Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged) - Page 3

1. Lie.

2. That's your opinion. Is one chemical attack not enough?

3. Who is the "rest of the world"? France? Germany? And really...what are you implying...that we should take a poll of what other world leaders think before taking action? Maybe we should give them veto powers! Oh...wait...we have that. It's called the UN...and it's a splineless, corrupt, ineffective and anti-semetic joke of an organization.

You show your true willingness to believe that crumbs mean cake . . . but really they are feeding cracker bits:

1-- 'ties' are technically true in that there was a meeting between the two . . . we knew even then that nothing came of it.
By saying that there were ties you are admitting that taking the above mentioned meeting as satisfactory, and that that is all that you demand of your leaders: stretch minor half truths that are truly inconsequential into giant balloons worth waging war against a soveriegn country . . . that is sad


2-- A coupla old mortar shells etc, any other supposed and viable 'chemicals and warheads' are the fictions of ultra-right websites . . . same as #1 -- why can't you see how flimsy it all is?!?!


3-- Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not? If you think the UN is irrelevant then why go to war for breaking a UN agreement?

Firing on our aircrafts? . . .haha . . which would result in absolutely no damage, not even remotely . .. except when the American planes would proceed to obliterate the offending guns and gunners . . . and this was nothing new . . it had been going on for years and years hurting nobody but Iraq and Iraqi soldiers.

"Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change." --are you serious? That's more absurd than green eggs and ham!!!

Sigh!

1. Prove it. Because right now the facts say otherwise.

2. No SDW, it's not just my opinion. This war got off the ground because of the supposed threat from Saddam and his ability to threaten us. That's enmass ( here in america because that was the implication ) not just one attack.

3. Nationalistic thinking like that only worked well before the invention of the airplane and the world economy. If you want to live in a world where you don't have to consider what other countries think I suggest you invent a time machine.

PS. You're ranting now.

Wait! My proposition that many conservatives want to get back to the good old days of the 18th century is all out of whack now! Lord! To get back to a time before sovereign nation had to worry about what other nations thought, we'd have to go back to, hell. The beginning of time?

1. Ties are ties. Iraw had other terror ties as well. When is it enough for you? And really...enough with the tear-jerking "soveriegn country" line. Nearly all countries are soveriegn. Nazi Germany was soveriegn, too.

2. Hello? An IED with mustard gas? Saran nerve agent? Yes..it's the right wing conspiracy again!

3. The UN is only irellevant because it has MADE itself so. And let us not forget, UN resolutions were not the only reason for war.

4. So as long they didn't hit anything, it's no problem? I guess the assasination attempt of a former President doesn't count either then. Let me ask...if North Korea launched a missle at the West Coast but MISSED...would this not constitute a problem?

5. Open hostility combined with all previous actions, and in the post 9/11 era is a serious problem. Iraq is the only nation on record who openly praised the attacks. Even Castro offered assistance in the form of medical teams. Please.

Naw! Just back to when we were running around naked in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.

Actually Iraq offered to send help as well. Saddam offered to send search and rescue teams to help us dig people out of the World Trade Center.

Nazi Germany had spread throughout Poland and Austria, two other sovereign nations.

That's the first I've heard of that. Can you provide some backing for it?

1. The 9/11 commission itself disagrees with you. Fortunately, you have the criminal NYT on your side. Well, sort of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html

2. OK...so one attack is not enough? Saddam buying long range missles from NK is not enough? Saddam linking with a terrorist group and providing them a chemical or biological weapon is not enough?

3. The United States assumes nearly all the risk and financial burden in conflicts like this. The United States was the nation attacked on 9/11. The United States has a right to take action as it sees fit. Your intellectual dishonesty continues as well, because we're actually not in this alone in any sense of the word. In any case, I could frankly care less what a nation like France has to say about our invasion. France had many ties to Saddam and had a clear financial interest in stopping the invasion. Let me ask you: Why SHOULD the United States base its decisions on the opinions of other nations? Oh, don't get me wrong...we should consult them and include them in discussions. But basing our decisions on their opinions? No.

Where is all the talk of sovereignty now, jimmac?

So. Who had historically more frequent, better documented, and arguable muchn stronger ties?

A: Saddam Hussein and the US.
B: Osama Bin Laden and the US.
C: Iraq and Al Qaeda?

[music] One of these things is not like the other, One of these things doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the other, Before I finish this song? [/music]

1. Uh, SDW read the title of this artcle :

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932

It's the only kind of link that would matter.

It really seems like you are getting desperate to play with words like this.......


2. No it's not enough. Where was this giant arsenal that could threaten us when we got there? It would have to be an arsenal that could threaten us more than any other country that has a few missles and so on to make this viable.

3. It's seems like you are getting confused again. You mention the 911 attack in a paragraph about Iraq.

You really have to stop thinking like you're in the 18th century. We really do have to consider other opinions in this matter or we'll become isolated. A country isolated will wither and die in this world economy. Even the chinese know this.

The point is Saddam was our good friend back in the late 70's. I'll bet he was doing the same terrible things to his people back then as that's pretty common in middle eastern countries.

No

The Logic is simple: the 'ties' in question are as flimsy as the ties that relate the US to Iraq . . . in fact, they are flimsier as our 'ties' involved Huge amounts of money and armorments while Saddam was KILLING his own people and was fighting a horrendous war of Attrition against Iran: which killed hundreds of thousands.

(note: that war was not one against communism)

and another note : that war was against Iran: Iran, a country which our administration then dealt arms to in illegal and immoral and secret arms-for-cash deals . . . remember that . . .no 'I can't recall'

Plus note: Iran, a country that turned to Fundamentalism in order to overthrow a completely corrupt and abusive and thouroughly decadent regime (the Shah's regime) that came into power through the aid of the CIA

The fact that the administration is puppetting these flimsiest of ties on stage in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence with 911 is the most bald-faced sort of disinformation* possible: admit it!! it is sickeningly obvious and yet the arse-liskers here refuse to acknowledge . . .

SDW used the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' . . . he likes to pose with such nice sounding phrases, however, the thought of actually applying such 'principled' ideas never seems to enter his skull . . . nor apparently yours

*'disinformation' = part truth but formally and in content mostly misleading, utilizing the half-truth as a means to mislead

If they're so secret how do you know what goes on or even if they exist?

These people? Who exactly? What other entities?

Those evil Greys of course

Is it simple minded to demand that the use of a term not be blown out of proportion for propaganda.

Hypothetical: would you say that an interlocutor is simple minded if you need to repeatedly say things in simpler and simpler sentences in order for that person to grasp what you are saying?

Let me try again:
Ties exist between all sorts of entities
They exist in all sorts of fashions
If the smallest form of tie that exists is used in sentences that confuse the small-form-of-ties with Big-Bad-ties then we can no longer be sure that the small-form-of-ties are not, in fact, the Big-bad-ties.
If someone deliberately, and repeatedly used the small-form-of-ties in the way mentioned above then it could be said that the person in question is trying to get you to believe that the small-form-of-ties are really the Big-bad-ties.
If someone tries to get you to believe that then in effect they are trying to get you to believe in something that is NOT TRUE
If they are trying to get you to believe in something that is not true, then they are LYING!

so, it follows that though the 'ties' are technically true, the manner in which they have been used constitutes a lie.

Now, the nefariousness or non-nefariousness of our ties?
First, I mentioned our ties to Iraq because they existed and involved real weapons and money to buy real WMD . . . whereas the ties to AQ with Iraw involved ONLY failed meetings between minor government functionaries and/or northern isolated groups not-in any relationship to SH
Now, is an illegal and immoral arms-for-cash deal not nefarious?
Is an arms deal to a known murderous dictator who was waging an utterly horrendous and useless war against an army that needed to use waves upon waves of young boys against its US funded weapons somehow Not-nefarious?
Is our secretly/covertly but also not so secretly funding fundamentalists biggots and murderous 'freedom fighters' who would, becuse of the extremist-religious attitudes that we helped foster, eventually turn on their secular sponsors, somehow not nefarious?

and is the the which we knew well of that was merely a meeting twixt a government functionary and an AQ member that came to a failure to agree with goals really a tie worth going to war over?
or is a non-existent czech meeting twixt terrorists and Iraqi guards neffarious ? (the latter is only nefarious when in its nonexistence it is still used to justify a war)

oops . . . daughters getting sick . . .

Wait...you're comparing the US to Iraq and/or Al-Qaeda?

Not you too SDW . . . you can't actually lead me to believe that you also do not understand the reason that these comparisons were made?\

Clearly it was made in order to reveal teh nature of the 'ties'

You mean this?


But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.

Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?

As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.

I'll say this for you...you're good at using a lot of words to make no point whatsoever. We once supported Saddam. Well, no shit pfflam! What would you like to do about that? At the time we saw Iran and the greater of two evils. Perhaps it was a mistake...but I don't see the relevance to today's discussion.

Stop being a troll. You know what he meant.

With this kind of argumentation, almost every country on earth is a possible threath to the US... Even Micronesia. (Hey, there's got to be atleast 11 people there that dislike the US. And they probably have access to paper-cutters!!!)

question directed towards those who support the iraq war:

knowing what you know now, do you believe that starting a war in Iraq after 9-11 was the MOST EFFECTIVE way to root out the sort of terrorism that resulted in the WTC attacks? Or would you have preferred focusing our efforts on countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

note that i am not asking if the Iraq war was justified, but if it was the best route to fighting a war on terror.

You simply don't get it: the point was to show the 'no shit' nature of the 'ties' that are supposedly enough for an invasion.

If you call the Iraq/AQ ties viable and enough then the ties with Iraq and the US should be considered as absolutely incriminating.

The nature of the ties are NIL, they are bogus non-entities!!

It is like this: because George Bush clowned around with his brother's kids at a wedding it is now legitimate to call George Bush a 'Clown'? . . . not false, but not true either.

Because some gov functionary had a meeting with a member of AQ at the behest of the Sudanese Gov we can now say that AQ and Iraq 'had ties' and use that supposed 'tie' in sentences and paragraphs with 911 and imply the tie continues there? and therefor invade another country?

You are holding on to straws that are as thin as whisps . . .

No, I don't. Saying that people are tied together by bloodlust is ignorant and stupid. "Common goals" I can accept. Bloodlust? sounds very close to racist.

Not unless you want it to be racist.

hence my question.

BTW, let us see these massive piles of found chemical weapons . . . I mean, any that are not old enough to have been virtually useless and in quantities that are not idiotically small . . certainly not nearly large enough for an invasion

and let's see this N Korea purchase order . . . from somewhere other than neoconsRus.com that is

BTWBTW: why are we now working WITH N Korea? isn't that the tactic that all the Neo-cons consistently and constantly gave Clinton shit for?

Hmmm?!?!

Maybe its because our stupid-ass bomb-first attitude has proven itself worthy of microcephalic neanderthals.

Are you saying that there is a link of bloodlust between, say, the ETA, people like Thimothy McVeigh, AQ, Kurdish rebels and so on...?

or are we just talking muslims here?

The meetings showed the incompatibility of a secular dictator and a religious fanaticism, that's all, and that's been known . . . it was all, its over . . .

a meeting is not enough to invade, and is not relatable to 911 . . . but that has not stopped the falsifying rhetoric from flowing.

Putin? We either trust Russia or we don't. Let's have it.

They didn't think the reasons for going to war were enough to go to war . . .
Are their intelligence agencies any good?
Is Putin making shit up to endear himself to Bush?
Let's see the 'plans' . . . and let's understand why, if they are true and relevant beyond 'Hussain hated the US' then why wasn't it enough to justify going to war in Putin's eyes.
Is there a benefit in relation to Chechnia and any future Russian plans to have a sudden warm-feelings for all-out invasions?

Besides, these so called 'plans' are not a collaborative relationship to AQ . . . even if they are real or anything worth mentioning.

Whatever happened to russia's iraq policy being led by business interests? Whatever happened to all of the accusations of russia spying for saddam? All of a sudden putin has a "revelation" that feeds your political fantasies and all is forgiven?

Of course, note this buried at the end of one article on putin's statements:

Your argument essentially is that the ties were not sufficient to warrant invasion.

Pre-9/11, I might have agreed. However, we know there was at least some relationship. Given that we also know Saddam was violating WMD-related UN resolutions all over the place, and that was a widespread belief that he had functioning weapons and was seeking to aquire more, that he was a sworn enemy of the United States, that he took provocative action against our aircraft on a daily basis, that he sought some sort of alliance with North Korea, we could not afford to take the risk.

Are you saying we should have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt on this one? Are you serious?

This war was justified from so many different angles. Bush's mistake was to focus too heavily on the WMD aspect. There were many, many others...including establishing Democracy in the middle east..which in tself will lead to more stable and prosperous nations...which will in turn prevent future terrorism.

OMFG. What would you like to do? Invade NK? Now hold on...I thought you weren't in support of that approach. It's quite obvious that no matter what approach the Bush administration takes, you won't support it...even if it's your beloved "multi-lateral negotiation", which is exactly what we're doing with NK.