Why terrorists will ultimately fail...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 00:13
VIEWED: 9389
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:15 PM

This is a must-see clip. This woman is brave.
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050#
Here's the link to the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.ht
ml?ex=1143003600&en=f61aaa1551878dd9&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Their time is past, and the tail is still thashing about.

Chrisisall in the 21st

HERO

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:58 PM

This is why terrorists will ultimately fail...

< http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/>

Quote:

I knew right after September the 11th, though, that the attacks would begin to fade in people's memory. I mean, who wants to constantly go through life thinking that you're going to get hit again? Who wants to kind of re-live those days in your memory? As a matter of fact, I asked the American people to go on about your life. But given the fact that it's human nature to forget, or try to put in the past, put the pain in the past, I want to assure you and our fellow Americans I'm not going to put it in the past. The threat to the United States is forefront in my mind. I knew that at times people would say, you know, it may be an isolated incident, let's just don't worry about it. Well, for me it's not an isolated incident. I understand there is still an enemy which lurks out there.

And so part of my decision-making process, part of it as you see when I begin to protect you, to do my number one priority, rests upon this fact: that there is an enemy which is relentless and desirous to bring harm to the American people, because of what we believe in. See, we're in an ideological struggle. It's very important for the students here to understand that there is an enemy which has an ideology, and they're driven by an ideology. They make decisions based upon their view of the world, which is the exact opposite of our view of the world.

Perhaps the best way to describe their political vision is to remind you what life was like for people living in Afghanistan when the Taliban was running that country with al Qaeda as the parasite. If you were a young girl in that society, you had no chance to get educated. If you spoke out against the view of these folks, their religious view, you could be taken to the public square and whipped. In other words, there was not freedom. There wasn't freedom to worship the way you want to, just like we believe here in the United States of America. You can worship, you can not worship in our country, and you're equally American. You can be a Christian, Jew or Muslim, and you're equally American. It's the greatness of the United States of America which -- (applause) -- which stands in stark contrast to what these ideologues believe.

Their vision of the world is dark and dim. They have got desires to spread a totalitarian empire. How do we know? Because they told us. Mr. Zawahiri, the number two in the al Qaeda network, told the world such. He might not have wanted us to read that particular thing he was sending, but nevertheless we did. And he said that, here's our designs and our desires. In other words, these people have got an ideology, and strategy to implement the ideology. They've got a -- they have no heart, no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective. These folks cannot be appeased. We can't hope that nice words will change their point of view.

And so the decision I made right off the bat is we will find them, and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before they hurt America again.

Its really the last line that sums it all up.

H

CARTOON

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:19 PM

Hey, Chris. I clicked on that link and... well, I have dial-up (need I say more?)...

Could you pity a poor guy who has to go back to work (and hasn't the patience to wait a few weeks for the video to load), and give me the gist of what the lady said?

Thanks.

BTW, great seeing you again, Mr. Prosecutor (that's for Hero, Chris, not you)(although, sometimes you act like a prosecutor)(that second parenthetical statement was for Chris, not Hero)(these parenthetical statements get confusing after a while)...

HARDWARE

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And so the decision I made right off the bat is we will find them, and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before they hurt America again.

I understand George W has a new plan to kill Osama Bin Laden. It's called Operation Natural Causes.

He's been scouring his ranch in Crawford looking for any sign of OBL.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:05 PM

@Cartoon:

The transcript:

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050

EDIT: Is she still alive?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

CARTOON

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:23 PM

Much obliged, SigmaNunki. Much, much, much obliged. (Did I tell you I had dial-up?) Much, much, much, much, much, obliged.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
EDIT: Is she still alive?

Indeed. The woman is lot braver than I am.

This was aired on Al-Jazeera? Oh dear. She's practically painted a target on her face, saying, "Come on, right here!!"

I have to disagree with her one comment, however -- the one about one culture treating women like "beasts" and the other culture treating them like "human beings".

I agree with the "beasts" part of the comment for the one culture, but apparently she hasn't seen much western advertising if she thinks we treat women like "human beings". I'd say more like "sex objects". Or perhaps a cross between "human being" one moment and "sex object" the next. I guess it depends on which advertising (or which literature, tv, or movies) you view.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

I guess it depends on which advertising (or which literature, tv, or movies) you view.

Indeed. Because that exact same thing could be said about men as well.

I'd say that advertisers use sex whenever possible regardless of who they are advertising for, kids included.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:09 AM

While fundamentally agreeing with her premise, I disagree with just about everything else she says.

First of all, there is no assurance that Western society will survive. Having read "Collapse" I no longer believe that knowledge will always be salavaged from collective experience. It is possible for an entire society to go off the rails and die- especially very highly developed, interdependent societies that can't possibly take a step backwards and still survive.

Furthermore, while I don't see Jews blowing themselves up in German cafes, I do see Israel bulldozing, strafing, and bombing entire communities. I do see the USA killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. Just because it's government-sponsored, large-scale- and impersonal doesn't make it "not terrorism", which was decided in a previous thread to be creating a state of terror in civilian population for political ends.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
While fundamentally agreeing with her premise, I disagree with just about everything else she says.

First of all, there is no assurance that Western society will survive. Having read "Collapse" I no longer believe that knowledge will always be salavaged from collective experience. It is possible for an entire society to go off the rails and die- especially very highly developed, interdependent societies that can't possibly take a step backwards and still survive.

Furthermore, while I don't see Jews blowing themselves up in German cafes, I do see Israel bulldozing, strafing, and bombing entire communities. I do see the USA killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. Just because it's government-sponsored, large-scale- and impersonal doesn't make it "not terrorism", which was decided in a previous thread to be creating a state of terror in civilian population for political ends.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

I so want to start a " Why terrorists will ultimately win... " thread.... but instead I'll sit back and watch it happen. Reminds me of that speech Adama gave at Galacticas retirement ceremony, something about that nobody ever asked if humans deserved to survive.

All empires eventually fall, and I think in my lifetime we will see the Americans follow the Russians and the Brits who came before them. To be truthful, I think the world will be better for it.

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

KPO

Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:34 AM

Quote:
I do see the USA killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq

I'm sure you don't. The total figure for civilian deaths caused by military action of the US and its allies is a number just under ten thousand I believe, and is pretty much stationary so I don't like your use of the present tense.

If you're talking about the ongoing killing of civilians after the war's end you are highlighting (for the most part) the violence of certain radical elements of iraqi/arab society (causing many more deaths than coalition forces). Whatever blame you might attach to the US forces in Iraq for failing to prevent this, raising the issue of muslims killing other muslims in the first place is surely only reinforcing the arab-american lady's view...?

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:47 AM

Quote:
The total figure for civilian deaths caused by military action of the US and its allies is a number just under ten thousand I believe

And you are free to do so. Of course that means that you are not on the same page as reality. Pirate News is much closer with his 1.6 million figure. I've done a lot of figureing, and I keep coming up about 1/2 of PN's number 800,000 or 900,000. In Bush's defense, most of those are not his, but he will be very lucky is his own total is only tens of thousands. I strongly suspect it will be hundreds of thousands. Of course, all of this is potentially dwarfed by the pending civil war, which could claim a toll in millions.

Part of why those of us who oppose the war do so is that we are in touch with reality, which, to put it in other words, means: We're pessimists.

The only problem with cynics is that they're right nine times our of ten.

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
The total figure for civilian deaths caused by military action of the US and its allies is a number just under ten thousand I believe

And you are free to do so. Of course that means that you are not on the same page as reality. Pirate News is much closer with his 1.6 million figure. I've done a lot of figureing, and I keep coming up about 1/2 of PN's number 800,000 or 900,000. In Bush's defense, most of those are not his, but he will be very lucky is his own total is only tens of thousands. I strongly suspect it will be hundreds of thousands. Of course, all of this is potentially dwarfed by the pending civil war, which could claim a toll in millions.

Part of why those of us who oppose the war do so is that we are in touch with reality, which, to put it in other words, means: We're pessimists.

The only problem with cynics is that they're right nine times our of ten.

You could also include the death toll caused by the sanctions against Iraq for the WMD that they didn't have.....

I'd have to go looking for a figure, but I seem to remember a UN stat from 1998 saying over 750,000 kids under 16...

And as the US and Britain were the only ones who wanted to keep the sanctions.... I'd say they own that.

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a must-see clip. This woman is brave.
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050#

Their time is past, and the tail is stil thashing about.

Chrisisall in the 21st

It was argued by some before the war that a war in Iraq would force a rethinking of Arab values. I didn't believe them at the time, but lately I’ve been coming around to this idea. Although personally, I never thought and still don’t think that terrorists could ever ultimately succeed without the consent of the West. But this is good news and it suggests that the Arab world may be slowly opening the gates they closed in the 14th century.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:25 AM

Quote:
You could also include the death toll caused by the sanctions against Iraq for the WMD that they didn't have.....

Oh, I did. I don't think it's that high, it's between 500 and 600K. Clinton is an evil bastard. I'm not sure yet that Bush is an evil bastard, he might just be an incompetent moron. Also, the first Gulf war. But it's not just us, I think Saddam gets some credit, but still, you can't blame the wolf for being a wolf, at some point you have to take responsiblity for the fact that you locked it in the hen house.

For this war, I think honestly, the 30K figure is low, and while I think the 150K figure is high, it's likely to be somewhere in between the two.

I guess, objectively, not as bad as Clinton or Kerry is really damning with faith praise. To the extent Bush is Clinton, he's as bad, to the extent he's a republican, he's nto as bad, and on the budget, for whatever reason, he's clearly worse, as in - look at the budget - but even and average of 'better than Clinton' is not enough - I'm not grading on a curve.

Clearly there are many things worse than having Bush as president. For instance, we could have Osama Bin Laden as president, or even school building contractor. Or Al Zarqawi roaming about telling the democrats and republicans to bomb each others houses and places of work. Or we could have any of a number of presidents of other countries such as Kim Jong Il, Thabo Mbeki, Vladimir Putin or Robert Mugabe. Or anyone from Hamas. We could be the new Bolivarian Socialist Republican of America.

But again, this isn't the contest at hand. My objections to Bush come from "he's not better than any random republican senator" I think even someone from Bush's corner of the political spectrum, there are a number of people who do be far better. I'd be completely up for putting all 55 names in a hat and drawing a new Prez and VP.

What I'm really dreading is the new Hillary admin. This is a woman who has essentially already promised us a war to conquer Iran and install a new govt. This will be potentially harder than Vietnam, because Iran will have not just China backing it up, but also Russia. It'll be pretty easy for the Hillster to spend a trillion dollars killing a million people and failing to take Iran.

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:54 AM

IDENTIFY FRIEND OR FOE (IFF)

Quote:
Quote:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Jewish Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

-60 Minutes, 5/12/96, Extra! "We Think the Price Is Worth It," by Rahul Mahajan, November/December 2001
www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Jewish "President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III."
www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

USA nuked Iraq with dose-equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs. "Depleted" uranium is radioactive for 35-billion years and emits gamma rays, x-rays, beta particles and killer alpha particles:
www.traprockpeace.org/depleteduranium.html

Pentagon has already nuked USA with 1,050 A-bombs:
www.HistoryChannel.com

50,000 US troops killed in 15-year Iraq War
500,000 US troops are paid disablity from Gulf War
www.GulfWarVets.com

7,000 Americans genocided EVERY DAY in Death Camps in USA today:
www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_01.htm

Commander In Chief Radio #17
"POWs from 45 nations incarcerated in Gitmo"
by Skidmark Bob
Pirate Radio Santa Cruz
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8939.php
www.freakradio.org

Free Peace MP3s
www.benfrank.net/nuke/Free_Peace_mp3s.html

www.police-state.net

"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
-USAma Bin Laden (CIA code name Jew Tim OSSman when in California buying SAMS from CIA), business partner with Bush family since 1947, brother Salem Bin Laden was George Bush Jr's first business partner in Arbusto Oil in Texas, his other brother Shafig Bin Laden was dining with Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the British Empire and Carlyle Group (owner of Serenity) on 9/11/2001 in Washinton DC, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

"I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people."
-Usama Bin Laden, Ummat magazine, September 28, 2001

"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information. It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
—US Solicitor-General Theodore "Ted" Olson, in Jennifer K. Harbury vs. United States, at the US Supreme Court, on 17 March 2002 (his wife Barabara Olson, attoney at law and CNN talkinghead disappeared on September 11, 2001, allegedly on American Airlines Flight 77 that never hit the Pentagon)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-William Colby, Director CIA, assassinated 60,000 people via CIA Death Squads in Vietnam Wars with Phoenix Project ("drowned" in a suspicious "canoe crash" while cooking dinner in Washington DC)

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Bush Sued by RICO Act - 9/11 victims sue Bush Gang under RICO Act for perping domestic terrorism and mass murder on 9/11/2001. Stanley Hilton vs traitorous media whores Shaun Hannity and Alan Colmes for Jewish Australian porno king pimp daddy Rupert Murdock on Faux News.
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/7209.ph

KPO

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:26 PM

Quote:
Of course that means that you are not on the same page as reality. Pirate News is much closer with his 1.6 million figure. I've done a lot of figureing, and I keep coming up about 1/2 of PN's number 800,000 or 900,000.

I got my figures from Iraq body count - an anti war movement not some official US governmental source. Are you sure you are not quoting overall death figures, including those from natural causes? Some reports cite these to show that the overall death rate has gone up - ie. iraq is less stable now and people are suffering for lack of basic ammenities.

True enough, unfortunate circumstance will lead to high death rates. But my point remains; who do you blame for the civilian deaths from the current instability, the radical elements of arab/iraqi society who are causing it or the americans who are failing to prevent it? I'm not trying to plead the innocence of the US I just think people should give blame where it's due.

Quote:
Part of why those of us who oppose the war do so is that we are in touch with reality

You're assuming that I support the war in Iraq. Huh.

CARTOON

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:38 PM

Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America, it's still the one place in the world that everyone else is trying to get into so they can live the best life imaginable on earth.

How many people do you see wanting to go live in Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia because it affords them the best chance to make something of themselves and live their lives freely?

Ask the women of Saudi Arabia (if you can get them to talk to you at all, much less on the record) if they can live more freely there or here in the U.S.?

And there's no amount of political rhetoric or insane conspiratorial theories which can speak as loudly (or as profoundly) as the vast numbers of people trying to get into the U.S. on a daily basis.

We don't have to build walls to keep our citizens in. People are fighting to get in, not out. So there must be something here they want, which they can't find elsewhere.

CHRISMOORHEAD

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:51 PM

PirateNews, are you male or female? Cause I think I'm in love with you.

While I may not agree totally with the Bush bashing, it seems in your case it's directed at the current major evil and the position he occupies, and not just at the man himself. That's a good thing. We need more people like you constantly questioning any and everything they can. Governments of all types commit absolutely heinous crimes that the average person doesn't have the resources to commit and it is imperative that people draw attention to it, no matter what political party, no matter what great causes they support, we must NEVER stop questioning.

God bless you, patriot.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

DREAMTROVE

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:04 AM

Quote:
I got my figures from Iraq body count - an anti war movement not some official US governmental source.

I'm not off in paranoia city, but I'm not sure this is true. I think that the Iraq Body Count, though it started as an anti-war group, is not an official US govt. source. The govt uses it, Bush himself has used their figures. I think their estimates are seriously low by any serious attempt at a realistic projection.

Quote:
Are you sure you are not quoting overall death figures, including those from natural causes? Some reports cite these to show that the overall death rate has gone up - ie. iraq is less stable now and people are suffering for lack of basic ammenities.

I don't get the difference. Civilian casualities are those people who died because there was a war on (started by us) among those who were not enemy combatants. Since very few of the dead, percentagewise, were actually enrolled in any of the insurgent enterprises attempting to overtake Iraq, viturally everyone is a civillian casualty. If a guy throws stones at americans, that doesn't make him an insurgent in Iraq anymore than it makes someone a militant in Palestine. Most of the deaths probably come form our bombing of overcrowded neighborhoods in arial attacks on cities.

Quote:
True enough, unfortunate circumstance will lead to high death rates. But my point remains; who do you blame for the civilian deaths from the current instability, the radical elements of arab/iraqi society who are causing it or the americans who are failing to prevent it? I'm not trying to plead the innocence of the US I just think people should give blame where it's due.

Oh, that's extremely easy. I blame Bush, there's no one else to blame. The Iraqis are doing the only sane thing they can: resisting a foreign occupation which is attempting to radically alter their society in its favor. (Which we are trying to do) Any red blooded American would do the same thing if we were invaded by some foreign power which sought to 'correct' our society. The Soviets as I recall once suggested that if they ruled America they would correct our economic inequality by forcing universal govt. employment and eliminating non-employment related wealth. I remember the speech, it was maybe andrepov? Anyway, sure, but if they tried, do you honestly think no one in America would have resisted that effort to 'help' us?

Quote:
You're assuming that I support the war in Iraq. Huh.

I wasn't sure. Your low numbers were probably feeding that idea. I don't think those figures are realistic given what's going on in Iraq. The importance of accurate numbers is that the arument to some extent hinges on the numbers. If Saddam remained in power, there would be a certian amount of death and destruction. I think at this point the argument that Saddam would have been worse than US is beyond absurd, and it's probable that we've killed more people than Saddam would have done between now and his death. But if you lowball the estimate too much, you might end up under that figure.

The govt. seeks to lowball estimates for obvous reasons. Death doesn't have a lot of fans (outside of the democratic party

<- just a reference to right to die, etc.) but seriously, I think the greatest lowball estimates recently came out of Katrina. What I heard from the inside was estimates of 25-40K dead, with the lions share of that coming from a relatively unrecorded vagrant regional homeless population. Now even if that's high or alarmist, it's still way off base from the official 3Kish figure of dead and missing. It's more like mini-tsunami. But that would make the total bungling of FEMA even worse.

It's hard when you have to always guess at the truth.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:09 AM

Quote:
Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America

PN has his reasons, and it's fair, he's not speaking from a random anti-american position. I really encourage you, go to his website, read about this stuff. He's really coming from an insiders prospective, not by any means a hate-america one. His position, and PN, please, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the fed govt. has betrayed America. I think he's really strongly pro-American.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
You could also include the death toll caused by the sanctions against Iraq for the WMD that they didn't have.....

Oh, I did. I don't think it's that high, it's between 500 and 600K. Clinton is an evil bastard. I'm not sure yet that Bush is an evil bastard, he might just be an incompetent moron. Also, the first Gulf war. But it's not just us, I think Saddam gets some credit, but still, you can't blame the wolf for being a wolf, at some point you have to take responsiblity for the fact that you locked it in the hen house.

For this war, I think honestly, the 30K figure is low, and while I think the 150K figure is high, it's likely to be somewhere in between the two.

I guess, objectively, not as bad as Clinton or Kerry is really damning with faith praise. To the extent Bush is Clinton, he's as bad, to the extent he's a republican, he's nto as bad, and on the budget, for whatever reason, he's clearly worse, as in - look at the budget - but even and average of 'better than Clinton' is not enough - I'm not grading on a curve.

Clearly there are many things worse than having Bush as president. For instance, we could have Osama Bin Laden as president, or even school building contractor. Or Al Zarqawi roaming about telling the democrats and republicans to bomb each others houses and places of work. Or we could have any of a number of presidents of other countries such as Kim Jong Il, Thabo Mbeki, Vladimir Putin or Robert Mugabe. Or anyone from Hamas. We could be the new Bolivarian Socialist Republican of America.

But again, this isn't the contest at hand. My objections to Bush come from "he's not better than any random republican senator" I think even someone from Bush's corner of the political spectrum, there are a number of people who do be far better. I'd be completely up for putting all 55 names in a hat and drawing a new Prez and VP.

What I'm really dreading is the new Hillary admin. This is a woman who has essentially already promised us a war to conquer Iran and install a new govt. This will be potentially harder than Vietnam, because Iran will have not just China backing it up, but also Russia. It'll be pretty easy for the Hillster to spend a trillion dollars killing a million people and failing to take Iran.

I think your numbers are low, I wish I had time to look for some estimates I read before, but here is what I found with the time I have

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

" *Citing information on maternal and child mortality rates collected by UNICEF, Professor Richard Garfield estimates that between 1991 and 2002, the number of excess deaths in Iraq among children under age 5 is 343,900 to 525,400. "

And that is only five and under in age....

Other factors are the denial of chlorine products for water purification and the increase in chorea
and related diease... denial of equipment to clean up debris from depleted uranium munitions and increases in cancers and related diease...

Even if the wolf wanted to fix some of these problems, he actually had no opportunity to......

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

CITIZEN

Friday, March 17, 2006 9:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America, it's still the one place in the world that everyone else is trying to get into so they can live the best life imaginable on earth.

As ussual Cartoon talking bollocks again. It would be nice if you could say something that's true for a change.

Here's a hint, there's plenty of developed countries in the world outside of the US (yes really, the USA isn't the only country in the world) which have immigration. If you look on a map (well get someone to do it for you, I realise you're incapable of doing it yourself) you'll see what I mean.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America, it's still the one place in the world that everyone else is trying to get into so they can live the best life imaginable on earth.

As ussual Cartoon talking bollocks again. It would be nice if you could say something that's true for a change.

Here's a hint, there's plenty of developed countries in the world outside of the US (yes really, the USA isn't the only country in the world) which have immigration. If you look on a map (well get someone to do it for you, I realise you're incapable of doing it yourself) you'll see what I mean.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

I think the sad thing is that much of the immigration you speak of is from places that have been screwed over by the US and others in the first place causing the economic conditions that force people to leave...

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

KPO

Friday, March 17, 2006 9:12 PM

Quote:
I'm not off in paranoia city, but I'm not sure this is true. I think that the Iraq Body Count, though it started as an anti-war group, is not an official US govt. source. The govt uses it, Bush himself has used their figures. I think their estimates are seriously low by any serious attempt at a realistic projection.

I like what you did here. You made the one cosy assumption that my figures are wrong, and then you ran with it for the rest of your post. You completely failed to face up to the point I was making.

And to prove it:

Quote:
I don't get the difference

Quote:
Most of the deaths probably come form our bombing of overcrowded neighborhoods in arial attacks on cities

No! No! No! Look, I don't claim to be an expert, but unlike you I took some care to understand exactly what the figures were before I quoted them, and I don't come up with outrageous conclusions like this just because it's what I'd like to think.

In your post you made a lot of points - Some I thought were ok, some not particularly relevant (although you are free to say them) and some ones I could argue over.

But I'm not going to be drawn on any point but the original one. Partly because we'd be deviating from the original thread topic but mainly because I don't think I'd ever be able to nail you down on any single point.

So back to the beginning, one false notion at a time

The figures. I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you exactly what both our sets of figures are, without being 100% sure (I don't want to have to hunt down the report you got your figures from to find the true context for you).

So. I quoted a figure of about 10,000. This is a tally of all the reported civilian deaths at the hands of the coalition forces. It likely is an underestimate because some things will not have been reported, but there's no way someone could do the same tally and get 150,000, agreed? No, those people were counting something different - still dead Iraqis but ones that died anywhere for whatever reason. People die of natural causes all the time - you can't blame Bush for everything.

Now it could be you were quoting excess deaths, which means (i think) that 150,000 more people since the invasion have died than would have been the case if Sadaam was still in charge of them. This is sad, but possibly less alarming than you think. Do you know that summer heatwaves killed tens of thousands across europe in 2003? Certain people in any society are susceptible in harsh conditions. With the poor sanitation and electricity supply in Iraq due to the current chaos death from these more natural causes (as opposed to direct military action) will be accelerated.

So, I think my figure is more relevant in terms of 'the amount of blood George Bush has on his hands' as you might like to say. You didn't have any good grounds for dismissing my figure - Bush may have quoted these figures himself but that just means he's being honest when it would be transparently stupid not to. He can't well con us with a lowball 'official civilian death toll' when there are people totting up the numbers from the media reports such as Iraq body count. As a Bushaphobe you may well take issue with a version of events that supposes an instance where Bush has failed to be either stupid or dishonest. In that case go ahead and believe iraq body count is a government conspiracy.

Now I suppose you will want to talk about the 150,000 dead some more. 'They wouldn't have died if we hadn't gone in', and so forth. That's true enough - and so you say 'Bush has killed all those people, even if he didn't achieve it with bombs'. And here I disagree, and I'm not sure you have acknowledged why even though I said it in both of my previous posts and it was the kind of thing the arab-american lady was referring to at the start of this thread.

Quote:
The Iraqis are doing the only sane thing they can: resisting a foreign occupation

Do you watch the news? Radical Sunni muslims are killing Shia muslims and bombing holy shrines trying

DREAMTROVE

Friday, March 17, 2006 10:07 PM

Quote:
Now it could be you were quoting excess deaths, which means (i think) that 150,000 more people since the invasion have died than would have been the case if Sadaam was still in charge of them.

Sure, this was a eurofigure, and that's what it meant. But also there was a 30,000 figure from Iraq of bomb victims in the morgue. Not all of those bomb victims were ours, many were killed by terrorists, but they are still a result of the war.

I meant the majority of the 30K were probably arial bombardment numbers, the bulk of the 150K were civilians, as likely were the bulk of the 30K.

As for the rest, I don't know what you're on about. No offense, but your argument comes across like democrats, ie. not taking a strong enough stance.

Quote:
Do you watch the news?

Of course not. I don't own a TV. I read the news. I was refering to the Iraqis we fight who fight us, the insurgents, they are doing the natural thing. 700 Al Qaeda and a few looneys bent on civil war are another thing.

It's by no means anywhere near the tally of our slaughter, which is still going on right now today. The civil war has killed upwards of 2500 people. Right now, right this second, we're engaged in a massive bombing campaign with more explosive force than hiroshima. It's bound to kill a couple folk.

KPO

Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:43 AM

Quote:
I meant the majority of the 30K were probably arial bombardment numbers

Ah, that's much less outrageous - apologies for misinterpreting you. Not too far off, IBC has a running total of some 35,000, about 10,000 killed by us. And I was always agreeing that they are mainly civilians, not combatants.

Quote:
Of course not. I don't own a TV. I read the news.

Haha, cool. But it depends what you read I guess.

Quote:
I was refering to the Iraqis we fight who fight us, the insurgents, they are doing the natural thing. 700 Al Qaeda and a few looneys bent on civil war are another thing.

But I still don't think you have a realistic view of what's going on, glorifying and upscaling the 'iraqi resistance' and downplaying al qaeda and rival sunni/shia factions.

The only thing we are forcing on the iraqi people is democracy, which is pretty much letting the people choose themselves how things are run, instead of the previous psychotic dictator. Your idea that the iraqi people are united in resisting the occupying americans is a strange one, since the two rival factions are carrying out attacks on each other pushing the country to the brink of civil war. I don't see how you can downplay this in light of the figures:

Coalition forces killed by Iraqi militants - about 2k

Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi militants - at least 25k and rising all the time

Look - you see exactly who the Iraqi militants are fighting aginst? The Iraqi militants are killing their countrymen and you call them freedom fighters and blame the deaths on George Bush!!! Crazy stuff. And you also blame all the civilian deaths from the resulting instability on Bush as well.

As for the current operation, this is the largest scale military action for some time, and it's not a regular thing. I say, best thing for long term peace and stability is to try to take out the insurgents if you can, even at the risk of civilian casualties. If you disagree, fine, but at least keep some perspective. Get a media reported civilian casualty figure, double it, and compare it to the estimated deaths this month from sectarian violence.

Quote:
No offense, but your argument comes across like democrats, ie. not taking a strong enough stance.

Hmm, ok. Well I'm not a democrat. If my stance isn't strong on something it's usually because I'm not sure where I ought to stand. Iraq is controversial for good reason - it's a complicated mess with lots of blame to be dished out. I think in hindsight we will all have a better understanding of who was to blame where and whether it was all worth it. In short, no offence taken - i'm quite secure holding the opinions I do as lightly as I do - I think for someone like me who only dabbles in politics now and then it's for the best. It doesn't stop me pulling up people as ignorant as me with much stronger views that I don't think are justified though

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:59 PM

Quote:
Ah, that's much less outrageous - apologies for misinterpreting you. Not too far off, IBC has a running total of some 35,000, about 10,000 killed by us. And I was always agreeing that they are mainly civilians, not combatants.

The rootbeer company? just kidding. Seriously, The sheer quantity of explosives dropped on Iraqi cities by use mandates a higher toll then 10,000. My gut tells me this. That would unsdoubtedly be less than one casualty per bomb, perhaps far less.

Quote:
Haha, cool. But it depends what you read I guess.

Fox, Newsmax, Chrisitan Science Monitor, Guardian.co.uk, and google news. Also blogs.

Quote:
But I still don't think you have a realistic view of what's going on, glorifying and upscaling the 'iraqi resistance' and downplaying al qaeda and rival sunni/shia factions.

Oh, I completely disagree. I'm not only not glofying it, I'm giving far too much compromise here. The reality is there are 700 oppositon soldiers who are technically literally "Al Qaeda" and 200,000 which are "Saddam Loyalist" My compromise is based on the idea that a lot of the former millitary are now fighting for Al Qaeda, but even so, I'm certainly not conceding that this is a majoirty by any means. It may even be a remote fringe.

Furthermore, from the reports I read daily, the civil war seems to be being sparked by a few isolated perpetrators who are seeking to create a larger scale conflict than exists. Becuase of this, the 2,000 dead would likely be disporportionately high for the number of combatants involved, which is like in the hundreds. So, Civil War Agonists and Al Qaeda I think we're talking about a thousand, maybe two. Add in their mindless followings, maybe we have it up to 10,000.

Quote:
The only thing we are forcing on the iraqi people is democracy,

Not at all. We also are forcing westernization, which to them means gays, whores and AIDS. Furthermore, we actually did force on them a law which allows foreign ownership of business, which, to a country which has only one asset, is a total and complete distruction of their society. I don't doubt that the Iraqis are "right" to oppose us, from a moral perspective, but they are not realistic in doing so. I think it would be better for the Iraqis to surrender, and then renegotiate their relationship with us after the attacking administration has left office, which it will do shortly. This is what SK and Japan did to good effect.

Quote:
which is pretty much letting the people choose themselves how things are run, instead of the previous psychotic dictator.

Not a fan of Hussein, or any socialists. But this statement is completely unrealistic. The vast majority of democracies in the world are de facto dictatorships, one party rule where all votes are rigged. This is extremely widespread in the third world, and is common in some parts of the devloped world. The idea that democracy will bring self rule to the Iraqis is probably just patently absurd.

Quote:
Your idea that the iraqi people are united in resisting the occupying americans is a strange one,

Not my idea at all. I never said they were uniting. I think Americans and brits come into a town, shoot some guy's cock off, pull the fingers off of children, and rape some eight year olds, and then what does it matter that 99.9% of allied forces don't do these things?
If you know anything at all about the muslim world you know that these stories spread like wildfire, and especially when they are accompanied by photos, they lead people to action. Individually, Iraqis decide to resist.

Quite frankly, I think the same thing would happen here.

Quote:
since the two rival factions are carrying out attacks on each other pushing the country to the brink of civil war.

Isolated groups with an interest in sparking civil war, to take over in the ensuing chaos, are doing this. This is probably Al Qaeda, it really seems to like chaos.

Quote:
I don't see how you can downplay this in light of the figures:
Coalition forces killed by I

KPO

Monday, March 20, 2006 1:45 AM

Quote:
Oh, I completely disagree. I'm not only not glofying it, I'm giving far too much compromise here. The reality is there are 700 oppositon soldiers who are technically literally "Al Qaeda" and 200,000 which are "Saddam Loyalist" My compromise is based on the idea that a lot of the former millitary are now fighting for Al Qaeda, but even so, I'm certainly not conceding that this is a majoirty by any means. It may even be a remote fringe.

I think you've glorified the insurgents just by saying their cause is a 'moral' one. From then on it seems, you are free to blame the deaths of all the people they murder on Bush.

It seems likely to me that the insurgency is to a large extent made up by Al Qaeda and Sadaam Loyalists. I think we can both agree that these are bad guys.

These are the people with an obvious motive for disrupting the process of forming a new governement. They are also the ones who will have had the arms and expertise to carry out the violence. We have seen from the high turnout in the elections that the Iraqi people in general are not as opposed to a democratic Iraq as you think.

So my conclusion is Sadaam loyalists and Al Qaeda are to blame for the insurgency (remove Al Qaeda from the equation if you want). I'm sure they are constantly recruiting members from the disaffected civilian population all the time (Seems it's possible to recruit suicide bombers anywhere in the muslim world), but the core leadership, the weapons and the expertise must be in their hands. This just seems like a sensible deduction to me, but if you have any other insight i'm happy to hear it.

Most Iraqi's hated Sadaam and his henchmen, and most celebrated on the streets the day they were removed from power. Any Iraqis joining the ranks of the insurgency will likely be the minority Sunnis, who got a taste for power under Sadaam's Baath party and don't like the idea of a ruling Shiaite government. I'm sure almost all Iraqi's dislike the presence of coalition troops, but you will notice in the Shia south of the country there is much less violence targetted against them and even less against the 'collabotrators'.

Anyway, that's how I look at things. With this view the insurgents are not fighting for their country but for their own grip on power. When they kidnap and murder iraqi security forces they are not slaying infidel 'collaborators', but murdering iraqi people who work for the democratically elected provisional iraqi government. In analysing everyone's motives i'm no doubt over simplifying, but don't you see something like this as the reality?

Quote:
This is exactly what the french did in WWII

Nowhere near as brutal and indiscriminate.

Quote:
Quite frankly, I think the same thing would happen here.

Nowhere near as brutal and indiscriminate. Ok, I can only guess but that's my honest opinion. At the risk of scandalising liberals everywhere, I'll say I think it's a commentary on muslim society.

Quote:
I didn't get this until you reacting violently to a criticism of Bush

What? Now you've got me pegged as a Bush lover? Honestly, it's like all you do is skim over my post to try and gauge my political mindset and then you rail against it - taunting me with sarcastic quips thus:

Quote:
Crazy to speak my free opinion against beloved leader.

Ok, I'll help you out. He's not beloved, and he's not my leader. Honestly, my 'Crazy stuff' exclamation was a criticism of your crazy logic, not a protest that you dare denigrate George Bush - otherwise I think I would have use'd the term 'blasphemy'.

Quote:
Have you ever read the constitution?

Nope. Reckon i've gathered the gist of it from american tv so I can guess the kind of thing you're alluding to.

Quote:
Do you want a Saddam Hussein of your own?

no...

Seriously, I'm not a fan of Bush - I feel like I'm repeating myself when I say this but I'm suspicious of the motives and competence of the administration. I'm right leaning politically, but I'm not American and therefore not republ

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 20, 2006 4:00 AM

Quote:
I think you've glorified the insurgents just by saying their cause is a 'moral' one. From then on it seems, you are free to blame the deaths of all the people they murder on Bush.

This is just spin. Of course it's a moral one, they're defending their country, ie, they are driven by their conscience. It's far easier for them to capitulate. The fact that they don't isn't because they're corrupt, it's because they're patriotic. Loyal to Saddam or the state of Iraq. I'm not agreeing with their position, I personally think Saddam should be locked up and Iraq should be dissolved into three smaller states. But it's no glorification, it's the least you can credit them with. I think anything less falls in the spectrum of pure racism.

Quote:
It seems likely to me that the insurgency is to a large extent made up by Al Qaeda and Sadaam Loyalists. I think we can both agree that these are bad guys.

Intelligence reports repeatedly report that Al Qaeda is a very small portion of the Iraqi resistance, and it is probably present only as an opporunist, and sure, they're blatantly bad guys. I just watched both republicans and democrats from the senate intelligence community, and the consensus was clear in line with this.

Many are Saddam Loyalists, and I agree, they're loyalties are misplaced. But they are still loyal, so it's a moral issue for them, just not one I agree with. Loyalty, BTW, according to the Tao te Ching, is a failing, and not a virtue. Which really only effects me. You should follow the leader because he is right, not because he is the leader. I followed Bush for a while, then he was wrong, many many times. It took a while for me to give up on him completely. I try to avoid being loyal to a fault.

Quote:
So my conclusion is Sadaam loyalists and Al Qaeda are to blame for the insurgency (remove Al Qaeda from the equation if you want).

Sure, in part. I won't remove Al Qaeda completely, I think they're largely responsible for the civil war aspect.

But moreover, I can't blame the loyalists for being loyalists. It's not evil or immoral of them. It's a position I disagree with, but in a free society, they should have the right to hold that position. Resistance is what happens when you invade and subject people to your will. Our will, at the very least as perceived by them, is to steal the oil. To what extent that is true is irrelevant, because they believe it to be so. They also believe that our will is to create greater Israel. Since we do seek to establish a multi-natioinal mid-east union, there is a chance that such an institution might represnt more Israeli and penninsular power, and the Iraqis, like Pirate News, view the pneninsular kingdoms more or less as in collusion with Israel. To what extent any of this is true, again, is irrelevent, because they believe it to be so. We have failed to prove them wrong, not only to their own satisfication, but in the eyes of the world, since internationally, most of the people of the world seem to agree with them, particularly in the muslim world.

Personally, I think they're mistaken, but that to a lesser degree, there may be some truth in their position. I know for certain we have taken some oil to offset reconstruction costs, which feeds this image, and that we are much closer with countries they view as enemies (Israel and the pennisular kingdoms) and we are not at all close to their potential allies (Syria for the Sunnis, Iran for the Shiia)

It's a war of conquest, as any war of liberation which comes from outside is. Even arguing that this is a war of liberation is very weak, since our wars in Europe and Asia have all been to free a foreign occupying force. Saddam Husseins Baathists are at least Iraqis, so it's hard to credit that we are removing an occupier. In fact, we are an occupier. This is a statement of objective fact, even Bush has used the term "Occupation." But in any event, it's a war of conquest, and resistance is a natural part of that. The degree of resistance is connected most strongly to the behavior of the oc

CITIZEN

Monday, March 20, 2006 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The proper thing for the US to do was probably to agreesively move in to block germany in one of those early conflicts, in the manner in which we did in Kuwait. It wouldn't have been that easy, but it's what we should have done.

The US wasn't capable of that at the time. Link that with the population desire to stay well out and if you'd tried, it would have been a disaster.

I have to agree on preemptive strikes. I'm currently reading a book about the battle of Stalingrad, that also goes into some detail on the lead up. I didn't know this but Hitler's declaration of war was given as a pre-emptive strike with a list of 'offences' commited by Russia.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The proper thing for the US to do was probably to agreesively move in to block germany in one of those early conflicts, in the manner in which we did in Kuwait. It wouldn't have been that easy, but it's what we should have done.

The US wasn't capable of that at the time. Link that with the population desire to stay well out and if you'd tried, it would have been a disaster.

I have to agree on preemptive strikes. I'm currently reading a book about the battle of Stalingrad, that also goes into some detail on the lead up. I didn't know this but Hitler's declaration of war was given as a pre-emptive strike with a list of 'offences' commited by Russia.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
]

Not to mention there was a movement in the US to back Germany that had some influence.....

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:18 AM

I think the question " Which Terrorists "
should also be asked :

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/117BC38E-1187-4075-B7F4-CCCD001
AB620.htm

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

KPO

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:25 AM

Hey DT I’m back in the game. Sorry to take so long to reply, I’ve been out of the world for a spell – by which I mean in the world, but away from my computer. So, where were we?

Quote:
KPO: “I think you've glorified the insurgents just by saying their cause is a 'moral' one. From then on it seems, you are free to blame the deaths of all the people they murder on Bush.”

DT: "This is just spin"

Can this be the last time you accuse me of spin? All I do is state a condensed version of your argument so I can say exactly where I disagree with it, or where I think you have wrong assumptions. I’m not really trying to achieve anything with my wording other than conciseness. You don’t seem to like your own arguments when they’re stripped down to their barest points and recited back to you. My point, which I think you missed, is that you see the insurgents as 'good guys', with honest motives, ordinary iraqis doing the only 'sane' thing they can to protect their country - it's almost like you'd think less of them if they weren't blowing themselves up to kill their fellow countrymen. If you see them like this then you can make excuses for them when they kill innocent people, eg. 'George Bush is driving them to these actions by occupying their land'.

I can see why this is a valid point in your mind, I just think you've been unrealistic getting there, with your views on the nature of the insurgency.

Quote:
Of course it's a moral one, they're defending their country, ie, they are driven by their conscience

I made the argument in my previous post that these were BAD GUYS. My point was a generalisation, but I think a much more accurate one than yours. It went something like:

‘Of course it’s not a moral one, they’re defending their own grip on power, i.e., they are driven by their own selfish motives’.

Quite an opposite view to yours. Now we are both guessing at the motives of the insurgents – some reasons why I think my view of things is more accurate:

1)The insurgents do not represent the people or iraq, who are mostly in favour of democracy. Therefore they have no right to resist in the name of the country of iraq.
2) The insurgents are killing their own countrymen quite indiscriminately. I think resistance driven by purely patriotic motives would not be so indiscriminate. Labelling the victims ‘collaborators’ is just a way to make it seem they are fighting for the iraqi people. But they don’t represent the iraqi people - in fact, I am quite sure they are hated by them.

So. I think it makes all the difference how you look at the insurgents. See them as Sadaam’s bitter, ousted henchmen, instead of freedom fighters and you can attach blame to them quite easily for all the deaths, which is what I do. And since they are the ones doing the killing it kinda works, don't you think? There's a beautiful simplicity to my theory.

One other thing I want to address, is this:

Quote:
But moreover, I can't blame the loyalists for being loyalists. It's not evil or immoral of them. It's a position I disagree with, but in a free society, they should have the right to hold that position. Resistance is what happens when you invade and subject people to your will. Our will, at the very least as perceived by them, is to steal the oil. To what extent that is true is irrelevant, because they believe it to be so. They also believe that our will is to create greater Israel. Since we do seek to establish a multi-natioinal mid-east union, there is a chance that such an institution might represnt more Israeli and penninsular power, and the Iraqis, like Pirate News, view the pneninsular kingdoms more or less as in collusion with Israel. To what extent any of this is true, again, is irrelevent, because they believe it to be so.

I don’t like where you are going with this. I’ve said what I think are the motivations of the insurgents. If they cite largely groundless grievances as reasons for their acts of terrorism does that make it ok? Even if they’ve convinced themselves that these grievances are tr

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:34 AM

And what is our motive for killing? You can hardly call it "self defense" since Saddam never posed a threat. And if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom (or democracy, however you want to call it) with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword? With ONE wording change I could take your argument and apply it to Bush & Co:

"Even if they’ve* convinced themselve that these grievances are true, and they think they are really doing the people of Iraq a favour** I still hold them accountable – it’s inexcusable and indulgent folly. Every human being and community of human beings should be responsible for their actions. If you soothe yourself with comforting lies to make the murderous acts easier, you are still responsible (not talking so much about the young, impressionable soldier, but those who recruit them – to believe a lie from someone else is more excusable than believing a lie from yourself).

* neocons
** "spreading democracy"
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:13 AM

No comment?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And what is our motive for killing? You can hardly call it "self defense" since Saddam never posed a threat. And if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom (or democracy, however you want to call it) with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword?

Your implication is that there is a moral equivalency between a totalitarian theocracy and a democratic republic. Most people don’t believe that, even in much of the Middle East I would imagine, and they shouldn’t. Only if you believe moral equivalency between these two things are these two examples similar. So for most intelligent people, the answer is yes. Spreading “freedom with the business end of a gun” is better then similarly spreading totalitarianism. That’s pretty well established thought, and that’s probably why no one commented.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:20 PM

Finn- The goals are different and I would argue that democracy is a better goal. But war in Iraq was entirely optional. We weren't forced into it by circumstances of dire, immediate threat. That means we chose to impose "collateral damage" to the tune of more than ten thousand civilian dead. Once you start killing people to impose your ideology because you are so entirely convinced that you're right... well, making that kind of calculation requires the same mind-set as a terrorist.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

KPO

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:14 PM

Quote:
No comment?

Not immediately no, I went to bed after posting and I've been busy until now (1500 GMT).

Quote:
And what is our motive for killing?

There you go with the present tense again. It was you earlier, right? Presently we're not killing many people at all.

Who exactly is your heart bleeding for? I don't think even you are clear on this. Lots of people have died - in the war a couple of years ago and in the ongoing insurgency, civilians and combatants - it's too complex to say George Bush has killed all of them.

So who have we killed? You are probably thinking of the small (percentagewise) portion of the iraqi civilian casualties killed by coalition forces. You ask me what was our motive for killing them, when you know as well as I do that they were killed by accident? Or were you thinking of the armed forces - 'enemy combatants', who died defending Sadaam? Does your heart really bleed for them? I'm sure that to some extent the Iraqi people were sad for their fallen countrymen but it didn't stop them celebrating in the streets the day that Sadaam was deposed.

The only point that I can see you making is that it's regrettable that anyone had to die at all. War is a terrible thing and people get killed, including civilians. True, but civilians were also dying under Sadaam.

If you ask me I think the Bush administration went to war in America's interests, but at the same time were confident that in the long run it would be benificial to the people of Iraq. Currently Iraq is in chaos and its future is in jeopardy, so where do you put the blame? For me you can blame (or just suspect, depending on how well informed you are) the Bush administration competence-wise. They set out wanting to benefit the Iraqi people, and you might say they have failed (I'd say it's too soon to tell, long term).
But I think you have to give some blame to the people behind the insurgency, causing the chaos. I don't think romantacising their cause is accurate or helpful, and most liberals are guilty of it.

Still, I think we are agreed that the war in Iraq wasn't legal; military action can only be sanctioned in my book if a country is a real threat to us, or if the head of state is carrying out genocide on his own people. Sadaam was only halfway on both counts. Having said that, are you utterly convinced that trying to oust Sadaam was worse in the long term for the Iraqi people than leaving him in power? If Iraq breaks down through civil war into a 'failed state', and the country is left in chaos will you completely blame George Bush, and give no credit to the different sections of society determined to wage war on each other?

Quote:
if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom

Haha no. The words 'freedom' and 'liberty' don't hold the same political sway outside of your borders my friend. I can't think of 'freedom fries' without laughing. Not as hard as I do at 'liberty cabbage' though. I prefer to use more descriptive terms.

Quote:
or democracy

Yeah, let's go with that

Quote:
with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword?

Yes. Because installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people. Perhaps here you are trying to set me up so that I say "but democracy is better than Islam!" and then you can say "Aha!" and rail against my intolerance and arrogant presumption. Well, unlike with Islam, forcing democracy on someone isn't really doing anything more than giving them a choice. So let the people of Iraq choose, and if they want they can vote in another tyrant.

As for what you did repeating my whole paragraph and changing one word - yeah, nicely done, very clever. I don't think it works though - you'd have to explain exactly what you are talking about.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:58 PM

Quote:
Still, I think we are agreed that the war in Iraq wasn't legal; military action can only be sanctioned in my book if a country is a real threat to us, or if the head of state is carrying out genocide on his own people. Sadaam was only halfway on both counts. Having said that, are you utterly convinced that trying to oust Sadaam was worse in the long term for the Iraqi people than leaving him in power?

It depends on when and how that would be accomplished. What makes a terrorist a terrorist is not his (or her) goals but methods. We effected "regime change" by spending Russsia into the ground (altho Afghanistan helped), we chose trade as our "weapon of choice" for China, South African apartheid was broken by sanctions and internal dissent, and we certainly destabilized our share of South American governments. But Bush's chose war and death...

Quote:
If Iraq breaks down through civil war into a 'failed state', and the country is left in chaos will you completely blame George Bush

Yes. Absolutely. There was a reason why Bush Sr didn't remove Saddam from power: It's because he saw a gaping power vacuum. And Bush certainly had enough top brass advice that it would take 350,000 troops- not 150,000- to stabilize Iraq post-invasion. But he chose not only to "sex up" intelligence to scare everyone into invading, he also chose to believe the rosy but entirely erroneous notion that we would be welcomed as liberators. Now, right after the "Liberation Of Iraq" I thought long and hard (okay, I though for fifteen minutes on the topic) about whether this invasion would succeed and realized that it would only work if there was a natural constituency in for the solution proposed by the USA: a unified, democratic, secular Iraqi government. And I realized that
1) the Sunnis (being a minority) would have absolutely no interest in democracy- payback being such a b*tch and all that
2) the Shiites would abhor a secular government and
3) The Kurds wouldn't want to be unified because they would have to give up control of their oil and their autonomy. If I can figure this out in a few minutes, don't you think that teams of analysts already saw this coming? Of course they did.

Quote:
Because installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people.

Oh yeah, good luck on that!

So here we are, having killed more than ten thousand civilians (Oops, yeah sorry about that. It was sort of an accidental consequence of a deliberate war) all because Bush had a notion to "spread democracy"? To beat my point to death- given the other options that were available, how does that NOT make Bush a terrorist?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:25 PM

All of these things are questions of political will. If you have standout politicians in each faction who see the posibilities for a unified Iraq they can make the case to their own groups.

1) Sunnis realistically have no choice but unify or die. If the place fragments they are the smallest a weakest group. You could see a case for them being the most vocal advocates for a unified Iraqi identity.

2) Shiites, want something better than Iran has. I suspect a theocracy would not be their first choice in a free vote. Even Sadar seems more of a modernist than many in Iran.

3) Being part of Iraq protects the Kurds from the Turks while offering the posibility of a seperate Kurdish state.

There are cases for both sides to stick with it, the right men could make those arguments stick with their communities.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kpo:
Because installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people.

Except people vote for who their religious leaders tell them to vote for in Iraq, so if anything we're making the tyrants job easier.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:08 PM

There are at least two big bones of contention in Iraq:

1) Who gets the oil revenue.
2) Who controls internal security.

Some Sunnis want to be part of a central government because they then get a share of the oil revenue. But they really, really don't want Shiites to be controlling internal security in "their" areas. It seems like the best solution is to allow a loose federation, where each group controls the internal security of its area.

I could also make strong case for why Iraq should be broken into three. Iraq seems very similar to the former Yugoslavia, which was an entirely synthetic state created out of religious, ethnic and language factions for the superpowers' convenience. After years of being on life-support, Yugoslavia was finally allowed to dissolve. Each portion or Iraq could have a regional "patron saint"- Iran for Shiite Iraq, Saudi Arabia for Sunni Iraq, and possibly even Russia protecting Northern Iraq. Since a "united Iraq" is such a big, tempting prize, surrounding nations have a serious interest in who dominates the outcome. The violence is even spilling over into Saudi Arabia.

BTW- Sadr is NOT a "moderate".
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It depends on when and how that would be accomplished. What makes a terrorist a terrorist is not his (or her) goals but methods. We effected "regime change" by spending Russsia into the ground (altho Afghanistan helped), we chose trade as our "weapon of choice" for China, South African apartheid was broken by sanctions and internal dissent, and we certainly destabilized our share of South American governments. But Bush's chose war and death...

According to the United Nations somewhere between 1.2 – 1.5 million innocent Iraqis (largely children, women and elderly) were killed as a result of Saddam misuse of Sanctions. Sanctions were levied against Iraq for about 10 years, and there’s little reason to believe that these sanctions had any appreciable positive net affect on moving Iraq in the direction of UN goals. But if we assume that sanctions would have worked if given another 10 years that is basically advocating a method that had already resulted in the death of over a million innocent people. This is as much collateral damage, as the 10,000 that you claim has been killed in Iraq as a result of the war. Therefore if your concern is for the innocent Iraqis caught up in Saddam’s reckless international policy then we can decide, with almost mathematical certainty, whether sanctions or the war were better options. The simple question is which number is larger, 1 million or 10,000? And if your concern is for the number of innocent Iraqis killed as a result of collateral damage then it is the war and not sanctions that was preferable.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:22 PM

Only you would compare a (low biased) documented list against an estimate. If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to look at the estimated excess post-invasion deaths due to lack of medical care, malnutrition, increased crime and so forth, which is about 100,000 as reported in the Lancet.

I'm not in favor of sanctions. I just listed it as a possible option. INCREASED trade might have worked better.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:36 PM

Awefully easy to smuggle bad things into a nation with increased trade though. Can you be sure the materials being imported wont be used to gas a Kurdish villiage next week?

The problem with Iraq is that there were no good options, just a list of terrible ones each with a potential cost in human lives. It's easy now to say that solution X has to be better than solution Y but that's only because we have the deathtoll for Y and have to believe that X would have been better. Had we done X we might now be wishing we had gone with Y.

20/20 hindsight is a bitch.

KHYRON

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:48 PM

To latch on to what Fletch was saying, even with hindsight it's still not clear what the best way was to deal with Iraq. Most people, including pretty much everybody in world politics that have commented on the situation, don't know what a workable strategy would have been, even with hindsight.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:52 AM

Let's start out with the assumption that we HAD to deal with Iraq.

Why?

With atrocities being committed around the world- many of them worse than Iraq ever was- why focus on that particular nation? Maybe the best thing would have been to do... nothing. Yes, that's right- nothing.

Or, if you insist on bringing human rights to every nation, then maybe a good incentive is economic. A 5% tariff for not having UN-certified elections. Another 5% tariff for not recognizing human rights. A 10% tariff for not allowing UN inpsectors (BTW- inspections DO work). You can construct tariffs any way you want to reward good behavior, and the nice thing is you can apply this to any nation. Even better if you can get WTO to buy off on it. Or get the World Bank or IMF involved- better rates for better nations.

The point is that there are LOTS of alternatives, and if one doesn't work you try another. We're only stuck with a narrow model if we want to be. The only reason to invade was simple disinterest in alternatives. {HINT HINT)

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

REAVERMAN

Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And what is our motive for killing? You can hardly call it "self defense" since Saddam never posed a threat. And if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom (or democracy, however you want to call it) with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword?

Your implication is that there is a moral equivalency between a totalitarian theocracy and a democratic republic.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

No, there isn't a moral equivalent between a totalitarian Theocracy and a Democratic Republic. But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy. The war was fought for profit and the personal gain of a few corporations. The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for their ancient "holy" literature. Both reasons are equally wrong.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

REAVERMAN

Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
... installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people.

HA!!! Democracy!!! That's a good one

! Oh... you weren't joking? C'mon, do you really think that we have given the power to the people? We've given it to a few people (just like in the U.S.) who are corrupt, self serving bootlickers (also just like in the U.S.), and who are pretty much guaranteed to back U.S. policy. We didn't give them Democracy. We made them a puppet.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy. The war was fought for profit and the personal gain of a few corporations. The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for their ancient "holy" literature. Both reasons are equally wrong.

The US is a federal democratic republic by definition, and the US was much more aristocratic in the past then it is today. People who seek to equate the totalitarian theocratic philosophies of groups like the Taliban with the democratic republic of the US have very little perspective on the issue. You know, disagreement with this war would carry more credibility if they weren’t based on fantasies. Calling Bush a terrorist or claiming that the US is a totalitarian state doesn’t make your anti-war argument more plausible; it just diminishes your credibility and reliability, thereby making your arguments appear less plausible. This is what we call shooting your argument in the foot.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:01 AM

So, Finn, since a terrorist is defined by their means (not their goals, since nobody argues that their goals are morally inferior) and the invasion of Iraq was entirely optional- what does that make Bush?

I really don't expect an answer.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Finn, since a terrorist is defined by their means (not their goals, since nobody argues that their goals are morally inferior) and the invasion of Iraq was entirely optional- what does that make Bush?

I really don't expect an answer.

The invasion of France was entirely optional. Almost all Islamic terrorist’s goals center on the destruction of Israel and the establishing of an Islamic fascist state. Effectively, their goals are the same as those of the Nazis. I would argue that the establishment of totalitarian regimes and the eradication of Jews are “morally inferior” goals to those generally expressed by the US whether they are sought by Nazi Germans or Islamic Terrorists.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Finn, since a terrorist is defined by their means (not their goals, since nobody argues that their goals are morally inferior) and the invasion of Iraq was entirely optional- what does that make Bush?

Bush does what his conscience (and God) tell him to do; those towel-heads only pretend to be doing the same.
See?

Chrisisall, who air-dries after a bath, no towel ever touches his head

REAVERMAN

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy. The war was fought for profit and the personal gain of a few corporations. The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for their ancient "holy" literature. Both reasons are equally wrong.
The US is a federal democratic republic by definition, and the US was much more aristocratic in the past then it is today. People who seek to equate the totalitarian theocratic philosophies of groups like the Taliban with the democratic republic of the US have very little perspective on the issue. You know, disagreement with this war would carry more credibility if they weren’t based on fantasies. Calling Bush a terrorist or claiming that the US is a totalitarian state doesn’t make your anti-war argument more plausible; it just diminishes your credibility and reliability, thereby making your arguments appear less plausible. This is what we call shooting your argument in the foot.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Did you hear me say that Bush is a terrorist? No (though by his own definition, he often fits the profile).

Did you hear me say that America is a totalitarian state? No.

The point that I was trying to get across was that America's government is run by corporate sponsored puppets that remain in office far too long (96% of representatives are re-elected; many have been in office for most of their adult life). So, to me, when it comes to comparing religious extremists fighting because an ancient book and a few crazy clerics tell them to, and our nation being manipulated into a war for profit, neither side is much better than the other.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Did you hear me say that Bush is a terrorist? No (though by his own definition, he often fits the profile).

You just did, didn’t you?

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Did you hear me say that America is a totalitarian state? No.

Yeah. Did you not say this? I think you did.

"No, there isn't a moral equivalent between a totalitarian Theocracy and a Democratic Republic. But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy." [[]Emphasis mine[]]

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:16 PM

Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?

And...just because I fit the description of an idiot, doesn't necessarily make me one.

Chrisisall, leaving himself wide open...

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?

No. Reaverman is. He believes that the US is a “Corporate Aristocracy,” but that (whatever that is) is “as bad as the Theocracy. [[]Emphasis mine[]]” Well, the theocracy that we are talking about is a “totalitarian” theocracy. Therefore, if we are to believe what reaverman said and we can assume that he understands the context of the discussion, then he believes that the US’s form of government is tantamount to totalitarianism. It’s plain as day.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

REAVERMAN

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?
No. Reaverman is. He believes that the US is a “Corporate Aristocracy,” but that (whatever that is) is “as bad as the Theocracy. [[]Emphasis mine[]]” Well, the theocracy that we are talking about is a “totalitarian” theocracy. Therefore, if we are to believe what reaverman said and we can assume that he understands the context of the discussion, then he believes that the US’s form of government is tantamount to totalitarianism. It’s plain as day.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

That is some weird-ass logic you've got goin' there

. If I say that rape and murder are equally bad, does that mean that I am saying that they are the same thing? No.

Things being equally right or equally wrong does not mean that they are exactly the same. What I was saying was that being run by crazed religious regimes and being run by cold, calculating businessmen are both bad.

Maybe you need to think a little more before you type (jeez, and you say I'm ruining my credibility).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:51 AM

Finn: Because nobody is going to blow up (bomb, shoot, or stab) people for what the perp believes is a morally inferior goal (unless of course you're a sociopathic sack of crap who simply uses nice-sounding words to mask sheer greed) can we please set aside the discussion of goals.... everyone's got a good one... and focus on means?

Terrorism is the process in which one advances a political goal by inducing a state of fear in the non-combatant population through violence. Terrorists believe that their goals justify ANY means. Finn believes that HIS goals justiy ANY means. Bush believes that HIS goals justify ANY means. And when other means are available....

Does it really matter if Germany did it first?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
That is some weird-ass logic you've got goin' there . If I say that rape and murder are equally bad, does that mean that I am saying that they are the same thing? No.

Things being equally right or equally wrong does not mean that they are exactly the same. What I was saying was that being run by crazed religious regimes and being run by cold, calculating businessmen are both bad.

Maybe you need to think a little more before you type (jeez, and you say I am ruining my credibility).

I never said you did say they were exactly the same, did I? I said you are equating them, which you are, aren’t you? You’re claiming that the US federal democratic republic is tantamount to a totalitarian theocracy? You are saying they are equivalent, in the same way that someone might say that rape and murder are equivalent, so therefore you saying that the US is tantamount to totalitarianism. Essentially, your argument is intellectually dishonest. You’re trying to get away with accusing the US of being totalitarian, without taking responsibility for that accusation, because you know you can’t defend that point. And yes, it damages your credibility.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: Because nobody is going to blow up (bomb, shoot, or stab) people for what the perp believes is a morally inferior goal (unless of course you're a sociopathic sack of crap who simply uses nice-sounding words to mask sheer greed) can we please set aside the discussion of goals.... everyone's got a good one... and focus on means?

The destruction of Israel and the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy are “good” goals? If that's what you really believe that would seem to say a lot about where you stand, doesn’t it?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:13 AM

Quote:
The destruction of Israel and the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy are “good” goals? That would seem to say a lot about where you stand, doesn’t it

Dang, Finn, can you possibly make yourself look any stupider?? Apparently not! In the eyes of a terrorist his (her) goals are always superior and worthy of any means. Apparently it's too subtle for you?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FLETCH2

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The destruction of Israel and the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy are “good” goals? That would seem to say a lot about where you stand, doesn’t it
Dang, Finn, can you possibly make yourself look any stupider?? Apparently not! In the eyes of a terrorist his (her) goals are always superior and worthy of any means. Apparently it's too subtle for you?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

But that's obvious. Every man sees himself as the hero in his own story, very few people look at themselves and see a heel. The Nazi's thought they were saving Europe from the scurge of world Jewery, they believed that history would vindicate them and that their brave actions would be celebrated by future generations. How warped would you have to be to believe shoveling children into gas chambers is an heroic act? If a human being can buy into that level of delusion then you could justify any horror.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Dang, Finn, can you possibly make yourself look any stupider?? Apparently not! In the eyes of a terrorist his (her) goals are always superior and worthy of any means. Apparently it's too subtle for you?

That does not change that some goals are not good regardless of what some terrorists think. And your desire is to muddy the water with relativist nonsense so that you can justify calling Bush a terrorist despite the fact that his goals share no similarity to the goals of Al Qaeda. Alternatively, you really believe the delusional nonsense that the goals of terrorists and fascists are morally sound because that’s what terrorists and fascists believe.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:06 AM

So Finn- how many people are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?

Scratch a terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes- and you will find either a true believer or a sociopath. Bush is willing to kill civilians for political ends. Finn is willing to kill civilians for political ends. And apparently neither was interested in alternatives.

Some goals are good. Some means are not. Jeez, it's like talking to a brick wall.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn- how many people are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?

And how many would you kill?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

REAVERMAN

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I never said you did say they were exactly the same, did I? I said you are equating them, which you are, aren’t you? You’re claiming that the US federal democratic republic is tantamount to a totalitarian theocracy? You are saying they are equivalent, in the same way that someone might say that rape and murder are equivalent, so therefore you saying that the US is tantamount to totalitarianism. Essentially, your argument is intellectually dishonest. You’re trying to get away with accusing the US of being totalitarian, without taking responsibility for that accusation, because you know you can’t defend that point. And yes, it damages your credibility.

WTF are you talking about?!?! What do you call THIS:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?

No. Reaverman is. He believes that the US is a “Corporate Aristocracy,” but that (whatever that is) is “as bad as the Theocracy. [Emphasis mine]” Well, the theocracy that we are talking about is a “totalitarian” theocracy. Therefore, if we are to believe what reaverman said and we can assume that he understands the context of the discussion, then he believes that the US’s form of government is tantamount to totalitarianism. It’s plain as day.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
WTF are you talking about?!?! What do you call THIS:.

As I said, it’s plain as day. I'm not going to keep pointing out to you what you said.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:53 AM

Quote:
And how many would you kill?

That's a stupid question which, I note, you refuse to answer. You're the one that's supporting the invasion, not me. But to anserw your question: I would be willing to kill Saddam and his top military people, but they're not civilians.

So, to ask the question AGAIN- How many civilians are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Scratch a terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes- and you will find either a true believer or a sociopath.

SO FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman, and the other leaders of the Allies in WWII(not to mention anyone who flew a strategic bomber) were terrorists(as well as sociopaths and "true believers"), because they obviously knew that to meet their political goals (preservation of their political systems) they had to kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you need to re-think your definition of "terrorist".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:59 AM

No, WWII falls under the definition of "self defense". But Iraq didn't attack us and didn't pose to threat to us, yet we invaded.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FLETCH2

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn- how many people are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?
And how many would you kill?

As few as possible.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:16 AM

What- no response? Geezer? Finn? Nothing to say in support of killing people in order to bring them democracy?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And how many would you kill?
That's a stupid question which, I note, you refuse to answer. You're the one that's supporting the invasion, not me. But to anserw your question: I would be willing to kill Saddam and his top military people, but they're not civilians.

Really? Wow, that’s a good plan. And then what? Because if that's all you've got, it ain't gonna work. No Government=anarchy, civil war, competing warlords that may or may not establish a unified probably totalitarian regime, hundreds of thousands dead. In fact, Afghanistan was a pretty good model of that kind of solution.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, to ask the question AGAIN- How many civilians are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq?

For my own answer, I’m going with what Fletch2 said. He’s an insightful fellow. As few as possible. That’s a good answer.

I guess we should have prosecuted Churchill and Roosevelt as terrorists, but Hitler was a just doing what he thought was right. There’s just all kinds of crazy things going on in Sig’s head.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:33 AM

Quote:
No Government=anarchy, civil war, competing warlords that may or may not establish a unified probably totalitarian regime, hundreds of thousands dead. In fact, Afghanistan was a pretty good model of that kind of solution.

Whoa Finn! Are you even IN reality??? We didn't just take out the Taliban by killing Mullah Omar and bin Laden. In fact, they're both still wandering around! We supported individual warlords- we STILL support individual warlords- altho Karzai has BEGGED us to funnel the $$ through his government instead. I mean.... really!

Quote:
I guess we should have prosecuted Churchill and Roosevelt as terrorists, but Hitler was a just doing what he thought was right. There’s just all kinds of crazy things going on in Sig’s head

What I said was that WWII was self-defense. I guess you didn't notice that part? Well, I guess when you don't have a good answer you can just lie. It does make you look like, well... a liar.

As far as acceptable death: If murder is taking place it's OK to kill to prevent further death. But it's NOT ok to mow down 50 hostages to get at a criminal. That's when you try negotiation, or subterfuge, or sharpshooting. But you don't go in with guns blazing because you're likely to cause more harm than good.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa Finn! Are you even IN reality??? We didn't just take out the Taliban by killing Mullah Omar and bin Laden. In fact, they're both still wandering around! We supported individual warlords- we STILL support individual warlords- altho Karzai has BEGGED us to funnel the $$ through his government instead. I mean.... really!

Yes, we did Afghanistan well. But I suppose what you would have had us do is kill Hussein and his ?top military people,? somehow, and then the country would disintegrates into feuding warlords. Now how you plan on killing and only killing Hussein et al, I don?t know. They aren?t going to pose for you, but I guess if you believe that we can just walk over there and kill Hussein and his top officials without causing any stir, then I guess you could believe there would have been no sectarian violence that would emerge from an ungoverned Iraq. All I can say is that your world is much simpler then reality.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I said was that WWII was self-defense. I guess you didn't notice that part? Well, I guess when you don't have a good answer you can just lie. It does make you look like, well... a liar.

Nope. It doesn't.

And Nazi Germany didnâ€™t attack us either, and it had no interest in going to war with the US, at least not at that time. But as the point has been clearly made, a simple show of force in the Rhineland might have forstalled the whole war.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:24 AM

What did Iraq do to earn our invasion? I dunno- mebbe they took over New Jersey? Serves 'em right I say!
I know you keep bringing in extraneous arguments and stuff, but I'm still wondering why you think it was OK to kill civilians in order to bring the light of democracy to those suffering people?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FLETCH2

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:11 AM

Do you think it's ok to let a tyrant gas innocent civilians, torture/rape/murder others without interference.

You speak as if without the invasion Iraq was a shiny happy place. It wasn't. Before the Kuwait incident Sadam gassed Kurdish villages, murdered entire families that opposed him, kidnapped, tortured and murdered still more. Had we dropped sanctions and the no fly zones as he wanted he would have been back at that game with a vengence. Rule by fear requires arbitary death and violence to work, he was a master of it.

Keep sanctions to slow him down? Well then hundreds of thousands would die each year from malnutrition and disease while he and his elite skimmed "oil for food" to pay for the army's upkeep.

Kill Sadam and his cronies? If you could then maybe you might get another hard man that was a little less brutal or you might get a civil war.

The point is that every action you take, even taking no action, has a cost in human lives. How many each option has we don't know, because we only pursued one choice. Some of the others could have been better or they could have been worse. Unless you have one of those parallel dimension "Sliders" gadgets handy we will never know. One thing is for certain though, there was no garenteed "no blood" option. Whatever we did or failed to do some Iraqi's were going to die because of it.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 11:02 AM

Fletch- you should feel ashamed of yourself. Here you're given a shiny brain and you fail to use it. I compared Iraq to 50 hostages, not a shiny, happy place. But since gassing Kurdish villages, kidnapping families etc. happened (in your own words) "before the Kuwait incident"... in other words more than a decade in the past ... there was no reason for the SWAT team to rush in guns blazing at that very moment.

But as you might chose to recall (probably not) the only reason most people went along with invasion was because Bush deliberately misrepresented Iraq as an imminent threat- which it wasn't. Not to us, it's neighbors, or even to it's own people.

Several posts up, I mentioned four or five possible alternatives to invasion and sanctions and I'm sure there are more- a fact that you, Finn, and geezer conveniently forget. So I'm forced to ask why you, Finn, and Geezer keep misrepresenting me? (Since we all know the answer you can consider that a rhetorical question! )

So, I'll repeat the question which I've repeated five or six times already, which has not yet been answered but has certainly been misrepresented more than once: Is it okay for Bush to kill civilians for political purposes?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 28, 2006 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
SO FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman, and the other leaders of the Allies in WWII(not to mention anyone who flew a strategic bomber) were terrorists(as well as sociopaths and "true believers"), because they obviously knew that to meet their political goals (preservation of their political systems) they had to kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you need to re-think your definition of "terrorist".

If you want to start down that road I'd say the pre-emptive strikes of Hitler against Russia are a far better parrellel for Iraq than the actions of the Allies.

Perhaps you need to open a history book and realise what drivel your spouting.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 11:53 AM

Geezer doesn't mind if he spouts drivel. I find him profoundly amusing.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, WWII falls under the definition of "self defense". But Iraq didn't attack us and didn't pose to threat to us, yet we invaded.

But your definition of terrorist, "Scratch a terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes- and you will find either a true believer or a sociopath.", doesn't leave an out for self defense. Like I said, perhaps you need to refine your definition of "terrorist".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 11:59 AM

Self defense is generally not considered a "political purpose". Wow Geezer, I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you! But that's what makes you such a fun guy, I guess!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you want to start down that road I'd say the pre-emptive strikes of Hitler against Russia are a far better parrellel for Iraq than the actions of the Allies.

Perhaps you need to open a history book and realise what drivel your spouting.

I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.

Even allowing her to add self-defense as an out, (Terrorist - a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense) that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?

BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Self defense is generally not considered a "political purpose". Wow Geezer, I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you! But that's what makes you such a fun guy, I guess!

I consider defending the existence of your political system the ultimate political purpose, but let's try these, then,

Being lazy this morning, I'll just cut and paste from another spot.

"I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.

Even allowing her to add self-defense as an out, (Terrorist - a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense) that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:37 PM

Quote:
Terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense

Political purposes- as I have pointed out before- does not equal self defense or even defense of others. I have more than once compared Iraq to a hostage situation. If you're getting shot at, you shoot back. If people are being killed, you rush in. If the situation is static, you try negotiation, subterfuge, sharp shooting. The aim is to save life. If you chose to rush in when the sitaution doesn't warrant it...

Quote:
... that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Our involvement in Vietnam was a terible mistake that left us destroying villages in order to save them. We carpet-bombed Vietnam and neighboring countries, dumped tons of poisons on people that created lasting effects on civilians and soldiers alike (including ours) - possibly similar to the effects we will see from DU in the future. Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?

Absolutely.

Which is why you keep touching on the subject.

I can't answer about Korea because I don't know the history.

By the way, you might want to stop gratuitously misrepresentating me.

And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:47 PM

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?

First, please define, clearly and unambiguously, "political purposes". You say it "does not equal self defense or even defense of others." but that still leaves a lot of grey.

Until then, I guess my answer is "It depends on what the "Political Purposes" are.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.

I didn't insult YOU at all. I said what you were saying was drivel and you need to open a history book if you think the actions of the Allies are synomonous with the actions of the coalition with respect to Iraq. I stand by that, the two are completely dissimilar, and it isn't an insult to say so.

In short I went after your point, not you.

Quote:
Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?

As an excuse for the invasion of Iraq? Korea was a UN mandated and supported effort, where else have I NOT heard that?

It was also a reaction to an unsolicited aggressive attack on an allied nation, again nothing like the current situation in Iraq.

In fact both Vietnam and Korea were both attacked, remember that the Vietnam war was a war much like the Korean war, a conflict between North Vietnam and her allies (namely the PRC and USSR) and South Vietnam and her Allies, principally Australia, Korea and the USA.

Sorry but defending you allies is a whole lot different to 'pre-emptive' action undertaken on false evidence.

Quote:
I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.

It's a change to the normal definition:
A terrorist is someone who attacks US.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?

What if, in some fictional fantasy stroke of magic, we could waltz into Iraq and kill “Saddam and his top military people” without any collateral damage, which resulted, as it likely would, in a civil war in which thousands of innocent people died. Would that be okay? Or what if the US simply left sanctions in place and thousands of innocent people continued to die. What that be okay? Or what if we just increased trade with Iraq? And Saddam killed thousands of innocent people while we were doing nothing but fattening out economy on Iraqi trade? Would that be okay? These were all solutions YOU proposed. All of them would result in the death of thousands of innocent people, and considering that the war will eventually end and there is a good chance that Iraq will be left with a better government and a better life for its people afterward, while none of the other options provide that assurance, the war is quite possibly the better solution of many bad ones.

The irony is that the administration’s strategy was actually a real world variant of your kill Saddam et al. solution. We could have bombed Iraq into the Stone Age before committing ground troops, which is what we did in the first Gulf War and what is considered standard military practice. However, we didn’t, because the interests of the US/UK/Aus (the major allied players) was to only kill “Saddam and his top military people,” without (if possible) killing anyone else. In fact the bulk of the reconstruction following the war was fixing infrastructure damage left by Saddam, not allied bombing. So effectively, you have no solution; all you’re doing is reciting things that have already been tried or proposed by people who would appear to have a much better grasp of the realities involved.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:34 PM

Okay, let's build that definition of "poltical purposes", possibly by drawing from accepted examples: Stalin, Saddam, Hamas, al Qaida.

Stalin's purpose was to gain absolute control of the Soviet government. Saddam's purpose was to gain absolute control of the Iraqi government. Hama's charter calls for the destruction of Israel and any secular Palestinian organization and the formation of a relgious government based on Sharia. Al Qaida- pretty much same thing.

"Political purposes" probably has something to do government. Being able to create and enforce laws. So a terrorist is someone who kills non-combatants in order to be able to create and enforce laws.

How's that for a first cut?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?

Absolutely.

This is an absolute fact. No one on this board can justify what was done there, and if they could, I'd like to see them try.
(I like a good sh**storm, apparently

)

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:40 PM

Quote:
What if, in some fictional fantasy stroke of magic, we could waltz into Iraq and kill “Saddam and his top military people” without any collateral damage, which resulted, as it likely would, in a civil war in which thousands of innocent people died. Would that be okay? Or what if the US simply left sanctions in place and thousands of innocent people continued to die. What that be okay? Or what if we just increased trade with Iraq? And Saddam killed thousands of innocent people while we were doing nothing but fattening out economy on Iraqi trade?

Oh quibble, quibble, whine, whine.

What if we imposed tarrifs that would be lifted for "good behavior"? What if we retained the "no-fly" zones? What if we expanded inspections? What if we placed area nations in charge of inspections in various regions? What if we used increased trade and the attendant increased presence of foreigners to infiltrate Iraq? What if Finn stopped shooting himself in the foot?

Oh wait... that would be impossible!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.

I didn't insult YOU at all. I said what you were saying was drivel and you need to open a history book if you think the actions of the Allies are synomonous with the actions of the coalition with respect to Iraq. I stand by that, the two are completely dissimilar, and it isn't an insult to say so.

So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool.

Quote:
In fact both Vietnam and Korea were both attacked, remember that the Vietnam war was a war much like the Korean war, a conflict between North Vietnam and her allies (namely the PRC and USSR) and South Vietnam and her Allies, principally Australia, Korea and the USA.

Sorry but defending you allies is a whole lot different to 'pre-emptive' action undertaken on false evidence.

OK. So we're refining the definition of a terrorist a bit more: a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes (Note - the phrase "political purposes" has yet to be defined), except for reasons of self-defense or defense of allies.

Still a bit of wiggle room there. Suppose the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blows up a bus of Israeli civilians to break up an IDF ambush of a Hamas leader. They're killing civilians to defend an ally, hence they're not terrorists.

Looks like the definition needs a bit more work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?

Absolutely.

This is an absolute fact. No one on this board can justify what was done there, and if they could, I'd like to see them try.
(I like a good sh**storm, apparently)

Chrisisall

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch- you should feel ashamed of yourself. Here you're given a shiny brain and you fail to use it.

.

You have functional ears but you refuse to listen. I suspect that makes us even.

To be truthfull I didn't even notice your fascile "SWAT" analogy, and instead was talking to you as an adult rather than a teen with a TV cop show fetish. Ok if you want something more entertaining I'm game.

In "SWAT World" your scenario is more along these lines.

Some guys take hostages in a building. Before SWAT gets there 4 hostages are killed and 50 taken captive. The police cordon off the area and attempt to limit the people going in and out. The "mayor" (UN) gives the SWAT team general orders authorising security but for political reasons doesnt authorise an assault. Some of the hostages, knowing the cops are outside decide to do a "Flight 93" style rebelion against the gunmen. They are murdered immediately and after that no more hostages try anything.

The Mayor, not wanting bloodshed turns off the electricity to the building intending to sweat the gunmen out but for humanitarian reasons deliveries of food and water are provided. They wait, and weeks turn to months. It becomes clear that the gunmen are taking the bulk of the supplies for themselves and hardly suffering at all. Over time though heat and malnutrition work on the hostages and they start to die. The press covers every death. Since they know the mayor won't authorise an assault the press starts to feel that maybe the cordon around the building should be lifted and the gunmen allowed to escape rather than have more hostages die. SWAT knows that if the gunmen get away they will do the same sorts of things again and kill more people. They suspect some in the press have done deals with the gunmen for "exclusives" if they escape.

Then another group of gunmen attack two downtown office blocks and kill everyone inside. The city is paralysed by fear and the SWAT captain thinking fast starts to tell the press that the gunmen inside the building had all kinds of weapons going in, maybe they still have them? In which case if they are allowed to get away they could do far worse than wipe out two office buildings. Public support backs the captain, because folks in the city are scared. He uses the opertunity to order an attack without the mayor's blessing, citing one of the mayor's original orders and claiming an iminent threat. Most of the gunmen are eliminated and the hostages rescued. However some of the gunmen escape and start killing SWAT officers, former hostages and newcomers to the building out of revenge......

Roll credits.

Back in the real world you still haven't faced the point I put to you. Yet me explain it very simply this time.

It's the pottery barn principle --- if you break it you buy it. Except Iraq wasn't broken in 2003, it was broken in 1991 after Gulf War 1. We did that and then we put on sanctions to make sure it stayed broken. That left us in the following situation.

1) we had sanctions that combined with Saddam's neglect were killing thousands of Iraqis a year.

2) We had two no fly zones which limited Saddam just enough that he couldn't act with force against the Shiites or the Kurds.

3) We had substantial political pressure on the UN to lift sanctions some of which we now know was paid for by Saddam using Oil for Food money.

That puts us in a crap position as follows. Let's look at our options.

Plan A
------
The status quo, keep sanctions and the no fly zones. This has the following effects.

1) Thousands of Iraqi's starve to death each year.
2) US and UK aviators risk being shot down daily patroling the no fly zone, so there are risks of allied dead.
3) To provide troops for the no fly zone US troops have to stay in places like Saudi. This pisses off folks like Bin Laden. The Iraqi deaths continue to piss off the Arab street. We are seen as the bad guys.
4) If the US keeps vetoing the lifting of sanctions at the UN there will be diplomatic repercusions

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:16 PM

Finn, you make more than a few good points, but let me try to go outside the box for a moment.

After 911 it was my idea that we should have spent the time we needed gathering the precise intel, then sent teams after the terrorist strongholds, taken out Bin-Laden, and as many of his goons as possible, and then focus on destroying Iraq's defensive capabilities; all WITHOUT a formal declaration of war, and all as quickly and quietly as possible.
(This is all under the assumption that Saddam HAD to be taken out when he was, I still say that that should have been done during the Gulf War, and the necessity of the Gulf War is assuming we couldn't have seen the attack on Kuwait coming- big assumptions, I think...)

After all, the schoolyard punk punches you, you don't formally declare a defensive strike; you hit 'em.

But in the end, there is no totally bloodless way out...

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

They certainly performed their part, and we kept up with them, did we not?

Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

They certainly performed their part, and we kept up with them, did we not?

Chrisisall

I'd probably disagree with you there, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool.

Not only did I not say that, my statements can't be construed as such. I said you trying to equate the current situation in Iraq is drivel, Too put it on a level with what you have just said to me: at that moment you were talking shit, which is a wholly different thing to saying you are full of shit. One is saying your wrong, the other is an insult directed at you.

In fact the way I see it to construe what I said as a personal insult means one of three possibilities:
A) You are quite possibly the most over-sensitive person around here.
B) You're trying to pull the 'stop insulting me' card in order to discredit me.
C) You think someone pointing out your 'point' is absurd is a personal insult. Actually see A) for that one.

So which is it? Personally I'm leaning to B), considering you've not actually hit on any of my points and merely going with the "You're insulting me, waa!" line. Stop playing the hard done by thing, it doesn't impress.

Oh and the only person who's done any obvious insultin' here would be you, I'm not full of shit, I await your apology for the unsolicited personal insult.

Quote:
OK. So we're refining the definition of a terrorist a bit more: a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes (Note - the phrase "political purposes" has yet to be defined), except for reasons of self-defense or defense of allies.

Still a bit of wiggle room there. Suppose the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blows up a bus of Israeli civilians to break up an IDF ambush of a Hamas leader. They're killing civilians to defend an ally, hence they're not terrorists.

Looks like the definition needs a bit more work.

I didn't define anything, you're having that conversation with SignyM, do try to keep up please. I said the situations of WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and hell the first Gulf War bear no relation to the current situation in Iraq.

Here's a hint, there is but one parallel between those wars and the current situation in Iraq, American Troops are doing some of the fighting. There the similarities begin and end.

But since you want to drag me in too the "Is Bush a terrorist?" argument, for whatever reason I don't know:

A terrorist is someone who specifically TARGETS civilians in order to produce fear in a civilian population to bring pressure to that populations governing body, in order to satisfy a political end.

Simply put Bush doesn't need to be a terrorist. If the IRA or Al qaeda had the resources of the American Military they wouldn't be Terrorists either.

Think about it if Osama had a military to rival the US he could just tell the US to get bent, and there would be Sweet FA ya'll could do about it. He wouldn't need too fly planes into buildings to satisfy his political ends, he'd just have to rattle his Sabre ever now and then.

Is Bush a Terrorist? I don't think so, for a start he lacks the subtlety (yes it requires a degree of subtlety) and intelligence to operate a terrorist network. Secondly the coalition forces aren't specifically targeting civilians, though that having been said the coalition forces have attacked civilians, whether this is a case of mistaken identity or actual targeting of civilians, or whether that puts the coalition in the realm of 'terrorists' is something I'll leave to the reader to decide.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So a terrorist is someone who kills non-combatants in order to be able to create and enforce laws.

How's that for a first cut?

So that makes Lincoln a terrorist? He killed many non-combatants during the sieges of several Confederate cities, all so he could enforce his laws of Federalism and abolition of slavery. So we still need some work.

But maybe we can simplify. Let's go back to good old Webster's II for a moment.

Terrorism - Systemic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

There's no specific definition of "terrorist", just a note under Terrorism that its the noun form. I guess that makes it:

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

And that's really no help, because anyone who conducts a military campaign uses violence, terror and intimidation. Looks Like Webster's let me down this time.

But lets throw your "non-combatants" into the mix and see.

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation against non-combatants to achieve an end.

Closer, but still could apply to, say, strategic bombing as part of an overall military campaign. Need even more emphasis on the non-combatants.

i]Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, to achieve an end.

So. Does this get us any closer to agreement on what a terrorist is? I think we still have to determine if there should be more detail in the "...to achieve an end" part. Is there any end which justifies the use of violence, etc. primarily against non-combatants? But maybe we can at least have a start.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, or one who supports, directly or indirectly with full knowledge, such a person or organization, to achieve an end.

I'd go with this.

Chrisisall

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE