There was nothing gained by attacking Afghanistan; it was merely the first bit of Imperialism that the administration knew it would get rubber-stamped.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 8:26 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 11:17 AM nator has responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 135 (200089)
04-18-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
04-18-2005 9:52 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
The Taliban was supporting the terrorist that attacked us, and he was in Afghanistan.

- according to intelligence - the same intelligence that reported WMD in Iraq.
- Even if he was there, Afghanistan was still a soveriegn state
- By your admission, your beef was not with the Taliban, but AQ (if it exists).

quote:
We were quite justified in going after the Taliban and Bin Laden.

There was no justification for "going after the Taliban". The Taliban were doing their own thing in their own country and did not pose a threat to you; they had no effective army and minimal weaponry.

quote:
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.

And my point is, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is ALSO a crime and one for which the USA will be held accountable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 9:52 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 12:04 PM contracycle has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 135 (200100)
04-18-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by contracycle
04-18-2005 11:17 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
The Taliban was supporting the terrorist that attacked us, and he was in Afghanistan.

quote:
according to intelligence - the same intelligence that reported WMD in Iraq.

No, that's not correct.

Our intelligence never provided evidence of WMD in Iraq. Bush and Co. just lied about it being there.

quote:
Even if he was there, Afghanistan was still a soveriegn state
- By your admission, your beef was not with the Taliban, but AQ (if it exists).

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:
There was no justification for "going after the Taliban". The Taliban were doing their own thing in their own country and did not pose a threat to you; they had no effective army and minimal weaponry.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 11:17 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 6:20 AM nator has responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 135 (200303)
04-19-2005 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by nator
04-18-2005 12:04 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:

No, that's not correct. Our intelligence never provided evidence of WMD in Iraq. Bush and Co. just lied about it being there.

I'm afraid that IS correct. Remember, Clinton was on this bandwagon too - that is why he authorised the Desert Fox campaign, and December 16th 1998 he said:

quote:
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

What Bush did was to substantially underplay the tentativity of the intelligence. But as the subsequent reports on US intelligence show, there was a manifest willingness to accept the worst case scenario as most probable, and that they heard what they expected, or wanted, to hear.

The blame cannot be laid purely at Bush's door, or that of the Republicans. The whole American establishment has read the situation incorrectly in almost every detail. It is not even clear that Al Qaida even exist in any objective sense, or whether US intelligence "deduced" the existance of AQ from first principles.

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.

The Taliban can only be said to be "funding and sheltering" Bin Laden and Al Qaida if AQ actually exists in a meaningful sense. And no evidence has ever emerged from Afghanistan making this conclusive case. American intelligence alleged these "facts" - but they also alleged, and Rumsfeld presented this on TV, that AQ had vast underground concrete bunkers in the mountains - none of which have ever been found. To date, almost no claims about AQ have ever been verified. The few identifiable AQ activities we are certain of all postdate 9/11 by some way.

It is not clear that the demand to the Taliban was therefore reasonable or achievable. Furthermore, what right does the US have to go around unilaterally demanding that citizens of other states be handed over to you merely becuase you demand it? It is outright bullying, and the threat was followed up by actual violence.

Please remember that ALL American citizens are protected from prosecution by other states even if they commit war crimes. Why do you hold the Taliban to a standard you yourselves do not honour?

quote:
Therefore, we invaded.

Well that bit is indisputable. Its also why you are in the wrong.

quote:
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.

And once again we see here the self-righteousness of declaring the violence of your enemies illegitimate. Americas support of Israel and its persecution of Palestinians is the real issue, and America paid the price for its cruelty on 9/11.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-19-2005 05:21 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 12:04 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 9:28 AM contracycle has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 135 (200321)
04-19-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by contracycle
04-19-2005 6:20 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
The blame cannot be laid purely at Bush's door, or that of the Republicans. The whole American establishment has read the situation incorrectly in almost every detail.

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:
It is not even clear that Al Qaida even exist in any objective sense,

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:
or whether US intelligence "deduced" the existance of AQ from first principles.

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:
It is not clear that the demand to the Taliban was therefore reasonable or achievable.

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:
Furthermore, what right does the US have to go around unilaterally demanding that citizens of other states be handed over to you merely becuase you demand it?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 6:20 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 11:22 AM nator has responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 135 (200359)
04-19-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
04-19-2005 9:28 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
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.

Inasmuch as they are both pretexts for American Imperial expansion the Middle East, yes.

quote:
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:

I'm well aware of the allegations. That said, I consider some of them spurious - one is that a group of guards refused to let them into an HQ; that could be simply cockup rather than conspiracy. You will need to more specific about alleged attacks on inspectors - I don't recall any such. And clearly, no such WMD plans or programmes were in fact uncovered: because as we now know, they were clean since 1991.

This is exactly the 'seeing what you want to see' I suggested. Everyone "knowns" that Iraq has WMD, therefore anything suspicious "must" be indicative of an attempt to conceal.

Nevertheless, the point remains that you simply cannot lay the Iraq debacle on Bush's door alone. Bush did and Clinton were both willing to kill and maim on the basis of their dodgy intelligence reports alone. Clinton, and his Democratic administration, were every bit as convinced that Saddam was armed to the teeth as Bush was. Bush exagerated; he understated the partial data; for these he can and should be held to account. And so should Bomber Bill.

And before you ask, yes I was out on the streets protesting against Desert Fox. You may be pleased to learn that American pilots managed to bomb a flock of sheep, so that only bits of said sheep and their shephard could be found. Of course, nobody was held responsible.

quote:
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.

Thats the allegation that has now been comprehensively disproven. You will remember that Scott Ritter testified that "we got it almost entirely wrong", and as I recall he ran USNCOM during this period. This is also the period in which UNSCOM inspectors were revealed to be US intelligence agents, in total violation of the agreed tersm of the inspection.

Once again, these alleged products that justified Desert Fox have never been found.

quote:

Also note that I do NOT think that Iraq had WMD when Bush invaded. Desert Fox was a completely different mission than Desert Storm.

Riiiiight. Is that because you supported 'Fox, huh? There was no evidence - there were merely allegations, since disproved.

quote:
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:

The problem is, the rest of the world does not haver access to US intelligence sources, and cannot verify US claims. And that is all we have to go on.

I never said that AQ certainly did not exist. I say, IF it exists.

But the real problem is that it is not clear if AQ EVER existed in any meaningful sense until the US invented it. As the Wikipedia link reports:

quote:

Although "al-Qaeda" is the name of the organization used in popular culture, the organization does not use the name to formally refer to itself. The name "al-Qaeda" was coined by the American Federal Government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made in Afghanistan, which talks about the organization as "the base" of the jihad.

Bin Laden certainly had contacts. He probably had intent. But he probably never had an actual organisation that existed in conspiratorial cells, being organised by an international terrorist master-mind. But now that the US is so insistent there is such an organ, the name has certainly acquired a currency and cachet it never had before. The US is fighting demons largely of its own creation, and own invention.

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?

As you well know, many rival organisations are proine to claiming reponsibility for any given act of resistance. And if AQ is indeed the paranoid figment of US imagination, then it might even be easy to claim the strike on behalf of AQ as a means of putting the US off the scent.

Frankly, AQ does not behave like any other terrorist organisation anyone has ever heard of. It behaves like a James Bond villain. This alone is reason to doubt is actual existance as a meaningful entity - a threat deduced from nothing more than a single list in the posession of one individual. Seeing what you want to see again, especially as the predictions of huge bunkers in Afghanistan - the cited reason for the invasion - are now utterly discredited.

quote:
Did they offer to help find bin Laden and to bring him to justice?

Why should they, when Bin Laden was administering justice?

But yes, the Taliban did publicly say they would hand Bin Laden over if they knew where he was. There are some suggestions they were lying about that, and did know where he was, but lets bear in mind: the Taliban have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to the USA. When, for example, will you be handing your killers and torturers over to the Iraqi judicial system?

quote:

Anyway, it had been very well known that bin laden had been conducting terrorist training camps in Afghanistan for years before that.

No its not well known - its violently disputed not least by the very people who wqere arrested by the US in those very camps. They repeatedly report that the camps exiosted for training militia and mujahadeen for work in the India-Pakistan border, for theongoing Palestinian conflict and indeed for anti-Westerrn strikes. But it is quite clear that Bin Laden did not "run" any of these camps - they were run by the likes of Hizbollah and related organs and sympathisers. And these are the people that the US has been obliged to release back to the UK without charge. There are undoubtedly more innocent victims presently languishing in American gulags.

By the way, the Kurds run similar camps for their expats too. And I have known several British Pakistanis who have attended training camps in Pakistan learning to use AK's and RPG's. But you know the real reason they go? Charity donations by paying for that service in Western currency; they have no intention of taking up the struggle thmeselves.

Thus the point is the whole region is rife with armed "terrorist" camps, by which, once again, the term terrorist merely means "army without uniforms". There is absolutely no way the simple coincidence of Bin Laden at such a camp indicates he was ever in charge. He may have been the afternoon guest preacher.

quote:
It wasn't unilateral. The UN and much of the international community demanded it also:

Yes thats true. Unfortunately, we are fools to support America in this regard ever, becuase it will be thrown back in our faces: the US still will never sign up to the conventions governing war crimes which would allow its citizens to be extradited to face justice. What this incident is a demonstration of is only the silly sympathy the world felt for the US after 9/11, and the fact that appeasement of US imperialism does not work.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-19-2005 10:26 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 9:28 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 2:49 PM contracycle has responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019