Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terrorism in London
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 136 of 313 (222818)
07-09-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
07-09-2005 11:32 AM


Re: What is the connection?
neiter of us has anything more to say on this. Time to let it go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 07-09-2005 11:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 07-09-2005 12:36 PM CanadianSteve has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 137 of 313 (222820)
07-09-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Silent H
07-09-2005 11:43 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
Bush is totally wrong on deficit spending.
Othewise, neither of us will haev anything new to add to this discussion. Time to let it go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 11:43 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 4:52 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 313 (222821)
07-09-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:33 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
quote:
The islamists flat out tell you that they intend to takeover the world for islam.
So do the fundamentalist Christians. So what? People who believe that they have the one true faith always claim that it is their duty to convert the entire world. The issue is not boiler-plate rhetoric that gets tacked onto the sermons -- the issue is whether there is an organized conspiracy to take control of the state institutions in every country of the world in order to impose their religion on the citizens.
-
quote:
As for: "And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production." Yes, that's what you said, and that is what i replied to.
I guess the point of my comment still goes over your head.
Let me repeat the gist of my post:
In this post you made the comment:
What motivated 9/11 was that the US was in the Islamists' way with respect to their plans to take over islamic nations. They thought they could scare the US out of the Middle East so they'd be freer to march on, as they had been.
In reply I made this statement:
And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production. The US thought that they could scare the regimes of the middle east into being more conducive to US interests so they would be freer to march on.
You seem to missed that I merely took your wording, simply substituting different persons in the subjects. My comment is simply the mirror image of your comment. It requires no more evidence on my part than your comment does. I don't see what you can possibly object in my comment. The only valid objection that I see is that I haven't tried to provide evidence to support it. But you haven't provided evidence to support a single one of your assertians either.
I feel that I have demonstrate that your comment is entirely vacuous, without meaning, and without supporting evidence. Unless you actually attempt to support your assertian with some sort of evidence I will allow you to have the last word on this matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:33 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 8:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 139 of 313 (222822)
07-09-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Chiroptera
07-09-2005 12:16 PM


Re: Muslim dissent
Again, read tehari, and almost any other ME scholar of note.
Otherwise, neither of us has anyhting new to add to this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 12:16 PM Chiroptera has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 140 of 313 (222823)
07-09-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by crashfrog
07-09-2005 12:20 PM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
I do not see everything about bush in a positive light. His deficit spending is nuts. His conficence gthat faith based charities will provide the best social services is questionable. I have other issues as well. On islamism, he is absolutely right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2005 12:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2005 12:44 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 313 (222824)
07-09-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:33 AM


Empty rhetoric and a lost cause.
quote:
Again, I say, had this been Gore, you'd be cheering.
Another claim for which you have no evidence whatsoever. The only possible reason you could make this claim is that you recognize that you will blindly following your leaders anywhere they go, and so everyone else must have leaders whom they will follow blindly. When you feel compelled to make comments of this sort you must recognize, deep down, that you have lost the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:33 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 142 of 313 (222825)
07-09-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 12:28 PM


Re: What is the connection?
So we are not supposed to examine your assertions?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 12:28 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 8:32 PM jar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 313 (222827)
07-09-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 12:33 PM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
His deficit spending is nuts.
So you say, but so long as you support the war in Iraq, you support that spending. (Where did you think that money was coming from? The oil? Hell, we lost 9 billion dollars of that money. Can't figure out where it went.)
On islamism, he is absolutely right.
How can he be right when his policies are objectively a manifest failure?
Look, you can't argue with the facts. If you want to go after Islamicism, then you need to go after its leaders. Not the leader of a totally secular government who had been opposing them.
When Japan bombs your Pearl Harbor, you don't invade Mexico just because it's cheaper. You invade Tokyo, and you point guns at Hirohito. We know where bin Laden is; we've known for years. For Bush that's not a priority, which is ridiculous. It's insulting to the families of all those people bin Laden killed. Does taking out bin Laden take out the problem? No. But it sends a message, rallies our allies, gets people on our side, assures moderate Muslims that this isn't about eliminating all Islam everywhere.
What we've done sends a message that we're reckless and will use anything as an excuse to sieze the resources we need; it's alienated our allies and set almost everyone against us; its convinced Muslims across the world that we can't tell the difference between murdering madmen and good people of faith.
How can you possibly believe those are good things? How can you possibly believe that those aren't the last things we should have done if we want to combat radical, fundamentalist Islam?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 12:33 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 8:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 144 of 313 (222828)
07-09-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
07-08-2005 11:14 PM


Re: Iraq and Terrorism
Monk writes:
There was a car bomb.
The plot was led by Iraqi nationals.
The target was President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait.
This is terrorism.
This is a link to Iraq.
jar writes:
Is it terrorism? Could there be some other explanation? Do I really have to spell it out for you?
I guess I need to spell it out to you. I consider this assassination attempt to be terrorism. You don’t. Ok, so we agree to disagree. There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Here is one from dictionary.com
quote:
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Wikipedia has several definitions and stresses that terrorism means different things to different people. They tend to exclude assassination attempts as terrorism. But a car bomb that has the potential to kill surrounding innocent civilians in a large scale blast especially if occurring in a crowded area, would be terrorism.
The Terrorism Research Center explains:
quote:
There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. There are many reasons for this (not the least of which is the cliche "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"). Even different agencies of the US government have different working definitions. Most definitions usually have common elements, though, oriented around terrorism as the systematic use of physical violence--actual or threatened--against non-combatants but with an audience broader than the immediate victims in mind, to create a general climate of fear in a target population, in order to effect some kind of political and/or social change.
Based on this, it is likely that you and I will never agree on whether particular incidents constitute terrorism, but here are a few other viewpoints.
The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism states that terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims. This definition is based on three elements:
  1. The essence of the activitythe use of, or threat to use, violence. According to this definition, an activity that does not involve violence or a threat of violence will not be defined as terrorism (including non-violent proteststrikes, peaceful demonstrations, tax revolts, etc.)
    A car bomb is violent
  2. The aim of the activity is always politicalnamely, the goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc. In the absence of a political aim, the activity in questwill not be defined as terrorism. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is, at most, an act of criminal delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to terrorism. Some scholars tend to add ideological or religious aims to the list of political aims. The advantage of this definition, however, is that it is as short and exhaustive as possible. The concept of political aim is sufficiently broad to include these goals as well. The motivationwhether ideological, religious, or something elsebehind the political objective is irrelevant for the purpose of defining terrorism.
    President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait are political leaders whose death would necessitate a regime change.
  3. The targets of terrorism are civilians. Terrorism is thus distinguished from other types of political violence (guerrilla warfare, civil insurrection, etc.). Terrorism exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian underbellythe tremendous anxiety, and the intense media reaction evoked by attacks against civilian targets. The proposed definition emphasizes that terrorism is not the result of an accidental injury inflicted on a civilian or a group of civilians who stumbled into an area of violent political activity, but stresses that this is an act purposely directed against civilians. Hence, the term terrorism should not be ascribed to collateral damage to civilians used as human shields or to cover military activity or installations, if such damage is incurred in an attack originally aimed against a military target. In this case, the responsibility for civilian casualties is incumbent upon whoever used them as shields.
President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait are civilians as would be all the surrounding civilians that would have been killed in the car bomb blast. Some military personnel might also have died, but certainly civilians would have died.
So based on this definition, I consider the 1993 attempted car bomb incident to be a thwarted terrorist attack. You seem to want to examine root causes of why this action should not be considered terrorism instead of the event itself. You want to go back in time and go step by step in a methodical way to show there was a perfectly good reason why Bush should have been blown up in a car bomb.
But you are wrong. It doesn’t matter whether we find seemingly valid reasons to justify the assassination attempt, it is still terrorism. Al-Qaeda has said that the London attacks are the result of British foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By your rationale, it is possible for Al-Qaeda to put forward logical explanations that would remove the London attacks from the characterization of terrorism. To many terrorists apologist, the perpetrators of the attacks are merely freedom fighters. I don’t agree with this.
jar writes:
As to Powell. No it was not just the art work, although that was about like a pre-k fingerpainting you'd find on Mommy's refrigerator.
I really don’t know what world lens you are looking through Jar, but to compare Powell’s presentation to Pre-K finger-painting is blind stupidity on your part. You throw these things out, yet you produce nothing to support it. That seems to sum up our exchanges here at EvC. But that’s ok, I leave it up to the reader’s to decide.
Ok, on to Powell’s presentation.
I think the so called finger painting you are referring to is the mobile biological units:
This finger painting sketch as you call it shows how the components would work together in a functioning unit compared to the partial recover of an actual unit.
Most Iraq apologist claim these units were nothing more than hydrogen production units, but Powell dismisses this claim:
quote:
Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Hydrogen production would be a plausible cover story for the mobile production units.
The Iraqis have used sophisticated denial and deception methods that include the use of cover stories that are designed to work. Some of the features of the trailera gas collection system and the presence of causticare consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production.
The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons. Compact, transportable hydrogen generation systems are commercially available, safe, and reliable.
It would have been so much easier for Hussein to purchase mobile hydrogen production units from any number of legal sources. With his financial capability he could have purchased as many as he wanted and had them shipped anywhere in Iraq he wanted to at a fraction of the time, money and effort being expended to create these hydrogen units entirely from the ground up.
jar writes:
Frankly, compared to the presentations that Kennedy made to the public in general as well as the UN (I happened to see them as well), the performance of the Bush Administration was sophomoric at best. They had no evidence. They still have found no evidence.
I’m glad you saw the Kennedy presentation, good for you, but so what? This is another case of you simply choosing to ignore the evidence available. Here is the complete presentation submitted to the UN council on February 5, 2003. There is a lot more here than finger painting. Powell Presentation
If you bothered to review the Powell presentation you will see the majority of the discussion is about how Hussein simply refuses to account for where the WMD’s are. They had them, now they don’t have them. Where did they go? No one knows and that’s extremely dangerous.
quote:
These quantities of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for. Dr. Blix has quipped that, "Mustard gas is not marmalade. You are supposed to know what you did with it." We believe Saddam Hussein knows what he did with it and he has not come clean with the international community.
We have evidence these weapons existed. What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are. That is what we are still waiting for.
Regarding nukes, Powell never said Sadaam had them. He said:
quote:
Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons. People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind. These illicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material.
The bad intel concerns the stockpiles of chemical WMD’s which were not found. But my God, to simply throw out of the window all other compelling information based on this one issue is dangerous, short sighted, and ridiculous. Powell’s presentation includes taped conversations with Iraqi military discussing how and when to evacuate the chemical WMD’s.
The only conclusion from all of this is that we didn’t find WMD’s because they had already been evacuated. Sadaam certainly had enough time to evacuate weapons during the 7 month rush to war. The New York Times created quite a stir on Oct. 25, 2004 when it reported that 380 tons of powerful explosives had disappeared from a storage site in Iraq. Bush was blamed for allowing the weapons to be evacuated, but what got lost in the article is that the weapons went missing before the invasion.
Oh, but the Iraqi apologist ignore all of this. The pat response is always the same,
We didn’t find WMD’s, bad intel, everything is all wrong. It’s all a big lie and there never was a basis to invade Iraq. End of story. Bush, Blair, Powell and all others supporting the war are idiots and children who finger paint.
This sort of insane nonsense is why we need strong leaders like Bush and Blair who will not bow to terrorism and who will not be swayed by childish illogical terrorist apologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 07-08-2005 11:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2005 1:08 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 146 by jar, posted 07-09-2005 1:14 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 149 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 5:12 PM Monk has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 145 of 313 (222830)
07-09-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Monk
07-09-2005 12:55 PM


Re: Iraq and Terrorism
If you bothered to review the Powell presentation you will see the majority of the discussion is about how Hussein simply refuses to account for where the WMD’s are. They had them, now they don’t have them. Where did they go? No one knows and that’s extremely dangerous.
Did we find out, when we invaded?
The New York Times created quite a stir on Oct. 25, 2004 when it reported that 380 tons of powerful explosives had disappeared from a storage site in Iraq. Bush was blamed for allowing the weapons to be evacuated, but what got lost in the article is that the weapons went missing before the invasion.
I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. Those explosives were observed to be present during the first days of the invasion by the first US forces on the scene.
This sort of insane nonsense is why we need strong leaders like Bush and Blair who will not bow to terrorism and who will not be swayed by childish illogical terrorist apologists.
What we need are leaders - and citizens - who can keep their facts straight. You seem to have a problem with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Monk, posted 07-09-2005 12:55 PM Monk has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 146 of 313 (222831)
07-09-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Monk
07-09-2005 12:55 PM


Re: Iraq and Terrorism
Let's try to address the points you raised.
Compare these photos from the Kennedy presentation to those you posted from the Iraq presentation.
One shows actual evidence.
The other is filled supposition and innuendo. There is a drawing of a truck. A picture where the caption begins "Probable". Then a few more drawings. The report goes on to explain that the units actually could have a legitimate use and purpose and that there was no actual evidence they were NOT used for the original purpose.
Now let's address the relocation of any WMDs that might have been there.
Duh!
This message has been edited by jar, 07-09-2005 12:17 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Monk, posted 07-09-2005 12:55 PM Monk has not replied

Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 313 (222841)
07-09-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:33 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
That is not my conspiracy story, but theirs.
Can you give us an adress to an article where they tell this?
You familiar with this perhaps?
Chick.com: Allah Had No Son
Some of your saying seems to be ripped out of its pages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:33 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 1:27 AM Meeb has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 148 of 313 (222847)
07-09-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 12:30 PM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
Bush is totally wrong on deficit spending.
Wait a sec, now you want to know how it feels to be me? I bring up what I don't like about something Bush did and you go into a tirade about how that means I hate everything he does and would totally agree of it was just not him or republicans.
Now here you are saying there is something you don't agree with. Is it because you don't like everything he does and would be just fine if it was anyone else? Would you feel great if someone decided to pull that on you?
If you can understand that your disagreement on that issue does not make you inherently biased, then I want an apology and recognition that same goes for me.
neither of us will haev anything new to add to this discussion.
Well I do have more to add, but if you don't then I guess I don't need to say any more. Just remember, my last post was a rebuttal of your position, which means you do need to add something or your argument is left rebutted. I mean its not like I simply said, yeah well I think you're wrong. I had an argument in there.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 12:30 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 8:38 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 149 of 313 (222849)
07-09-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Monk
07-09-2005 12:55 PM


Re: Iraq and Terrorism
Despite my totally not caring if the attempt on Bush's life was labeled "terrorist act" or "criminal act", I have to say all you did was provide evidence that you were totally wrong and indeed it was NOT a terrorist act.
I am not sure how you read through all that material you provided and did not come to the same conclusion. Assassination itself is not terrorism, which was made plain, and you seem to be hanging your hat solely on the weapon employed and that a secondary target (or collateral damage based on the weapon used) could have resulted in a regime change.
That is less than slim. You say you and Jar may never end up agreeing, but it appears that it is in fact you and everyone else you cited that are also not agreeing.
Given that Hussein did aid Palestinian groups which could be defined as terrorists, why do you feel the need to stretch that rather obvious (at this point) case up into a terrorist act?
Honestly I had no prior position or care about how it shook out, but your "defense" was the strongest rebuttal of your own position I could imagine. You convinced me that you were wrong.
The only conclusion from all of this is that we didn’t find WMD’s because they had already been evacuated. Sadaam certainly had enough time to evacuate weapons during the 7 month rush to war
This has already been rejected by our own administration. Why are you clinging onto it like a safety blanket? By the way the material that was lost was known material, and it was argued that an invasion was more likely to cause its proliferation into the wrong hands. Your use of that article only proves that antiwar advocates were correct, regardless of whether it was before or after the invasion (it was after).
We didn’t find WMD’s, bad intel, everything is all wrong. It’s all a big lie and there never was a basis to invade Iraq. End of story. Bush, Blair, Powell and all others supporting the war are idiots and children who finger paint.
As opposed to "We didn't find WMDs, and there was bad intel, but everything is all right. Its all true anyway and there was a basis to invade Iraq, end of story. Bush, Blair, Powell and all others supporting the war are brilliant patriots who deserve our unquestioning allegiance, everyone else is an antiUS "Iraq apologist" and want to help Bin Laden, the terrorists, and loved 911!"?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Monk, posted 07-09-2005 12:55 PM Monk has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 150 of 313 (222855)
07-09-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
07-09-2005 9:12 AM


The position to which I was replying was the curious concept that owning something like a firearm, which they had in England far longer than we've ever had them in America (where do you think the colonists got them), isn't a civil freedom at all
But that's exactly my point. Civil Freedoms are always measured a sliding scale: they are not absolutes. In Britain the right to own a gun is viewed as negligible when compared to the right for other people to live in a society without guns. We could discuss this in another thread if you like - I suspect it's fairly off-topic.
But it is ok for someone in the states to own a jet fighter. They're expensive, and the only affordable ones are decommissioned trainer models from the Vietnam-era, but you can have one if you want.
Can you then outfit it with sidewinder missiles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2005 9:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2005 7:11 PM Ooook! has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024